Re: Dawkins dissembles?

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 09:58:01 EDT

  • Next message: Dr. Blake Nelson: "Re: Dawkins dissembles?"

    Robert Schneider wrote:
    >
    > 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',"?

            The self-designation as "brights" by Dennett seems to me to have an air of
    desperation about it. It suggests that they realize that they can't make a go of it if
    they simply call themselves atheists. & it's a rather childish designation at that. As
    far as substance goes, it's of a piece with Steven Weinberg calling religious believers
    "enemies of science." (I wonder if he's ever told his co-winner of the Nobel Prize in
    Physics, Abdus Salam, a devout Muslim, that he's an enemy of science.)
            I think Dennett _et al_ make themselves look kind of silly by this designation
    & that it would be a serious mistake to respond to it by saying "We're bright too."

                                                    Shalom,
                                                    George

                                                            
    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 09:57:13 EDT