Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/ ^ | September 29, 2003 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[DittoJed2]

Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name Albert Mohler Daniel Dennett claims that atheism is getting a bad press. The world is filled with religious believers, he acknowledges, but a growing number of atheists lack the respect they deserve. It's time for a new public relations strategy for the godless, Dennett argues, and he has just the plan. The central point of Dennett's strategy is to get rid of the word "atheist." It's too, well, negative. After all, it identifies an individual by what he or she does not believe--in this case the individual does not believe in God. A more positive approach would be helpful to advance the atheist anti-supernatural agenda. Dennett, joined by Richard Dawkins, thinks he has found the perfect plan. Two atheists in California have suggested that the anti-supernatural crowd should take a page from the homosexual rights movement's handbook. Homosexuals renamed themselves "gays" and changed the terms of the debate, they argue. As Richard Dawkins explains, "A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word 'gay'.... Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an 'up' word, where homosexual is a down word and queer [and] faggot . . . are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; 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'." The word chosen to be the atheists' version of 'gay' is bright. That's right, they want unbelievers to call themselves brights. Give them an "A" for arrogance. Of course, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins are already specialists in the highest form of intellectual snobbery. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, and Dawkins, a scientist at Oxford University, are well known for their condescending dismissal of all belief in the supernatural. Both address their scorn to anyone who believes in God or dares to question naturalistic evolution. Their plan, if successful, would put believers in God in the unenviable position of being opposed to "brights" who deny belief in God. This is, no pun avoidable, a diabolically brilliant public relations strategy. The real question is: Will it work? In "The Bright Stuff," an op-ed column published in The New York Times, Dennett simply declared, "It's time for us brights to come out of the closet." Now, that's an invitation sure to get attention. He continued, "What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny--or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic--and life after death." Brights are all around us, Dennett claims. Brights are "doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority." Had enough? Dennett wants to be the Moses of the atheist cause, leading his people out of bondage to theists and into the promised land of atheistic cultural influence--a land flowing with skepticism and unbelief. The most absurd argument offered by Dennett is that brights "just want to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less." Those familiar with the work of Dennett and Dawkins will be waiting for the laughter after that claim. The same respect? These two militant secularists show no respect for religious belief. Philosopher Michael Rea of the University of Notre Dame couldn't let Dennett and Dawkins get away with such hogwash. 'The fact is," he asserts, "the likes of Dennett and Dawkins aren't the least bit interested in mutual respect." Dennett has suggested that serious religious believers should be isolated from society in a "cultural zoo." Dawkins has argued that persons who reject naturalistic evolution are "ignorant, stupid or insane." Well, now--is that their vision of "mutual respect?" As for the anti-supernaturalists calling themselves "brights," Rea argues, "The genuinely tolerant atheist will refuse the label; for the the very respect and humility that characterize her tolerance will also help her to see that in fact their are bright people on both sides of the theist/atheist divide."  [See Rea's exchange with Dennett] Timothy K. Beal, professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, notes that the brights demonstrate "an evangelical tone" in their writings. Beal perceptively notes that, in their determination to be irreligious, these atheists have just established a new anti-religious religion. But what they really want is not only respect, but cultural influence. Dennett's New York Times column decried "the role of religious organizations in daily life," contrasted with no such public role for secularists. Of course, this claim is sheer nonsense. Dennett and Dawkins boast that most scientists and intellectuals are atheists. They are without influence? G. K. Chesterton once identified atheism as "the most daring of all dogmas," since it is the "assertion of a universal negative." As he explained; "for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars." The Psalmist agreed, and spoke in even more dramatic terms: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'." [Psalm 14:1] The atheists are caught in a difficult position. They reject belief in God, but draw attention to God even as they shout their unbelief. In the end, they look more foolish than dangerous. This call for a new public relations strategy will likely backfire. Hijacking the term bright shows insecurity more than anything else. A movement of secure egos would not resort to calling itself "brights." Atheism may try to change its name, but it cannot succeed in changing its nature. This bright idea doesn't look so bright after all.    Article Resources

[DittoJed2]

The latest from Dr. Mohler

[apackof2]

Taking a que from the homosexuals who are now "gay" and the abortionist who call human life "fetus" instead of a baby

[DittoJed2]

fyi

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[TheBigB]

I don't believe in atheism. ;)

[ClearCase_guy]

I saw a talk recently by a retired math teacher. He started teaching in the 1960's -- and hated the textbooks. He went back into textbooks that were decades old and then he taught math the way it used to be taught. He was quite effective.

