As a victim of evangelical atheists in this field, I can tell you that many so-called BRIGHTS either have an axe to grind or impose a philosophy of science that places a rational worldview and a cosmetic rigor ABOVE essential science. I use the term "atheist" broadly to refer not specifically to God or an afterlife, but to any spontaneous source of experience lying outside our awareness and control. It also refers to intuition, imagery, spirituality, feelings, and even the initial stage of just about all thought. I think it is useful for me to broaden this definition of atheist because most BRIGHTS marginalize or maim this aspect of human nature.
The bias against certain beliefs extends to a certain class of phenomena (e.g. dreaming). Now I do not interpret dreams or seek meaning in dream symbols (this is not to say I don't think dreams are interpretable and that a science of dream interpretation is not feasible). But I design empirical phenomenological research into dream functionality (and the relationship between dreaming and waking experience). But I AM lumped in with the dream analysts and I am also forced to defer to so-called scientific dream research whose BRIGHT-friendly conclusions were facilitated by sloppy, lazy, biased, or inadequate conceptualization and fact collection.
The BRIGHTS have planted their flag in Psychology and think that because they may be a statistical minority from a strict atheist definition within the broader culture, that they have a right to do harm to those in the field that do not call themselves BRIGHTS.
Psychology belongs to the BRIGHTS. Dennett should not be so arrogant as try to monopolize a status as privileged minority. His work Consciousness Explained never addressed the software of consciousness, only its hardware (the brain). To claim the subject of the book is consciousness at all is a stretch.
Now I think of myself as a minority in psychology, which is why in May, 2001, I adopted the more substantive metaphor, FIREFLIES, to refer to true minorities like myself. From my vantage point, Dennett is bright indeed, bright as the sun, as in Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun (true students of human nature in the shadow of the academic and "scientific" community). But I assure you it is WE who are the more scientific when we consider a definition of science that excludes the Procrustean institutional and ideological pork.
J. Wyatt Ehrenfels http://www.fireflySun.com
From: "Paul Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dennett on "brights".
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:10:45 -0500
This is somewhat related to the recent thread about sources for student who found herself in the process of questioning some of her articles of faith.
This article appeared in the NYTimes on Saturday (figures - the one day of the week when I don't get the Times...).
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/12DENN.html ============================================= The Bright Stuff By DANIEL C. DENNETT
BLUE HILL, Me.
The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. 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.
The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif.,
who thought our social group - which has a history stretching back to the
Enlightenment, if not before - could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh
name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright"
is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.
You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're 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. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.
As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.
Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power - by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."
A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one - more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.
Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn
every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend
our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.
But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have
to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making
religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among
us.
From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter.
And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration
has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role
of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the
Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the
United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates
all religions and - yes - all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as
well.
I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.
Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.
Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.
In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates,
were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark
drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students
alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves
were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want
most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and
Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.
If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me - or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England - in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."
But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.
And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?
Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling
chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician
trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best
friends are brights."
Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author,
most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''
======================
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
