Quote:
Originally Posted by GX  I beg to differ, the examples i posted previously from the website are very concrete about what supernatural means and have no vagueness about them. If your an atheist that practices feng shui or you plant your garden according to the zodiac etc., you do not have a naturalistic worldview and are not a bright. I would like to present another quote from the website that contradicts your notion of "vagueness":
"On the whole, the notion refers to an individual's belief system related to concepts such as the meaning and purpose of life, existence after death, the presence of deities, nature and origins, morality and human nature, rituals, and other major life stance considerations. You can find an extensive discussion and example definitions on the The Co-Directors' website." |
As I recall those quotes were related to an explanation of why not all atheists are necessarily brights? If so, I'm not so sure they were intended as strict rules but as general examples. For example, somebody could in theory consider themselves to have a naturalistic world view but still practice feng shui because they think it actually works and that there is some as of yet undiscovered naturalistic explanation as to why it works. That would be a case where they might still consider themselves to be Brights. When the Brights Movement used this example, I suspect they were thinking in terms of the probably more common proponents of feng shui who believe it is some mystical thing that is beyond nature. I think this kind of discussion is what they mean when they say that we aren't intending to agree on all our definitions. The important thing is that this person believes in the value of a naturalistic world view and would be willing to work with the Brights to stand up for others that do the same. Even if their understanding of what is included in the term naturalistic isn't quite the same as some of the rest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GX Actually, I think its a good idea that atheists wish to reinvent themselves primarily by what they believe in instead of by that which they do not believe. If agnostics wish to join in, thats fine too. But for to_hobbes to come on and say that that you can be a deist and be a bright is just plain deceptive. The only other thing that seems deceptive is the use of the term "naturalist". It seems like a group of environmentalists or an offshoot of the sierra club or audobon society until you dig deeper into the website.
I would suggest they use something else less vague and more definitive like "physical realist" or something else that would lead average internet user to know what this is truly about instead of leading them to believe that its some kind of environmental movement. |
I didn't get the impression that to_hobbes was intending any deception. When he said "That is, you think there is a God, but he does not influence the universe." I can see how if you look at it right this could be considered a naturalistic world-view. Others could make valid arguments against this, but in saying "he does not influence the universe" he is clearly saying that we should base our lives on naturalistic phenomenon and not look to the supernatural for assistance. I'd be completely comfortable with such a person calling themselves a Bright if it so suited them and I've never seen any reason to believe that the Brights Movement would think it necessary to keep such a person out of the movement. This is what they mean in the explanation of their 2nd principle when they say.
Quote:
|
Each person deciding whether to self-identify by the shared characteristic—a naturalistic worldview—has employed a personal understanding of the terminology (including supernatural and mystical) and of any brief elucidation elsewhere on the site. We see little need to reach a common understanding of these terms, or to explicate beyond what is provided on the home page. We anticipate that those individuals who joined the constituency employed for all these terms some understanding in general use that they personally find apt.
|
I also don't believe that people who use the term "naturalist" are attempting to decieve. I agree however that the term "naturalist" could cause confusion so its never been one of my favorites.