From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 10:56:33 EDT
> I wrote:
> >
> > 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',"?
>
George commented:
> 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, I was simply suggesting that I might do this to tweak their noses;
the point of my playing with their self-designation would be to point out
its silliness, as you rightly call it. Sometimes a little mockery has its
value.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 10:58:01 EDT