Anyway, he made the point that when people change the name of things, it usually means that they know it's not working, but they do not want to bother looking for something that will work. I said that Whole Language has been ineffective for decades, and has had about 6 different names over that time period.

If atheists want to change their name, they are admitting defeat.

[Chewbacca]

Why don't they just change their name to Democrates instead. It would be quite accurate IMHO.

[50sDad]

"A movement of secure egos would not resort to calling itself "brights."

LOL! So what does thay same arguement say quite rightly about "gays"?

[Hank Rearden]

Calling themselves "bright" makes them seem faggy.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

According to the dyslexic atheist, "There is no Dog".

[aruanan]

Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

A skunk cabbage by any other name...

[truthandlife]

I bet Bill Bright wouldn't be happy about this. The pro-aborts did the same thing, they called themselves pro-choice and called the pro-lifers "anti-choice." Satan the father of lies.

"For Satan cometh to you as an Angel of Light, and his ministers Pose as workers of righteousness. (2 Cor:11:14)

[FourPeas]

It brings to mind 1 Corinthians 1:25.....

[conservababeJen]

Thanks for the ping. TheBigB said it best in post #5

[headsonpikes]

I don't believe in atheism.

Skepsis is a blessed state. ;^)

[theDentist]

"A rose by any other name..."

[coloradan]

An antitheist dyslexic believes there is no dog, while the atheist dyslexic merely lacks the belief that there is a dog. The agnostic dyslexic insomniac stays awake wondering if there is a dog.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Nobody knows for sure that there is a God. Even if 'God' came down and personally spoke to you, how would you know it was the real God? How would you know you weren't hallucinating? It seems to me the most anybody can say with certainty is that they don't know, and must take it on faith. My faith is in the not knowing itself.

By which I mean to say I am agnostic. I don't know what created the Earth. I don't know what will happen when I die.

I really don't care much for the way nonbelievers are treated here. They seem to be looked down on like a college professor looks down on a janitor. Maybe I'm taking it too personally, and it's only the liberal in-your-face elitist Atheists you are scorning, but sometimes I wonder if I just hope that's the case. I look down on nobody, since I don't know enough about anything to do so. Nobody does. I think that's called Socratic Wisdom.

Is the conservative tent ultimately big enough to hold those who can not, in good conscience, believe in God? I hope so. I like it here.

[xzins]

Let us Christians just KEEP the word bright

We can only HOPE they will do us this favor!!!

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

Isaiah 60:3 Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.

Proverbs 13:9 The light of the righteous shines brightly, but the lamp of the wicked is snuffed out.

THE BIRTHDAY OF A KING

In the little village of Bethlehem,
there lay a Child one day.
And the sky was bright with a Holy light
O'er the place where Jesus lay

Alleluia!
O how the angels sang
Alleluia! How it rang!
And the sky was bright with a holy light.
'Twas the birthday of a King

'Twas a humble birthplace, but oh,
how much God gave to us that day.
From the manger bed what a path has led,
what a perfect holy way.

Alleluia!
O how the angels sang
Alleluia! How it rang!
And the sky was bright with a holy light.
'Twas the birthday of a King

[Hegemony Cricket]

Changing the name of a thing (or person) does not change the nature of that thing. Just ask my chihuahua, "Killer"...

[chimera]

Ohhheww, you can call them "bright", or you can call them "light", but don't call them "right".

Geez, why the word games, people? Why spend so much effort to deny who you are? Atheist is a perfectly acceptable and common English word. What's the big deal with being so concerned about appearances? Just dump the emotional baggage if you're so smart and go with the accepted term.

[Pete'sWife]

But there is no Hell, right? So why the screen name?

[Teacher317]

How exactly is "bright" an adequate adjective descriptor of the group?
A-theist means, quite clearly, "person without religious belief".
Or do they not have any belief in names describing the things they represent?

[OWK]

I'll stick with atheist.. thanks just the same.

[AppyPappy]

Hell-bound Godless Heathen?

[OWK]

That works OK too.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Words matter. It is critical that conservatives not fall into the trap of letting the left define the language of the debate. I admit that it initially takes a great deal of effort to retrain one's self back to the actual words, but we need to deliberately not use their redefined words in our speech or writing:

"gay" - always better to use "homosexual".

"choice" - its actually "abortion".

