From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 07:22:50 EDT
Actually, Dawkins and Dennett are using "bright" as a noun. In that respect
it bears comparison to the word "gay." I'm not sure I agree with Denyse
that the promotion of "gay" was the work of "the homosexual lobby," whatever
that is. "Gay as an adjective (according to my _Webster's Word Histories_)
appeared in homosexual literature as an adjective in the late 1950s and
early 1960s, but slowly moved out of the subculture as homosexuals became
more visible in society. It is true that some advocacy groups for
homosexuals began to use the word in the titles of their organizations
(perhaps the "lobbies" Denyse refers to), but the word spread of its own
accord in mainstream literature and press. About the same time (50s and
60s), "gay" also began to be used as a noun, which is probably its most
common usage now.
This attempt to appropriate the word "bright" would insinuate that those of
us who believe in God, the Sacred, a reality "deeper than Darwin," as John
Haught put it, are "dumb" or "stupid" or otherwise less than intelligent.
We all must be the yahoos in the pews. So, I am tempted to come out as a
"bright" myself, and register with the organization that Dawkins provided a
link for. "I'm a 'bright'," I'd write: "Summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa,
Woodrow Wilson Fellow, published scholar, winner of two teaching
awards--these are signs of "brightness," aren't they? And I also don't
believe in the Easter Bunny--but I do believe in God." What would they do
with that? Say that I wasn't "bright" enough, or "the right kind of
'bright',"?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: Dawkins dissembles?
> So someone is going to appropriate another perfectly lovely adjective to
> carry as an angry banner?
>
> Sad.
>
> Sadder still for them if there is a life after death, God save them.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Dawkins dissembles?
>
>
> > Regarding the Dawkins piece, apparently there is a concerted effort
going
> on
> > here, as his partner in the US, Daniel Dennett, has an op-ed piece in
the
> > Saturday NYT calling on "brights" to come out of the closet and declare
> > themselves in the US. See
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/12DENN.html?th
> >
> > In fact, Dennett refers to Dawkins piece.
> >
> > His opening paragraph is a classic:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > God trivialized by being associated with the Easter Bunny; belief in
life
> > after death demeaned by association with black magic.
> >
> > Bob Schneider
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
> > To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 9:18 PM
> > Subject: Dawkins dissembles?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW, did anyone see this Dawkins' piece from last
> > > month's Guardian?
> > >
> > > http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html
> > >
> > > He cites the figure the Skeptic published as 93% of
> > > NAS members not being theistic. IIRC, this is a
> > > statistically invalid number, because the survey of
> > > American scientists was not designed to specifically
> > > sample the subset who were NAS members and the Skeptic
> > > basically pulled out only the respondents who were NAS
> > > members to come up with the percentage. (IIRC an
> > > article based on the 93% was rejected through peer
> > > review, although not by the Skeptic.)
> > >
> > > Now, given that Dawkins is supposed to be all for
> > > banishing superstition, why does he choose to rely on
> > > bad statistics in his anti-religious polemics? I
> > > think I know the answer, but to paraphrase Dawkins,
> > > isn't anyone who claims that 93% of NAS members are
> > > not theistic based on a statistically invalid sample
> > > either lying, insane or stupid? Which one of those
> > > categories does Dawkins fit into?
> > >
> > > Anyone know if someone wrote to the Guardian about the
> > > misrepresentation of survey data (presuming my
> > > recollection is not faulty) by Dawkins?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 07:23:20 EDT