I'm still horribly behind on my email, so I'm only just getting around to this piece you might enjoy that was published a couple of weeks ago by Allen Brill. It's more on that brights meme that is, despite some people's wishes, not yet dead.
For the record, I still like this term, and am rather bemused at the (to my eyes) disproportionate reaction against it in some quarters--especially among believers who describe themselves as "washed," "cleansed," "God's chosen," or "redeemed," but who think I should never take offense at the implication that I am filthy, unchosen by God, or unredeemed.
Although I find, most amusingly, that every working pastor I've shared the term with has found it amusing and intriguing. Even "slick," as Paul Burgess put it.
As for those who think it "debases the language," to be blunt I cannot take this seriously. For example, I've never seen a black person, have you? Most of them look kinda brown to me. And while you're wrestling with that one, could you please go after the Greens, the gays, the Bloods, and the Democrats, since all of these terms involve some "perversion" of words with older meanings?
Anyway, Allen Brill has published, side-by-side, a letters from Jack Good, a retired United Church of Christ pastor, and Richard Dennett, a bright who has defended the term. You can read it here. It's fascinating reading, a debate between two people who share a lot of the same assumptions and values.
The whole exchange brought a lot of thoughts to my mind. I agree with much of what Dennett says. Indeed, I think the challenge for the most liberal of liberal theologians is profound: why do people even bother with church, if they feel free to reject all orthodox teaching and literal interpretation of scripture, or any particular requirement to live any particular way? Why not stay home and watch football? This very question, to my mind, explains the continuing dissolution of many liberal protestant denominations (and Reform Judaism in the United States) even while traditionalist and orthodox versions of these faiths continue to thrive. I suspect that, consciously or unconsciously, most people reach the same conclusion: "if it's all about believing whatever I feel comfortable believing, well, why am I bothering to show up?"
Yet I also take issue with some of Dennett's comments--the same stuff that I've mentioned before that makes me so uncomfortable around so many self-described atheists and agnostics, even though I consider myself a bright.
For example, Dennett suggests that the graves of civil rights martyrs includes many an atheist. I'd like to see him give some confirmed examples of that before we simply assume such corpses are commonplace. He also suggests that those who put them in their graves were "self-proclaimed Christian soldiers." This, really, is rather facile, since he later acknowledges that many self-proclaimed Christians are secretly atheists anyway. Does he honestly believe that everyone who ever joined or supported the Klu Klux Klan--which at its height had millions of members--was profoundly religious? Yes, the KKK claimed to be Christian. It also claimed to be patriotic, to stand up for working class people, to oppose wife-beaters, and to promote honest business practices. What of it?
Furthermore, does Dennett suppose there are no racist, violent, or generally chauvinistic atheists? I can point him to a few, if he likes.
Furthermore, where is his acknowledgement of the hundred million or so people murdered in the 20th century by that thoroughly atheist intellectual movement known as Marxist-Leninism? Where is his fear of atheist movements such as the Khmer Rouge or the Shining Path? Or the countless non-religious but nationalist movements of the last century, which espoused no theology whatsoever except, perhaps, worship of the state? Such utterly non-theistic movements have, indeed, proved far more able to move people by the millions to mass slaughter than any religion has in the last century.
Atheist and agnostic people's fears of religion and religious people continues to disturb me. It seems part of a broad pattern of anti-Christian (and anti-Semitic) bias I continue to see in much of the political left in the United States and abroad. We live in a world where self-described atheists and people who have no religion whatsoever routinely murder and imprison Christians for practicing their faith. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., millions of people have been led to fear the presence of the Ten Commandments in a public courtroom or schoolroom is a threat, even though this nation was a thriving hub of democracy and pluralism for almost two centuries while such things were commonplace, long, long before the courts suddenly decided that such things amounted to "an establishment of a religion."
I've recently seen people condemn the Pope for "interfering in politics" with his recent pronouncements against Gay Marriage, darkly hinting that such pronouncements amount to a threat to "separation of church and state" and the possibility that the West might descend into a Taliban-style system of government. Yet oddly enough, I don't recall a single peep out of such folks when the very same Pope came out swinging hard against Communist repression in Eastern Europe, or condemned Apartheid in South Africa and backed that up with the appointment of Desmond Tutu as that nation's Archbishop. Or when he issued his encyclical against slavery, which continues to plague parts of Africa and the Middle East, but which no atheist organization I'm aware of has even bothered to speak out against.
