Another Bright idea
by KrauzeRichard Dawkins' attempt to rename atheists as "Brights" never caught on, but fortunately, Muriel Gray of the Sunday Herrald is ready with a replacement. Get ready for… the Enlightenists!
So let's get organised. Someone tried a group called "The Brights", but the name is so smug and pretentious that it's not surprising it was a damp squib. Why not take instead The Enlightenment as the inspiration? Enlightenmentists is a bit of a mouthful, so let's try Enlightenists. I know. I just made it up. It's the best I can do, but we're going to need a label if we are hoping to get things like our own schools.
"Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist"
I gotta' hand it to Muriel Gray: It takes a special kind of person to reject "The Brights" because it's too "smug and pretentious", and then turn around and adopt the name "Enlightenist". So what should we call all of those poor souls who lack belief in Enlightenism? Unenlightenists? Dark-Agenists? Or just Stupidos?
November 1st, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Whether they call themselves "brights" or "enLIGHTenists" is all the same to me. At the end of the day, they still seem pretty dim.:lol:
Comment by DonaldM — November 1, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
November 1st, 2006 at 9:50 pm
[...] Another Bright Idea Richard Dawkins' attempt to rename atheists as "Brights" never caught on, but fortunately, Muriel Gray of the Sunday Herrald is ready with a replacement. Get ready for"¦ the Enlightenists! . [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Enlightenists? — November 1, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:47 am
I thought we should name the Dawkins gang the BarFs in honor of Barbara Forrest.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 2, 2006 @ 12:47 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:53 am
Do you guys ever talk about intelligent design anymore, or is it all just name-calling and Dawkins-bashing these days?
Comment by Myrmecos — November 2, 2006 @ 12:53 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:07 am
They can't talk about ID research; it's top secret!
Comment by Aagcobb — November 2, 2006 @ 1:07 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:24 am
But how can there be ID without Dawkins? One of the greatest scientists alive today said:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 2, 2006 @ 1:24 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:41 am
Myrmecos:
Do you like the title "Enlightenists" better than "Brights?" Apparently, Muriel Gray does. PZ Myers believes it's a good start.
Let's face it… it's evangelists all around. How come YOU get to complain about evangelists (note your contributions to the Selling Your Soul thread), but we don't?
Looks like the old double standard again to me.
Comment by Joy — November 2, 2006 @ 2:41 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:45 am
What about the Sacord's for those whose view of ID is poof-centric (e.g. YEC-IDists), such that when you undo the cord and open the sack, you realize nothing was actually inside, though it was repeated ad nauseum that there was to be found the 'proof' of ID that would ultimately make it into 'the revolution it really is.'
There's something revealing about scrounging in the past (Enlightenment or argument from Design, c.f. recycled Paleyism) to come up with an idea destined for the future.
Anti-sacord thought of the day:
Comment by g arago — November 2, 2006 @ 4:45 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:11 am
It is a poor attempt at a name, although possibly marginally better than 'Brights'.
I think Gray's position is a lot more moderate (and less evangelical) than the likes of Dawkins and Harris.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 2, 2006 @ 8:11 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:47 am
The label is as retro as 'argument from/for design'!
Face it OD, even if your physicalist-evolutionist bretheren and sisteren can't come up with a better term for promoting their secular-atheistic world view, this doesn't mean you personally are safe to trumpet your tune as the mountains collapse all around you. Not even SC's dependency on the 'science' part of evolution will remain unchanged when the paradigm shifts to a new way of looking at 'change-over-time.' Morphology, the logic of shapes, need not/cannot be retro in the name of C. Darwin and H. Spencer forever!
Ever changed your phone number when moving to a new place - wouldn't it be so silly to say that your new digits 'evolved' into existence (your little black book)?
g.a.
Comment by g arago — November 2, 2006 @ 11:47 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
"Englightenment" broadly means "the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding". Inherent in that is that, when one is enlightened, one can see with greater vision and clarity, and guide others.
Oh yes, as one pictures how Darwinian evolution, as advocated by the Materialist, acts as a guide to inspire and elevate others, we will see something like this:
To the sick and dying: "Listen, it is not so bad. Your suffering, well, so what if it serves no purpose. And death, hey, fade to black and it is all over. Forget a prayer of hope in your dying breath, just say something like "it was all sound and fury, signifying nothing".
To the weak and powerless: "Hey, life is just a lottery system, and you were just unlucky. The strong have always out-competed and trampled over the weak, and you just happen to be one of the weak, so get over it. Big deal, the only thing the system cares about are the lucky genes, not about you, so stop your whining."
To the poor: "Listen, material existence is all there is, and you just happen to have less of it. What do you mean you can make up for the lack of material things by having a big heart and a lot of love? Don't you realize those qualities are all fictional, mere adaptations to increase natural selection? Hey, if you want to delude yourself, go right ahead, its no skin off my genes".
To the lonely: "No, there is no one and nothing in the great beyond that cares one iota about you. And let me tell you something else. The few other human mammals that you think you love and they love you — all a delusion. As a matter of fact, they, and you, are simply a cloud of atoms, molecules in motion, without even a free choice in the matter. Just face up to the facts, material forces from the beginning of the cosmos have determined that people don't like you that much, and there is not one thing you can do about it".
Yup, sure is inspiring, isn't it??
Comment by Ekstasis — November 2, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
Name-calling and Dawkins-bashing? The Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and Britain's No. 1 public intellectual launches an exceptionally ill-considered PR campaign, which later spawns even more pathetic attempts, and we aren't allowed to criticize it?
Now, considering that critics have worked hard to make religion part of the conversation about intelligent design, it's funny how Dawkins' and Gray's little "conscious-raising efforts" contain elements from traditional religions. The "Bright" meme was explicitly launched with evangelism in mind, and now we have the Enlightenists offering us a basis for morality:
We might even see a schism, as atheists are asked to choose between Brightism and Enligtenism.
Comment by Krauze — November 2, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I'm still partial to calling them Dawkinsians, which can simply be shortened to Dawk's
Comment by thesciphishow — November 2, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Krauze:
Or neither. Which given the awful names is my choice.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 2, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Seems sometimes like atheists have as many denominations as Christianity. There's the atheists, the free-thinkers, the secularists, the humanists, the brights, the enlightenists, and the plain old non-religious.
Hmmm… sorta makes ya wonder if maybe ideological schism is as basic to human nature as ideology, eh?
Comment by Joy — November 2, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
As many different denominations of atheism as there are in Presbyterianism.
Comment by Doug — November 2, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:20 am
Myrmecos:
LOL. Once again, it's not a counter-argument. It's….Dawkins-as-Victim.
Comment by MikeGene — November 3, 2006 @ 9:20 am
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 am
What's wrong with the good old tag "atheist?" Especially when there's nothing particularly bright about it. But if they insist on a new moniker, I suggest, "PhilNits", because they seem to be philosophical nit-wits.
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 3, 2006 @ 9:27 am
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Or "Dims". Dawkins is a Dim; Dennet is a Dim. Kinda rolls right off the tongue doesn't it? :lol::lol:
Comment by DonaldM — November 3, 2006 @ 11:06 am
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 am
LOL back at you. I was unaware that throwing the term "Stupidos" (or "Dims" or "Nitwits") around was a sophisticated enough approach that it warranted some kind of detailed counter-argument.
Comment by Myrmecos — November 3, 2006 @ 11:46 am