to_hobbes

Hello everyone.
This may seem at first like I am soliciting, which is called "inappropriate" in paragraph 7 of the forum rules. But please bear with me, I think this is important to agnostics.

Ok, the "Brights" is an online consortium and I think almost everyone who is a member of Agnostics Forum qualifies to be a member. The website is http://www.the-brights.net/

One of the goals of the movement is to gain a large consortium of members so we can hopefully make an impact on society, and get rid of the stigma on those who call themselves non-believers.

If you are agnostic, or atheist, or even consider yourself religious but also agree that a naturalistic worldview is important, then you can call yourself a "Bright".

I will just copy the words right off of their front page:
where "naturalistic" means the universe has an observable and understandable nature, and is not controlled by God, gods, or demons -- and I am pretty sure most agnostics agree with this. In their own words, they are an "umbrella group" for agnostics, atheists, secular humanists, etc.

I am not an expert and I only just recently joined. As far as I can see, being a member simply means receiving an occasional newsletter.

They also have a "brights forum" much like this agnostics forum. You have to sign up for that separately. It seems that being a member of the brights means being part of the political movement and that does not make you a a member of the forum. Of course you can sign up for both.

I first heard about it when I heard that Richard Dawkins was a supporter of this movement. I looked it up, and decided to join, and I also joined the forums. I've been posting there for a few weeks now. I think the group there is a bit more diverse and action oriented than "Agnostics Forum", so the discussions are a just a bit different than some of the laid-back discussions I've seen here.

Anyway, I hope everyone here will consider at least looking at the website, or joining the consortium because like I said, being agnostic fits the definition of a "bright". You can read all about it on the front page of their website.

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

cejuan

For the record, to_hobbes indadvertantly "solicited" on behalf of this forum on the Brights forum and that's how I learned about this one. I'm glad he did because I'm glad for the opportunity to communicate with more agnostics. I've been wondering how I fit into the spectrum of beliefs called agnosticism. It would be so much easier if we had an agnostiGod to tell us what to believe. So hopefully, no one is annoyed by this thread.

There are also some action groups you can join to help seek civic equality for all brights (even those who haven't signed up). The movement is all about assisting with action so anytime they see an opportunity for individuals to take action, they try and point it out to the group. However, they steadfastly refuse to speak on behalf of the group. Its up to the individuals to speak out on their own behalf.

Its been my experience that there are some on the Brights forum who want to be action oriented and some who are there to debate the differences between athiests and agnostics, freewill, etc. This leads to some frustration amongst those wanting to see action towards civic equality for brights but what can you do. The forum is a small subset of the total Brights group and I think it tends to attract those who like to debate. The philisophical discussions generally get way deeper than I can tolerate but once in awhile I'll improve my beliefs slightly based on some of the discussions.

The main conclusion I've come to with regard to those debates is that any difference in beliefs between agnostics, atheists, humanists, freethinkers, etc boils down to a very trivial issue when applied to everyday life.

GX

This is incorrect, you cant be religious and be a bright. You can only subscribe to the cultural aspects of your religion but not its supernaturalism i.e. if your jewish you can wear a yarmulke and light hannukah candles but you cannot believe in God or the supernatural. Though they have agnostics in their organization, its hard to see how they fit: "I am a naturalist but am open to being a supernaturalist if you show me proof". It doesnt quite fit their charter beliefs.
the website states as follows:
"Besides those who self-identify as atheists, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, rationalists, naturalists, skeptics, etc., the network includes Ethical Culturalists, Pantheists, Scientific Methodists, Buddhists, Yogis, Unitarians, and a gamut of folks (Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians) who maintain their religion’s cultural aspects but not its supernaturalism."

Took a look at their website and it is nothing more than a bunch of atheists who wish to semantically redefine themselves as "brights" for the purpose of shedding the negative connotations and stereotypes of the word "atheist". They claim that if your agnostic you can be considered a "bright" but if you are an atheist that decorates according feng shui, believes that the physical properties of magnetism have some type of effect against disease or has a passing interest in astrology you cannot be a bright. Go figure! Here are the quotes from the website and you can decide for yourself:

"Is a Bright an atheist?
A naturalistic worldview connotes something far broader, and identifying their "type of worldview" frees people from defining themselves (negatively) in reference to religion. One can now define oneself free of religious terms or comparisons."