This gets me to an area where I would imagine that Rev. Good and Dr. Dennett would agree, but I wouldn't: the paranoid fear of a mostly nonexistant "religious right" in this country. To the extent that such a movement can be said to exist at all, it is so fractious and devoted to so many different causes, it seems more a bogeyman of political "progressives" than any genuine threat. When people as diverse as Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Pope John Paul II, and the editors of First Things are routinely lumped together as part of one phenomenon, it appears to me that some people's thinking is more than a little sloppy.
I continue to think that the term "bright" presents a tremendous opportunity for the throngs of non-religious folks who don't share the anti-religious (or specifically anti-Christian) paranoia of Dennett to come out of the woodwork and start confronting others in the bright community. Folks like Rev. Good may also be shocked to learn that there are atheists out there who are squeemish about abortion, are utterly unterrified at the thought of school prayer, are perfectly content with "In God We Trust" on the money and "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge, are perfectly happy seeing the President of the United States pray in public and even invoke the word "God" in a speech, and who are far less afraid of the 10 commandments in a schoolroom or courtroom than they are of the Federal courts forcibly removing them.
I believe there are more of them out here than either of them might suspect. I certainly know more than one.
Well, I can't speak for anyone in particular, but there must be more like me who object to having our beliefs subsumed under an insipid, arbitrary term. I would personally rather chew glass than say, "Hi! I'm a bright!" The fact that I am an atheist and otherwise semi-align with some of the beliefs of the "brights" doesn't mean I want any part of this idiocy.
Alan S. is right. There are more like him and I'm one of them. I was planning on making a comment but I don't think I could add anything that would improve on his. "Brights?" Give me a break.
Dean:
Indeed, I think the challenge for the most liberal of liberal theologians is profound: why do people even bother with church, if they feel free to reject all orthodox teaching and literal interpretation of scripture, or any particular requirement to live any particular way? Why not stay home and watch football? This very question, to my mind, explains the continuing dissolution of many liberal protestant denominations (and Reform Judaism in the United States) even while traditionalist and orthodox versions of these faiths continue to thrive.
Excellent point, well stated. The Liberal Protestant (alias "Mainline Protestant") denominations have suffered massive losses in membership over the past 35 years or so. I don't have the exact figures at hand, but I believe my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA), has suffered a net loss of over 40% since the late 1960s. And if I had to guess, I'd say that the hemorrhage of membership will only continue-- for many reasons, including the reasons you mention.
At the same time, these Liberal Protestant denominations contain many people (such as myself) who are theologically quite traditional. And we're not going anywhere any time soon.
The one point where I'd pick a bone with you is over your mention of literalism. Certainly many theologically traditional Christians have been biblical literalists. But many theologically traditional Christians have not been biblical literalists-- including myself, including the great 20th century theologian Karl Barth, and (as I mentioned recently in one of Rosemary's threads) including St. Augustine. The church history behind that is far too complicated a story to summarize briefly. An excellent summary can be found in Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach.
Add "Not-so" and we have a winner.
I don't know why, but when I hear the phrase "Hi, I'm a Bright" I have this sudden image of the smiley-face from the Wal-mart commercials. Not a bad thing, just an interesting image association. I also hear (imagining in my head, not "hearing things") a song by REM : Shiny Happy People (which is interesting because I NEVER listen REM and only recognize the song because its been a parody on Sesame Street).
I agree with the "brights" on some issues but not others. Does that make me a half-bright?
Dean (and crew),
I've been meaning to blog this at some length myself. You would expect that I am a perfect candidate to be a "bright": a PhD Psychologist, former member of CODESH (and one who still enjoys the Skeptical Inquirer) etc. A perfect candidate, that is, except one thing: I'm a faithful Methodist. Yes, I am embarrassed by the literalists and the anti-evolution mindset. But I am far more disturbed by the casual "blood on the hands of Christianity" mindset of the brights and eupraxophists (a term that Paul Kurtz and other secular humanists tried to coin).
There is no mass movement in the history of humanity that was not subject to the failures of, well, humanity. Both Christianity and atheistic Socialism are examples. In the end, however, only atheism has no intrinsic need to apologize for the bloodshed it has caused. Indeed, it was atheistic Socialism that spewed forth not only the Soviet slaughter in the Ukraine but also the famous justification that "when making an omelette, a few eggs must be broken."
