Discover

The 'brights movement' was co-founded by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in 2003. Geisert coined the noun 'bright' as a positive-sounding umbrella term that had the potential to be a meme, while Futrell defined it thus: ''A bright is an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements).''^[1]
This created the basis for a civic constituency that could pursue the movement's three major aims:

★ Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.

★ Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.

★ Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
The Brights' Net's tagline is now "Elevating the Naturalistic Worldview".
The brights movement has been formed as an Internet constituency of individuals. Its hub is the The Brights' Net web site.^[2], but each individual has autonomy to speak for him/herself.

Contents

History

The Brights' Net

Brights

Criticism

References

External links

History

Paul Geisert was a biology teacher in Chicago in the 1960s, a professor in the 1970s, an entrepreneur and writer in the 1980s, and the co-developer of learning materials and a web site regarding teaching about religion in public schools in the 1990s.[1]
In deciding to attend the "Godless Americans March on Washington" in 2002, Paul disliked the label "godless" and resolved to identify a better term to unite the "community of reason". He sought a new, positive word with the potential to be a meme and that might become as accepted as the term "gay". In late 2002, Paul coined the noun "bright", but did not announce it immediately.
Working with Mynga Futrell, the co-founders of the brights movement wanted to connect and galvanize the many individuals who were non-religious, but who were not associated with the many philosophical organisations already in existence. To achieve this they created not only the definition of "a bright", but also the idea of a civic constituency that would coalesce through the Internet.
Having tested this idea during the early months of 2003, they launched the Brights Net website on June 4, 2003. The movement gained early publicity through articles by Richard Dawkins in ''The Guardian''^[3] and ''Wired'',^[4] and by Daniel Dennett in the ''New York Times''.^[5]. Within a year, registered Brights numbered in five figures and spanned 85 nations.
The movement has continued to grow and experienced accelerated registrations following media debate around "new atheism"^[6] prompted by a series of book releases in late 2006 including ''The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, God is not Great'' and'' Letter to a Christian Nation. ''As of July 2007 there are over 32,000 registered Brights in 143 nations.

The Brights' Net

The Brights' Net web site serves as the hub of communication and action projects in the Brights movement. If an individual self-identifies as a bright and supports the Brights' Net aims and principles, he or she can register and thereby enter the constituency, becoming a Bright (with a capital 'B').
The Brights' Net recommends project priorities and facilitates the formation of local groups, known as Brights' Local Constituencies (BLCs). There are BLCs in London, Paris, several cities in the United States and Canada, and various other locations worldwide.[2]
However, Brights act autonomously in doing their part for the furtherance of the brights movement. No person or entity, including The Brights' Net Co-directors, can speak for all Brights.

Brights

Within the definition of ''bright'', many, but not all, brights also identify variously under other terms or identities, including atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, skeptic, apatheist and so on. One of the purposes of the Brights' Net is to include the umbrella term ''bright'' in the vocabulary of this existing "community of reason".^[7]
However, "the broader intent is inclusive of the many-varied persons whose worldview is naturalistic" but are in the "general population", as opposed to associating solely with the "community of reason". So persons who can declare their naturalistic worldview using the term ''bright'' extend beyond the familiar secularist categories. Registrations even include some members of the clergy, such as Presbyterian ministers and a Church History Professor and ordained priest.
Dawkins' analogy in the aforementioned ''Guardian'' article is instructive, comparing the coining of ''bright'' to the "triumph of consciousness-raising" from the term ''gay''.

Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". ... Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Despite the explicit difference between the noun and adjective, there have been comments on the comparison. In his ''Wired'' article Dawkins states, "Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights [noun] to be bright [adjective] is a matter for research." Daniel Dennett, in his book ''Breaking the Spell'', suggests that if non-naturalists are concerned with this connotation of the word ''bright'', then they should invent an equally positive sounding word for themselves, like ''supers'' (i.e., one whose worldview contains supernaturalism). Geisert and Futrell maintain that the neologism has always had a kinship with the Enlightenment, a movement which celebrated science, free inquiry, and a spirit of skepticism; they have endorsed the use of ''super'' as the antonym to ''bright''.
Notable brights include biologists Richard Dawkins and Richard J. Roberts, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and stage magicians and debunkers James Randi, Penn Jillette, and Teller. Other brights include Amy Alkon, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Babu Gogineni, Edwin Kagin, Mel Lipman, and Massimo Pigliucci.

Criticism

Some people (both religious and non-religious) have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because it suggests that the individuals with a naturalistic worldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than the religious (cf. religiosity and intelligence).^[8] For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article by Chris Mooney titled ''Not Too "Bright"'' in which he stated that, although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins' and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted.^[9] The journalist and noted atheist Christopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights.'"^[10]
Similarly, Michael Shermer, who is an Enthusiastic Bright ^[11], has nevertheless resisted using the term to describe himself, saying, "I don't call myself a Bright.”

References

1. Bright (n.)--What is the definition?
2. http://www.the-brights.net
3. The future looks bright
4. Religion Be Damned
5. The Bright Stuff
6. The Church of the Non-Believers
7. What is the purpose of the Brights' Net?
8. Not So "Bright"--Dinesh D'Souza
9. http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/
10. http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/
11. http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index2.html

External links

'Official sites'

★ The Brights' Net – The originating hub of the Brights' Constituency

★ Brights' Movement Forums
'"Brights' Net" sites'

★ Brights Online – a brights' activist website

★ Civil Brights – a brights' community website
'"Brights' Net" national sites'

★ Brights France

★ Brights Germany

★ Brights Italia

★ Brights Japan

★ Brights Korea

★ Brights Netherlands

★ Brights UK - signup required

★ Brights South Africa
'Essays on the Brights movement and coinage'

★ Who Are The Brights? – by the co-founders of the Brights' Net

★ The future looks bright– Richard Dawkins in ''The Guardian'' (UK), 21 June 2003

★ The Bright Stuff – Daniel Dennett in the ''New York Times'', 12 July 12 2003

★ A brights idea – Sharon Tubbs in the ''St Petersburg Times'', 20 July 2003

★ The future is oh-so non-adjectivally bright – Ruth Wajnryb in the ''Sydney Morning Herald'', 31 January 31 2004

★ A Bright New World – Erik Strand in ''Psychology Today'', Jan/Feb 2004

★ Not Too "Bright" – a critical review of the term 'bright' by Chris Mooney for CSICOP