"Of course, a great many Brights are atheists by definition (e.g., they are without belief in any gods). Many self-identify as atheists, too. But, by the same token (i.e., by definition), atheists who have worldviews that do incorporate supernatural ideas are not Brights. It helps to keep those atheists in mind. This helps to see how being a bright is something else. There are the atheists who wear magnets to ward off disease, atheists who arrange their furniture using feng shui, or make decisions by horoscopes, or plant their gardens "by the signs." These are atheists who would not be Brights. They do not have the requisite naturalistic worldview."

to_hobbes

Well, some agnostics like myself say it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of God. Some agnostics may be "open to being a supernaturalist if you show me proof" as you said, but not me.

I think you can be a regular Church goer, but otherwise not be religious. And I think you can be a believer in God, for example a deist and also a bright. That is, you think there is a God, but he does not influence the universe. This fits the definition for a naturalistic worldview.
This seems to be a very common criticism of the Brights movement, and I as of now, I am not quite sure whether or not I agree with the criticism or not. But I do know that atheists and agnostics get a bad rap, often for no reason, and I think the brights our trying to do something to change that. I see this as being a noble cause.

Take a look at this thread (does god exist because barbers exist?), obviously some people think atheists and agnostics are just a bunch of morons who never ask any questions and systematically deny God for no reason other than they want to be free to live a wicked sinful life.

We know the exact opposite is true, but a lot of people don't know the truth about us and seem to enjoy calling us their enemy. Thats exactly what I want to change.

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

GX

What you personally believe about this is irrelevant. The brights charter clearly states that you cannot believe in the supernatural and be a bright and it gives concrete examples clarifying this point. A belief in a deity means a belief in the supernatural and there is no getting around that. They conveniently classify the world into 2 camps: "Brights" and "supers" (short for supernaturalist).
"But if you would like a way to change this, I unfortunately can't help. So it would be rude of me to tell you not to believe you can be a bright and a deist, and I'll just shut up now."

It was not a criticism, it was an observation. Relgionists and supernaturalists often get a bad rap from atheists as well. It has been my experience that atheists can be just as hardheaded, vindictive, self righteous and judgmental about religionists as fundamental christians can be of atheists.

If atheists wish to redefine themselves with flowery new age symbolism and terminology and include agnostics in that definition as a recruitment tool, that is fine with me. I havent completely read their manifesto, but it is my hope that this particular movement is tolerant of supernaturalists and has no agenda to proselytize, otherwise, it is no different than any other cult or religion. Making up new words to classify the world into 2 separate distinct camps ("brights" and "supers") doesnt seem to be a good way to start though, and will only cause divisiveness. They should just explain what they are and what they are not and leave it at that.

cejuan

I'm having difficulty finding the time I want to respond to this, so I'll do a quick post now with my main points in no particular order and maybe a more thourough one next weekend.

I'm a confirmed agnostic and I like being a member of the Brights movement. I'm active on their discussion forums and I do not feel that I'm out of place because I'm not an atheist. Its not just a group of atheists. I believe I saw a poll in the Brights forums and of the less than 100 people that responded, the atheists and agnostics were close to evenly split. This is one of the things I'll try and verify when I have more time.

The point of the movement is not to help agnostics and atheists and humanists etc come to agreement on our beliefs. It is to help us to work together in recognition of the fact that we all have common needs and in recognition of the fact that the differences between us are trivial when it comes to matters of our everyday lives. In fact the definition is intentionally vague because the movement doesn't want to limit our numbers because of the details of what we think supernatural means (or waste time debating the meaning). If I say my worldview is free of supernatural elements (and my definition of the word is somewhere in the realm of reasonal definitions) than I could be a bright.

In my mind, if somebody can prove something then its not supernatural anymore. It can still be unexplained, but the fact that its proven to exist takes it out of the realm of the supernatural. I'm sure that many of the atheists in the Brights movement would probably agree with me on this point.

I like having the option to use the term Bright, but the movement doesn't require that I ever call myself a Bright. I like it because going around calling myself a word that is derived from a concept I find unlikely seems silly. It is often compared to the idea of calling myself an agsantaist because I can't prove santa doesn't exist. It gives too much credibility to the idea of santa and it makes it sound like I don't like him instead of like I think he's a myth. I also sometimes use it when I know that the person I'm talking to will interpret me saying "I'm an agnostic" as "I'm confused" and I won't get the chance to correct it. At least for now, they'll have to ask me what I mean. Someday, they'll supply their own erroneous definition such as "a bunch of atheists looking to update their image with a flowery new-age name"

The Brights movement seeks equality with Supers. It is not anti-religious. It is a tool to help us stand up for our rights. There are however Brights who could be considered anti-religious and you would see that very clearly on their discussion forums. However, the movement itself and many of its members are not anti-religious. For many of us, especially those of us married to Supers this is one of the positive attributes of the Brights Movement.

The movement discourages the use of the term Bright as an adjective for the sole reason that we don't want people to think we mean it as an adjective. It is a noun. We try not to say "I'm Bright". Instead we say "I'm a Bright". The movement intentionally chose a positive sounding word for Supers to further try and offset the perception caused by the name. When I first learned about the Brights I thought that the name was a poor choice and I ignored the movement for about a year. Then it popped up on my radar again and I gave it a second look and realized I liked what they were up to and recognize that every name has some drawbacks.

One of the big rules of the Brights Movement is that we do not speak for each other without specific permission. So, anything I've said above that sounds like I'm telling you what other Brights think is just my guess at what they are thinking.

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."

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.

cejuan

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.

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.
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.

to_hobbes

But it is possible to practice feng shui, play tarrot, or go to an acupuncturist, knowing that the theory is not scientific. You can do these things just for fun. But whether you just practice, or whether really believe, are slightly different things, right?
In my own defense I will say that I was not trying to deceive anyone. I really think "Deist" is not contradictory to the term "Bright". I don't know any deists that practice feng shui, though certainly there may be such people.

I simply mentioned deism as an example of how it is possible to believe that God exists and also have a naturalistic worldview. This is because believing as deists do that God does not influence the universe, and assuming you believe no other mystical forces influence the universe, then this fits the definition a naturalistic worldview, as I understand it.

Perhaps a better topic of discussion would be this: -- notice I said, "and still be a Christian" not "and still believe in God". This is because how one practices religion and what one believes about God are different things. Indeed, belief and practice are interrelated, but need not always agree. You can question a definition of God and still go to church every sunday.

(PS: I took no offense from you, GX. I acknowledge your skepticism )

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

GX

I finally see the problem here. You both fail to understand the term “mystical”. Mystical does not mean an ability to influence the universe, it simply means “Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.” And mysticism is defined as follows: “A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.” No where in the definition does it state an ability to influence the natural universe. It is just merely a presence that is not apparent to the intelligence or the senses.

Now, the brights website clearly states as follows:
“Think about your own worldview to decide if it is free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the description above, then you are, by definition, a bright!”

Now follow me here: The brights clearly state that in order to be a bright, you need to be free of the belief of mystical deities. This means free of a belief in a God that is not apparent to the intelligence or senses and is beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension. This completely shoots down your personal theory that it is possible to believe that a God exists that cannot influence the universe and also be a bright.

Another quote from the brights website that corroborates this:
"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,..."

Note they specify the mere presence of deities without any regard to whether or not they have any influence over the universe.

I really hate to burst your bubble guys, but it seems that not everyone can be considered a bright. It is very specific about a non belief in God which makes it an atheist organization that deftly and intentionally was able to include agnostics in its "flowery new age redefinition". Again, I have nothing against atheists wishing to positively redefine themselves, make peace with "supers" and have a positive impact on society, but dont make this out to be something that it is not i.e. an all inclusive organization that anyone can join that will save the world!

At this point, I take back my original claim of deception and venture to chalk it up as an honest mistake on your part based on being blinded by your enthusiasm for this shiny new movement you became members of and of your subsequent zeal to enlist new recruits.