To this day - while the Pope stuggles with declarations of the Church's guilt for past wrongs and oversights - it remains rare to find a Socialist who will willingly admit the great historical crimes committed under Socialism.
Which, truly, scares you more?
Dean, I think you oversimplify some people's objections to the Pope's statement against gay marriage. Basically he called on all catholic politicians to vote against any measure that would legalize gay marriage. Certainly he is free to say whatever he wants, but in this country, and any other representative government your vote is not supposed to be driven by your religious affiliation.
That was the basic idea behind the fear of Kennedy's presidency, that somehow as a Catholic he would take direction from the Pope instead of the American people.
Maybe it's an irrational fear, but nonetheless, based on some of the things our representatives say and do, I'd rather the Pope kept his yap shut when it comes to giving direction to US politicians.
Sherard,
While I share your concern about Papal instructions to US politicians, however, any US politician is free to vote any way they like. Whether their vote is motivated by religious affiliation, reasoned analysis, or whimsy, the only Constitutional proscription is that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a particular church. If a Catholic politician listens to the Pope and then votes accordingly, and a majority of the people disagree with that vote, then the people have an opportunity to express disapproval by voting him/her out of office.
Dean, one of the many reasons I dislike religous fundamentalist groups is that they go around with an attitude of superiority, expressed partially in how they refer to themselves. Should I think of 'Brights' in the same terms as I think of them?
Yes, their reaction to it is rediculous, but I think that is because you and they have both made poor choices in name. Not as much because it insults non-bights (or the unchosen) but because it says to the members of your movement that they are superior than others because they belong. And because regardless of the actually beliefs of any member, it creates the impression that Brights have judged themselves superior.
The name is not my major objection to being a Bright, but it does strongly affect how I percieve the movement, and just as I would refuse to arrogantly proclaim myself 'Chosen by God' even if I agreed with their tenets, I would refuse to proclaim myself Bright even should that label fit, and would not accept the label if offered.
The name is slick, and on first hearing amusing, as a PR move it is excelent. But good PR doesn't necessarily make for good policy. And I think it damages the ability of the Brights to argue with those who they don't convert. (just as it's hard for religous fundamentalists to argue with those they don't convert because of how they look at themselves. I see Bright as almost an non-religous fundamentalist movement... in part because of the name chosen.)
"Indeed, I think the challenge for the most liberal of liberal theologians is profound: why do people even bother with church, if they feel free to reject all orthodox teaching and literal interpretation of scripture, or any particular requirement to live any particular way? Why not stay home and watch football?"
Yeah, I don't get this, either. If I still believed in God, I'd want Him to be like the one I was brought up with: fabulous and jealous and ordering us around all the time. What's the point, besides self-affirmation, of a god who loves you for living however the hell you felt like anyway?
Even so...
"When people as diverse as Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Pope John Paul II, and the editors of First Things are routinely lumped...."
Come on: you're perfectly willing to accept that Christina Hoff Sommers is justified in using the term gender feminism, even though it applies to women who are at swords point on specific issues. Right? Well, you don't have to be the kind of flibbertigibbet who checks under the bed for Beverly LaHaye before retiring to believe that there are plenty of people want to use their religious doctrines to run other people's lives. To the extent that that's a lens through which they all view politics (I don't say it is for all the people you mention), it makes sense to consider them together.
Dr Good seems very cordially willing in his letter to agree, but only if he gets to tweak the definitions to suit his beliefs, though in a strained etymologically correct sort of way which ignores the real sentiment. He accepts that he's 100% bright himself as long as he gets to twist the definitiion of God. This is prefaced on the understanding that the term is left undefined in the phrase "ghosts, elves or the Easter Bunny--or God." The definition of god is plain in this context. God is a subset of the non-real-entity domain. The fact that this is obvious is no harder for him to see than it is for everyone else who reads it.
Similarly he writes;
"You indicate that you suspect that some of the nation's clergy are closet brights. That is a bright conclusion. Let me introduce myself. I am a clergyman who may qualify as a bright, but not..."
You know what's coming next. That's right. He's about to redefine bright to more suitably mirror the image of himself, again in an attempt to demonstrate his membership in "your group". He wants to be one of you.
Such obvious contortionism belies an agenda. Maybe I'm just a suspecting kind of guy, but at that point I begin to suspect an attempt is underway to switch me over to the christian camp.
Sure enough, once Dr Good has finished setting himself up as a "bright" and we're all agreed, we get to the part where he's right, god is real, and you're an elitist. But presumeably at this point, we're all friends, so we must agree right?
Regarding the supposed self-superior nature of the term "brights"; Is it the prevailing opinion that any self-defined group should call themselves by some self-deprecatory name? Should they call themselves dipshits or something? Naturally, a non-deprecatory term was settled on.
Self-superior? All such social groupings are a function of elitism to some extent. If christians don't think that's fair, lets see them disband and reform as an organisation that eschews preaching, anthemic displays of faith like the ten commandments, the manger theme, and WWJD t-shirts.
And they would need to find a new name for their organisation that proudly proclaims "Our beliefs have no particular merit". Given the amount of unabashed evangelism I've been subjected to in the past, I can only assume the problem is that they need as many people as possible to believe what they believe in order to feel comfortable that their beliefs are correct. There's a reason you never see signs out in front of churches proclaiming "Air is good for you" or "The sky is blue". The reason is nobody doubts those beliefs, so there's no need to convince them. Evangelism is a manifestation of the need to feel like you're right about this, and as long as somebody disagrees you feel there might be something you've missed. Band together believers, and debate the rightness of your beliefs. You are right, and therefor superior to those who are unable to see the facts correctly.
I'm unable to resist giving an opinion on the latest example of bad form on the part of a religious conservatives. I just can't stop me.
I've talked with a number of people who claimed to be athiests, and with the rare exception of a few, they all turned out to be agnostics. I'm an atheist. I'm not an agnostic who claims atheism for whatever reason. I'm a real honest-to-goodness athiest.
But I have no problem with the ten commandments on the courthouse steps. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they were on public display in the courthouse down the street, or in my home town. I don't see why that would bother anyone. I was raised in a christian culture. You can argue that this country was founded on (among other things) the principle of the separation of church and state. Okay with me. After all, it was. But the vast majority of influence in this culture has always been wielded by voters and representatives who were brought up in a culture dominated by judeo-christian tradition. Even we athiests are products of that culture. We know we shouldn't be killing people or sleeping with the neighbor's wife. As an atheist, I can't claim fidelity to the worship-only-this-god parts. But that's not a part of our laws.
I do have a problem with a judge who blocks the enforcement of the laws he is sworn to uphold. From a moral standpoint, that's a direct contradiction of his oath, which he claims to have sworn before his god, and which he definitly swore to the people he judges for. He's broken a covenant with his god. Presumeably, this oath was not asked from him by his god, but freely given by him. Not good -but not my concern either. On the other hand, he has failed the standards of the oath he gave to the people he presumes to serve. Clearly this man is unfit to sit on the bench. Keep the commandments if you like. Hang the judge He's incompetent, and what's worse, he's grandstanding for purely politcal reasons (My take). Let him go thump his bible in a non-secular forum.
The debate about whether the church should be getting involved in politics has been rasied. It should be noted that the law never says you can't vote according to your religious beliefs. In fact the spirit of the law as I understand it, is that you SHOULD vote according to your beliefs, religious or otherwise. To vote against your conscience is not just misguided, it's patently anti-democratic. I'm reminded of the times I've heard people say they didn't vote for the candidate they really liked because they didn't want to waste their vote. Congratulations idiot. You just wasted your vote. This isn't a betting parlor. The whole idea is you get to make your feelings count in the political process. There is no prize for having voted for the winner. All you get is a candidate you didn't feel should have your support getting one more vote from you anyway. Should a catholic refrain from voting according to his or her beliefs? Should you vote against your principles as a matter of principle? Seems like a looser to me.
D Moss,
Well said.
One exception is your view of evangelism. If one believes, as I do, that non-believers are doomed, then warning them of that doom is not predicated on getting more people to believe like you do for likeness sake. It is more equivalent to the urge to save a life that is in danger.
That being said, you are arguably correct that most people who practice evangelism do not have this approach. They resemble the approach you described more. That is regrettable, but human to the core.
"The paranoid fear of a mostly nonexistant 'religious right?'"
Have you seen the Texas Republican Party Platform?
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002380.html
These are the people who raised Bush to political power in the first place and now they are stronger than ever.