 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Brights movement" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(January 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | |
| Formation | 2003; 23 years ago (2003) |
|---|---|
| Type | Non-profit |
| Purpose | Promotion ofnaturalism and thebright label |
Region served | Worldwide |
Official language | English |
Co-directors | Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell |
| Website | the-brights |
TheBrights movement is asocial movement whose members, since 2003, refer to themselves as Brights and have aworldview ofphilosophical naturalism.
Most Brights believe that public policies should be based on science (a body of knowledge obtained and tested by use of thescientific method). Brights are likely to oppose the practice of basing public policies onsupernatural doctrines. Brights may therefore be described assecularists.
The Bright movement has proposed the following terminology:[1]
Paul Geisert, who coined the term bright and co-founded the bright movement[2] is a one-time Chicago biology teacher, professor, entrepreneur and writer of learning materials.[3] In deciding to attend theGodless Americans March on Washington in 2002, Geisert disliked the label "godless" because he thought it would alienate the general public to whom that term was synonymous with "evil". He sought a new, positive word that might be well accepted and improve the image of those who did not believe in the supernatural. A few weeks later, Geisert came up with the noun "bright" after brainstorming many ideas.[4][5] He then ran into another room and told his wife: "I've got the word, and this is going to be big!"[6]
It was also co-founded by his wife,Mynga Futrell.[7] Futrell remains director of the organization.[8] Paul Geisert died November 17, 2020.
After coming up with the term they pitched their idea to friends and decided to unveil their idea at anAtheist Alliance International conference inTampa,Florida in Spring 2003. They called the organizers and got permission to present the idea.[6] They made their proposal at the conference, which was attended byRichard Dawkins.[9] They launched the Brights' Net website on June 4, 2003. The movement gained early publicity through articles by Richard Dawkins inThe Guardian[10] andWired;[5] and byDaniel Dennett inThe New York Times.[11]
The movement continued to grow and experienced accelerated registrations following media debate aroundNew Atheism[9] prompted by a series of book releases in late 2006 includingThe God Delusion,Breaking the Spell,God Is Not Great,The End of Faith andLetter to a Christian Nation. The movement has grown to be a constituency of over 78,000 Brights in 204 nations and territories.[12]
Many, but not all, Brights also identify asatheist,antitheist,humanist (specificallysecular humanist),freethinker,irreligionist,naturalist,materialist orphysicalist,agnostic,skeptic, or evennaturalistic pantheist.[13] Even so, the "movement is not associated with any defined beliefs". The website Brights' Net says its goal is to include the umbrella term "bright" in the vocabulary of this existing "community of reason".[14]
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". Thus, persons who can declare their naturalistic worldview using the term bright extend beyond the familiar secularist categories as long as they do not hold theistic worldviews.[15] Registrations even include some members of the clergy, such asPresbyterian ministers and a Church History Professor and ordained priest.
Dawkins compares the coining of bright to the "triumph ofconsciousness-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"[,] [...] 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.[10]
Despite the explicit difference between the noun and adjective, there have been comments on the comparison. In hisWired article, Dawkins stated: "Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights (noun) to be bright (adjective) is a matter for research".[16]
Notable people who have self-identified as brights at one time or another include: biologists Richard Dawkins andRichard J. Roberts; cognitive scientistSteven Pinker; philosophersDaniel Dennett andMassimo Pigliucci; stage magicians anddebunkersJames Randi andPenn & Teller;Amy Alkon;Sheldon Glashow;Babu Gogineni;Edwin Kagin;Mel Lipman;Piergiorgio Odifreddi; andAir America Radio talk show hostLionel.[citation needed]
Daniel Dennett suggests in his bookBreaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon that if non-naturalists are concerned with connotations of the word "Bright", then they should invent an equally positive sounding word for themselves, like "Supers" (i.e., one whose world view contains supernaturalism).[17] He also suggested this during his presentation at the Atheist Alliance International convention in 2007. Geisert and Futrell maintain that theneologism has always had a kinship withthe Enlightenment, an era which celebrated the possibilities of science and a certain amount of free inquiry. They have endorsed the use of super as the antonym to bright.
The Brights' avatar represents a celestial body viewed from space. As there is no up or down or right or left in outer space, the arrangement of planet and darkness and starlight is changeable.[18] Although the symbol is open to the viewer's interpretation, it is generally meant to invoke transition and a sense of gradual illumination. The intentional ambiguity of the avatar is meant to symbolically reflect an important question: Is the future of humankind becoming luminous or more dim? The Brights aspire "to take the promising route, whereby the imagery brings to mind a gradually increasing illumination for this earth of ours, an escalation of enlightenment".[18] This optimistic interpretation of the Brights' symbol is summarized by themotto "Embrightenment Now!".
The movement has been criticised by some (both religious and non-religious) who have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because they believe it suggests that the individuals with a naturalisticworldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than non-naturalists, such asphilosophical skeptics oridealists, believers in theparanormal,philosophical theists, or thereligious.[19] For example, theCommittee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article byChris Mooney titled "Not Too 'Bright'" in which he stated that although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins's and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted.[20] The journalist and noted atheistChristopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights'".[21]
In response to this, Daniel Dennett has stated:[17]
There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [not by me]:bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word "gay" by homosexuals, does not have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they'restraight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim.