I don’t understand how “free from” can be viewed as anything but positive. Example: my kitchen is free from ants for the first time this summer.

Well I think people will agree you just massively contradicted yourself with your example. Your kitchen is free from ants, implying that ants do not belong in your kitchen (a negative).

Same thing applies. By saying “free from” supernatural or mystical elements, you are implying that supernatural / mystical elements do not belong (a negative). I think you have demonstrated the negativity of the name quite nicely.

Each Bright gets to decide if s/he is a bright. One of the great powers of this organization is that it is a constituency, not a typical organization driven by dogma. Each Bright gets to define “naturalistic worldview” and “mystical elements” for him/herself. The Director has no power to make “Ex Cathedra” statements about who is a brigt and who is not, and has no interest in doing so.

This is in contradiction with what you said earlier:

any secularist who believes in the supernatural could not rightfully be a Bright

So if we go with your most recent example, a person who believed in God but had a natural worldview (according to them) could be a Bright. If we go with your original, they could not.

Now I think we see where all the confusion lies. Your definition isn’t a helpful one at all, in fact it just makes things even more confusing.

The statement “people whose worldview is free from supernatural or mystical elements” is clear and simply a definition. A Bright IS a person with a naturalistic worldview, free from supernatural or mystical elements.

I don’t understand how “free from” can be viewed as anything but positive. Example: my kitchen is free from ants for the first time this summer.

Regarding your last paragraph: Each Bright gets to decide if s/he is a bright. One of the great powers of this organization is that it is a constituency, not a typical organization driven by dogma. Each Bright gets to define “naturalistic worldview” and “mystical elements” for him/herself. The Director has no power to make “Ex Cathedra” statements about who is a brigt and who is not, and has no interest in doing so.

Paul Geisert, Associate Director for Constituency Services, The Brights’ Net (TBN)

You say your definition is “A Bright is an individual with a naturalistic worldview (Notice the positive difference?)” compared with the definition “no supernatural worldview”.

Why is it then that the leaflets your group supplied to me have the words “people whose worldview is free from supernatural or mystical elements”. This to me seems to be neither really negative or positive, but it boarders on the negative (the words “free from” for example).

I think the definition of worldview needs to be taken into consideration as well. If a worldview is simply your view of how everything works, and you understand that gods do not involve themselves in such matters, yet you still believe, then surely you do have a naturalistic worldview?

TBN is pleased to find you discussing the attributes and merits of the organization. I would like to provide a couple of ideas.

First: please visit the home page, and then browse the website. It will expel many of the misconceptions presented in this blog regarding the Brights.

In this blog it was stated: “Bright” is a great word for describing people who hold no supernatural worldview. This use of words seems to be a handover of the atheist propensity to phrase things in religious negative terms (no supernatural worldview).

A Bright is an individual with a naturalistic worldview (Notice the positive difference?) You may also notice that god is quite absent from this website — since something that doesn’t exist should not be paid a lot of attention.

Also note the following: Both atheists and secularists can be Brights, but whilst an atheist does not believe in gods, a secularist might.

Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. So many secularist are Brights, but any secularist who believes in the supernatural could not rightfully be a Bright (Definition: A Bright is an individual who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements.

There are many Brights (who fit the definition) who are Jews, Christians, etc. These are individuals who continue using the name for social reasons, but have a naturalistic worldview.

There are over 42,000 registered Brights in 180 nations of the world. U.K. is the second largest nation of Brights. U.K probably has the strongest Brights’ organizations in the world.

I invite you to visit the website (the-brights.net) and learn about the activities of the Brights. Click on Dan Dennett’s (and others) videos on the movement. You will also find on the home page a link in the upper right corner to a number of “Enthusiastic Brights.” Check out the action arenas and special interest groups found at: http://the-brights.net/action/activities/organized/

Be nosy — poke around for a while.

Best wishes.

Very odd.

I guess the other point of confusion for me is how someone can be religious while simultaneously putting science first. That’s a personal thing, though, in that I define (back to this again!) religiosity as believing that there is a higher force that ultimately holds more sway than anything we humans can study and understand and use.

Does that make sense?

Plus, if the “true” meaning of the term is really as broad as you suggest it may be, including everyone except “those who actively participate in faith healing, psychic readings, or active prayer and other similar activities,” what good is the word in the first place?

Well I never claimed this was the “true” meaning, simply my interpretation of it. The way I see it, if these people value science over religion, they are Brights. The closest synonym for the Brights movement is that of Humanism.

Now, the point I was trying to make is that the definitions cannot be clear *because* of “the way multiple people interpret them.” That is, a word’s definition is not inherent to the word, but rather predicated on the understanding that people have of what that word is intended to mean.

Of course, taken to the extreme this does mean that any word is suspect. However, I would argue that those words such as “Bright” about which there seems to be so much uncertainty are far more suspect than the words it takes the full OED definition to play with.

Plus, if the “true” meaning of the term is really as broad as you suggest it may be, including everyone except “those who actively participate in faith healing, psychic readings, or active prayer and other similar activities,” what good is the word in the first place? I’m all for being inclusive, but eventually you reach a point when a word is so nonspecific that its usefulness is significantly decreased.

I disagree that my statements are competing. Whilst it is true that people are confused over the meaning (as with all new words), I think the idea of bringing people together is a good idea.

There are some in the atheist community who do not think I am an atheist because I admit to my agnosticism, and therefore logically the “possibility” of a god existing. They see this as an attempt to cover my ass, whereas I see it (as do many agnostic atheists) as not ever claiming an absolute.

The definition is clear in who the Brights let into their group. Anyone who does not have a supernatural worldview.

The problem arises when you attempt to explain “what is supernatural?” or “what counts as a worldview?”. Are we to exclude people who believe in God/Jesus/Bible and yet do not let these beliefs affect their lives? Only the other day I met a theist who listened to and agreed with all my arguments for atheism, saying that “religion is pretty ridiculous”, and yet he still believes Jesus rose from the dead. He is part of the Humanist Alliance, and I think it would be fair to let be part of the Brights, but where do we stop?

The definitions are always pretty clear. It is the way multiple people interpret them that is the problem :D

On the one hand, you “think instead of using the Brights as a platform for change, we should use the organisation purely to group people of similar worldviews together.”

But on the other hand, it is “clear…that the term “Bright” is very vague in who it encompasses.”

I do agree that a more inclusive word is helpful; however, I think it is very important said word be in one way or another specific enough for it to be used regularly. After all, how can we expect a word to enter mainstream use if no one can ever be quite sure what it means? And how can a word be used to bring people together if there is confusion about to whom the word applies?

Add to this that “Bright” has a somewhat kitschy feel, and you have the general idea of why I’m not really a fan.

Other that that, I like the post and am quite jealous of your school’s multiple freethinker organizations. The university I went to here in Washington, DC just started it’s first club this year, and I highly doubt that 30% of our student body is non-religious, much less willing to identify themselves as such. :-\