So then, what’s left? I’m not an atheist (I know of plenty of atheists who still believe in their share of woo), agnostic doesn’t adequately describe my worldview, and the one term that does describe it is not one I will be using anytime soon.

But, if it does adequately describe my worldview, perhaps it is worthwhile to look at it one more time.

A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview that is free of supernatural and mystical elements.

In other words, I do not believe in anything that cannot be verified, if not by me, then at least by a process that I know I can trust. In our limited knowledge, this process can only be the scientific process.

Immediately, some people will read that and accuse me of having a bias, tell me that I favor science over other belief systems. Such an interpretation would reveal a comprehensive misunderstanding of science, a view that science is simply another belief system, on a par with religion.

Science is not a belief system. It is a process, through which we learn about the universe. The scientific process is the only reliable way we have of reaching a generally agreed upon consensus in a manner that is transparent and verifiable.

Carl Sagan, in his book The Demon-Haunted World, describes the scientific process:

Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding. Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as central to the scientific enterprise. (pps 20-21)

In other words, science encourages dissent. That bears repeating. Science encourages dissent. The only way to actively find the best solution to a particular question is to encourage people to disagree with the accepted norms. By presenting a new idea, one opens oneself up to criticism, and more importantly, opens one’s ideas up for debate. Others examine one’s evidence, test it, try to disprove or falsify it, and if they fail, one’s ideas are accepted. All ideas are open to scrutiny, and no one can claim special knowledge of anything.

An example Sagan gives of this is Einstein presenting his General Theory of Relativity. In his paper, Einstein was challenging and extrapolating on Isaac Newton’s ideas. In physics, this was tantamount to challenging the pope. The difference, of course, being that Newton never was the pope, and no one considered his words to be infallible.

This is where science differs fundamentally from religion and other woo. Religion is based purely on revelation, defined by Wordnet as “communication of knowledge to man by a divine or supernatural agency.” Though perhaps it would be more accurate to say “communication of knowledge to a man…,” because that is usually what it is. A single individual has a transforming experience, and relays it to other individuals, who then claim it as truth. Unfortunately, these revelations are almost never verifiable, and are accepted purely on, wait for it, faith.

Being faith-based, information by revelation is unverifiable, and is also therefore unable to be questioned. If one accepts it, one cannot question it. Dissent is forbidden. When dissent is forbidden, doctrine and accepted truth does not change. This does not add to our knowledge, but instead only increases our ignorance by blinding us to the world around us.

If I cannot verify your revelation, and if I do not believe it unquestionably, how can we ever reach a consensus? If you tell me that a 900-foot tall apparition told you no one should ever sleep on queen-sized beds, because it is against god’s law, why should I believe you?

If, on the other hand, I tell you that a queen box-spring mattress will not fit down my stairs, you are welcome to test it for yourself. I am not asking you to accept it as truth solely on my word alone. You are welcome to try to get that mattress into my bedroom, even though I could not. In fact, if you tried, and succeeded, I would be nothing but delighted. (Seriously, if you think you can, call me.)

That is the difference. Revelation is expecting everyone else to believe you, simply because you said it is so. Science is asking everyone to test your ideas, so that we can all agree that something is so. One is dictatorship, the other democracy.

Since people almost always disagree about how a society should function, society can only flourish if it can reach consensus. It can only reach consensus if all facts and propositions are available for examination and verification, not dictated by revelation and deification.

As I have said numerous times before in this blog, I do not think that what I say is particularly original. I would be quite surprised to learn that anything I have written here has not been said or written before, more eloquently, by someone else. Therefore, it was no great shock for me to learn that someone else, a lot of someone elses, in fact, felt the same way I did about atheism and many of its image problems.

Enter The Brights. A term originally coined by Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert of Sacramento, CA, the Brights were an inspirational flash for many of the godless. According to the website,

• A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
• A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
• The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

Or, said in another way, a bright “doesn’t believe in supernatural entities and… roots one’s understanding of morality in an understanding of nature and not in revelation.”

The idea is to have a positive definition of a person who has a naturalistic, non-religious, view of the world, as opposed to someone who just doesn’t believe in a god. This, in turn can help improve the image of non-believers, while at the same time organizing them into a potent force to speak against the many insults that are handed out to them every day. (Don’t believe me when I say “every day”? Reach in your pocket, pull out some money… you know the rest. Think this is trivial? Change the words. “In Allah We Trust” or better yet, “In Science We Trust.” Or best yet, “We trust in no god, but trust only in ourselves.” A little too long for a coin, though.)

This is an idea I can start to get comfortable with. Until I start thinking about the name. Bright? Why bright? According to the Daniel Dennet, it is not meant to be an adjective, not meant to be arrogant. It is “not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.” Unfortunately, not everyone agrees.

Dinesh D’Souza, who wishes he was the burr under the atheist saddle, but is really more of a thistle that brushes gently against the socks, states “Mr. Dennett, like many atheists, is confident that atheists are simply brighter–more rational–than religious believers.”

Even someone who might otherwise be considered a friend of brights, Chris Mooney at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, says, “The ‘bright’ kids aren’t always the ones with the most friends, and nobody — nobody — likes a smart ass.”

