Science Friction_ Where the Known Meets the Unknown - Michael Shermer [25]
I’m a 55-year-old scientist/humanist/atheist since my early twenties and I’ve thought about these things for many years and I am pained to tell you that your choice of the term “Bright” as the one to promote is a horrible one. I agree entirely and enthusiastically with your enterprise and the reasoning that goes into it, but I am dumbfounded that you would choose a term that will do nothing more than expose us to ridicule and engender hostility in those who do not agree with our worldview. Consider two facts: (1) In the popular lexicon, “bright” as applies to people means “smart.” (2) Believers in God (and etc.) really resent us already because we have the gall to reject their most cherished beliefs and to imply that people like them must be morons if they believe as they do. Put 1 and 2 together, please!
Since I had not kept track of how many positive and negative responses were received, and because I had not even invited feedback and commentary, I decided to initiate a slightly more formal study by posting the above letter in a second e-Skeptic, this time asking for feedback and commentary from readers. We received many thoughtful letters, such as this one from Ralph Leighton, the coauthor, with the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, of the book Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman:
“Rationalist” is the closest word to describe my beliefs. What’s missing is the deep emotions that one can get from a rational belief. In fact, the awe that one feels for the universe is deeper, in my view, when one looks at the universe rationally, than when one views it irrationally, i.e., as a folk belief or religious story. That’s why I came up with the term “Passionate Rationalist” to describe this seeming contradiction—but I concede that it is too long an expression to be practical. By the way, when it comes to whether there is a god, I think I remember Feynman describing himself as a “non-believer.” When I asked him what he meant, he said, “You describe it; I don’t believe in it.” Feynman was not saying he didn’t believe there was a god; he was saying that any god that you can describe is too limiting for him to believe in. Michael, I strongly agree with the writer that there is a danger of setting back the cause. I wouldn’t just let it go and see if it sticks. I would try to retract the term ASAP.
The actress (Clock Stoppers) and comedian (Saturday Night Live) Julia Sweeney, whose one-woman show Letting Go of God chronicles her journey from Catholicism to skepticism, also disliked the brights label, explaining that it sounds nerdy and unsexy. “When people ask, I say I’m a cultural Catholic and a philosophical Naturalist, natural being the opposite of supernatural.”
Study 2: Solicited Feedback on “Brights”
In all we received eighty-nine letters. Eight were clearly positive; the rest ranged from neutral to highly critical. Six of the eight positive letters included commentary, all of which are included below. Of the remaining letters, I include excerpts from twenty-two of them below.
Positive Reactions to “Bright”
First of all, I think trying to solicit alternatives to the word “bright” is an exercise in futility. There will always be a small vocal minority who can’t stand any particular word for one reason or another. The point, oh clueless ones, is not the stupid word. The point is that together, we (being those of us with a naturalistic worldview) can be a force to be reckoned with. The point is, dear fellow atheists/skeptics/humanist/free-thinkers/hummingbirds, the Canadian Parliament is not going to take, say, 500 Canadian Humanists seriously (who can’t even get their shit together among all the individual chapters). But add up all the Canadian humanist groups, skeptic groups, and all those folks who checked “no religious affiliation” on the last census, and you’ve got at least a million Canadian Brights. In