"bright" - use Atheist with a capital "A" or my personal favorite, "heathen".

Orwell was a profit!

[PaulJ]

God believers who get downright angry at atheists do so, I believe, because they harbor hidden doubts themselves. And they are only able to constrain these doubts with a display of anger.
Though true believers may feel sadness for an atheist (and even try to "convert" him), they will never get angry.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

This stunt is quite humours on a number of levels.

For one thing: the notion of calling oneself a "bright" is sheer arrogance. It also presumptuously implies that those who do acknowledge the obvious existence of God are by the counter terminology of their usupred term: " not bright". IE: "stupid". Seems rather petulant.

This will likely backfire since some of the most learned & "bright" people do indeed acknowledge the existence of God & or a higher power.

The biggest folly these secularist / athiests make is their uniformed presumption that God is not natural or is "supernatueral" as they put it. What they do not seem to realize is that God is natural & operates within the bounds of nature since the very laws of nature that these dullard athiests worship (which is a faith in itself) were created by God (or The Source / the Creator) in the first place. Furthermore: much of the universe has not yet been adequately understood within the realm of our limited understanding or perception.

For athiests to make to audacious claim that God "does not exist" based simply on their limited perspective & dearth of knowledge is certainly the hight of hubris.

Also by praising nature: they are worshipping the work instead of the Creator.

No one with any sense & ability to apply logical reasoning could come to the sweeping conclusion that " God does not exit" when considering the mathematical complexities of the universe & even nature itself as well as the obvious order which exists & is manifest in so much of nature. Nature is simply the consequence & product of an intelligent design. Nature did not manifest all by itself -as athiests seem to pathetically & ludicrously claim. The universe did not come about as the result of a random event. The maticulous & pervasive order of things within the universe & nature point to an inescapable conclusion of intellegent design.

[DittoJed2]

And where did you get this idea from Sigmund?

[Big Mack]

I think the word they are looking for is "Dims".

[OWK]

I have noticed similar things.

Particularly among those who actually follow (as opposed to paying lip-service to) the teachings of the Nazarene.

Those who truly comprehend and follow the teachings tend to be at peace with themselves and with the world. I call many of them friends, and count myself lucky to know them.

The lip-service folk by contrast tend to be angry, hostile, caustic, and downright evil at times.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

But there is no Hell, right? So why the screen name?

It's a metaphor. There is no Hitler (any more), but people still say 'Hitlery'. Nice try, though. I hope you're not trying to convince me that I secretly (or subconsciously) do believe in God. I assure you, I do not. I wish I could. True believers seem so much happier than I am. But I'd just be bandwagon-jumping if I pretended to believe, and I would know I was lying to myself. I'd be a CINO (Christian in name only). No religion wants a phony in their ranks (unless it's a money-making cult that only cares about your allegiance and your cash, like Scientology).

I knew I was inviting scorn by posting, but every now and then I post something that I know is at odds with the majority of the forum. I should know better, but it does take a certain courage to speak out when you know you'll be outshouted and outnumbered. I don't expect to change any minds, I merely state my position on the whole matter of religion.

[DrC]

I concur that agnosticism, not atheism (which is as dogmatic as theism), is the most intellectually defensible position. I didn't know the first thing about the author of the "brights" editorial in NYT and now that I do, it does not detract from some of the very legitimate points made in the editorial. It may well be that he personally is hypocritical in his advocacy of a neutral, mutually respectful position of believers vis-a-vis non-believers. That doesn't mean one should tar all "brights" with the same brush. I think it's revealing that the authors rant against the bright position implies that it is held only by atheists even though the original author made very clear he included both atheists AND agnostics among those who should claim this moniker.

[NutCrackerBoy]

in their determination to be irreligious, these atheists have just established a new anti-religious religion

In a certain sense, it is a new development. Up to now, to my knowledge, an anti-religious religion has not sought the legal protections accorded to religions.

From the age of eight, I called myself an atheist. I haven't changed - still a materialist - but I have gained some insight into the spiritual nature of man. An atheist being someone who denies the existence of G*d, I find that that denial has nothing to do with what I am about.

I observe that some scientists are believers, especially those early bright lights, and it does not seem to correlate with their effectiveness or ineffectiveness as scientists. I am thoroughly unconvinced that there is a special value to mankind of atheism per se. In fact, I am quite convinced of the value of religion, and not just for the individual. Institutions of religious authority are a good influence for civilization as a whole.

