I was a bit skeptical, and … annoy[ed] at the possibility that the word bright would be used to imply that we are smarter than other people. Yet, reading some of the essays posted on the brights’ web site quickly changed my mind. After all, not all “gay” people are gay in the sense of being happy, easy-going fellows, right? — Massimo  Pigliucci

And I sigh.

Look, Massimo, Richard, Daniel: you’re not helping. I know you feel crapped upon — most atheists do — but we’re not going to increase tolerance and education by referring to ourselves as smarties or clevers, even if we were to contend that “by saying I’m a clever, I’m not saying I am clever.”  You cannot just hijack terms with unflattering antonyms because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.  That just puts people on the defensive, and it’s frankly offensive.

There are two main reasons to adopt an umbrella term for people currently identifying as atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, secular humanists, and rationalists, and neither seem particularly beneficial. The more reasonable one is to promote a sense of self-identity, using a “positive” term (and I mean that both linguistically and approbationally.) I understand the draw of having a desirable term with which to self-label, but it seems clannish and petty. The second, worse reason seems to be apparent inflation of our ranks, trying to look like a larger minority, which is a bit sneaky.

Massimo Pigliucci and Daniel Dennett (they’re the less shrill ones, if you’re keep track) admitted wariness in initially embracing the term. Go with your instincts, guys.

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:13:37 +0000
Under Uncategorized
Comments feed | Trackback
Log in