Yes, I believe in the value even of Islam. But in my opinion, Christianity has evolved in the modern age (you might say it has evolved the modern age) whereas Islam as it is practiced is stuck in a premodern rut.

[OWK]

I concur that agnosticism, not atheism (which is as dogmatic as theism), is the most intellectually defensible position.

Many atheists are dogmatic.

Many are not.

I (as an atheist) simply do not find any reason to believe in a god. I look around the world and see dozens of cultures claiming everything from blue-elephant-headed creatures, to invisible cloud-walking bearded guys, as the ultimate authors of the universe. Each claims their own as undeniable truth, while rejecting all others.

I see no reason to accept any of these explanations, and since the default condition in the absence of evidence is disbelief, I have no belief in a god. This does not mean that I would not modify my disbelief, given sufficient evidence to the contrary.

[whereasandsoforth]

You can choose NOT to believe whatever you want. My knowledge of the existence of God is not based on belief. It is based on a personal relationship. I talk to Him through Jesus Christ and He talks back to me loud and clear. I don't look down on you. I wish great things for you. They are there. There is a great misconception that "non-believers" have about we Christians. Our relationship with God is based on much more than blind faith.

[exmarine]

A more positive approach would be helpful to advance the atheist anti-supernatural agenda.

That's what they've been doing for 100 years! An atheist has not God, therefore, no moral compass, therefore, no value of truth (some don't even believe in truth), and thus, feel no obligation to tell the truth or be honest. They are liars, obfuscators, revisionists, anti-Christian bigots, and they are the ENEMY of freedom. Atheism fosters dictatorships. Atheism is un-American. They are moral relativists, accountable to no one but their own twisted machiavellian consciences.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Correction: usurped term. Seems that these athiests are not trying to articulate their position as much as they are trying to redifine themselves by usurping a term that in reality has nothing to do with a disbelief in the existence of a creator.

[Aracelis]

I really don't care much for the way nonbelievers are treated here. They seem to be looked down on like a college professor looks down on a janitor

Hopefully, it's just a very vocal minority that are responsible, and not the general consensus amongst "Believers"...although I do wonder. There seems to be an awful lot of hostility between various Christian sects.

[AVNative]

Thanks for the post. I thought atheists already had another name out there. . . freethinkers.

Sad that these folk hunger for power and influence. Envy perhaps?

Contrast this with the true practicing Christ Follower, who is blessed hungering and thirsting for righteousness. Healed and healthy relationships. Fairness and justice for not just the powerful, but the powerless.

But, as Bob Dylan has said, you gotta serve somebody. . .

[mollynme]

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'."

Now there's an appropriate name for them!

[ASA Vet]

they are the ENEMY

Is it ok then to just kill them all, thereby proving yours is a religion of peace too?

[DittoJed2]

What's Luther have to do with this article?

[Salman]

Understand that this is not "atheists" in general, but members of Dr. Paul Kurtz's "Humanist Manifesto" outfit. There is more to this than mere unbelievers doing a bit of PR.

[PaulJ]

An atheist has not God, therefore, no moral compass...

Then what you are saying is your morality is based on your belief in God and, presumably, in a reward/punishment system. What keeps you moral is your love of God/fear of punishment. What you fail to see is that morality can be self rewarding.Life is much more rewarding and enjoyable when one has morals.

[OWK]

That's what they've been doing for 100 years! An atheist has not God, therefore, no moral compass, therefore, no value of truth (some don't even believe in truth), and thus, feel no obligation to tell the truth or be honest. They are liars, obfuscators, revisionists, anti-Christian bigots, and they are the ENEMY of freedom. Atheism fosters dictatorships. Atheism is un-American. They are moral relativists, accountable to no one but their own twisted machiavellian consciences.

May the non-specific deity of your choice bless you, and lift this horrible weight of bitterness from your heart.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I look around the world and see dozens of cultures claiming everything from blue-elephant-headed creatures, to invisible cloud-walking bearded guys, as the ultimate authors of the universe. Each claims their own as undeniable truth, while rejecting all others.

I see no reason to accept any of these explanations

It is a huge misunderstanding to take religion as an explanation of the universe as if it were an alternative to scientific knowledge.

Human beings are wired to be a part of. We exist to dedicate ourselves to good. Good is a covenant with the dead, the living, and the unborn. A person finds peace by aligning himself with the good. Organized religion exists to facilitate these processes. (In my opinion.)