If you are trying to start a movement that dispels the myth of arrogance, it might not be the best thing to come right out and call yourself a synonym for smart.

As a whole, I agree completely with the idea of the brights. I subscribe to their ideals, and am excited by the idea of movement toward more naturalistic thinking in government and society.

I just hate the name. And like atheist or agnostic, I don’t think I’ll be calling myself a bright anytime soon.

As I stated before, I have never been of a religious mindset. My parents were married in the Unitarian church, and I don’t believe I ever set foot in a church with either one of them unless it was to attend someone else’s wedding. I have never been baptized, confirmed, or bar mitzvahed, and religion has never played a significant role in my life. I have always been fascinated by it, respected what it does for some people, and felt that it has been responsible for some pretty great art. Because of this, I thought there might be some benefit to a belief in something bigger than ourselves, enough so that I decided to put it on my list, #33 – Find god(s).

When I put it on the list, I had no idea what it really meant, hence the “s” inside of parentheses. I knew that it didn’t mean “convert to [established religion]” and was probably meant more as a path to learn about religion. That I don’t exactly know what I was thinking when I added it a few years ago is indicative of my ambivalence.

Some tell me that I should call myself an agnostic, a- meaning “without” and gnosis being the Greek for “knowledge,” and therefore meaning, literally, “without knowledge.” Agnostics prefer the definition given by Wordnet at Princeton,

a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist).

But looking at the other definition given by WordNet, “someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something,” I see why I’ve never liked this term. Though I may agree with the first definition, overall it is just too wishy-washy for me.

While I may once have felt that I was agnostic, my path towards critical thinking has changed that, as it almost demands that I evaluate my own assumptions and get off the fence. One thing I noticed while visiting many of the skeptic and critical thinking sites was a red A, a scarlet letter of sorts. Clicking on it brought me here, to the Out Campaign.

The idea is that it is time for atheists to come out of hiding and declare themselves as such. As Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist and founder of the campaign, writes on the site, “a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it – to themselves, to their families, and to the world.”

Most people are probably aware of what is being called the New Atheism or the Atheist Backlash, either a levee against the fundamentalist tide that threatens to flood western society, or an influx of irreverent ideas that threaten the morals and thus the very structure of our society, depending of course on your viewpoint. Regardless of your particular slant, it is most definitely a group of people standing up against what they see as an infringement of their rights. And it is very difficult to disagree with them.

There are verbal assaults being launched against non-believers all across the US. One candidate for President claimed that “freedom requires religion,” while another proposes to change the Constitution so it is more in line with his god’s law. In a much-quoted 1999 Gallup poll, 48% of Americans said they would not vote for an atheist for president, a higher percentage than any of the other choices (Catholic, black , Jewish, woman, Baptist, Mormon, Muslim, and Gay being the others). Further, a March 2007 survey by Newsweek magazine stated that 62% of respondents wouldn’t vote for an atheist, and a 2003 Pew Research poll showed that 54% of respondents had a mostly unfavorable view of atheists. (1) To put it in a little bit of perspective, substitute another word, such as Jewish, for the word atheist, and you can see how discriminatory the prevailing attitude is.

Frankly, those numbers are so shocking to me, I can see why many atheists are fighting back. They are attempting to launch a counter-attack, explaining who they are and what they believe. American Atheists states, “An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities.” Further,

The Atheist position regarding all divinities can be summed up succinctly. The evidence for one equals the evidence for all the others. In other words, the arguments supporting the existence of Jupiter, Zeus, Horus, Jesus, Mithra, Jehovah, or the cosmic muffin are all equally zero. Thus one can conclude that it is hardly feasible to attack something which does not exist. We simply do not buy any of the “god-explanations” that are popular today, or were popular at anytime. They are not reasonable. They do not make any sense. That is not a crime, nor a cause for immorality.

At their core, atheists believe there is no such thing as a god, of any sort, from any cultural tradition, and that all belief should be centered on natural explanation, as opposed to supernatural faith. With this, I can generally get on board. I would only quibble with the wording.

Where I begin to have the problem, is in the way they choose to define themselves. I cannot define myself in opposition to something I find irrelevant. Calling myself an atheist would be like calling myself an Easter Bunny Separatist. Some have tried to refute this, by stating that being an atheist is no different than being an in-dependent (one without a dependence), but this just proves my point. An independent what? Voter? Then you are defining yourself as being independent of the political parties. An independent country? Then you are defining yourself as not being dependent on another country. Independence would have no meaning if there were no such idea as dependence.

Where I continue to have a problem is that most of the atheists I see truly are defining themselves as being in opposition to religionists. Most of the atheist blogs I’ve seen post articles mocking the boobs who are so thick as to believe in a god, typically referring to that god as “sky-daddy” or some other pejorative name implying the infantile mind of the believer, and you won’t believe what they’ve done now, etc etc etc. Sometimes, there is a call to action to fight some fundamentalist or another, trying to seize control of the local school board, but mostly it is mocking.

And this is why non-atheists have the opinion they do of atheists. Atheists are smart-asses, people who think they are smarter than theists because they can see through the superstition and can see reality. (While there does seem to be an inverse relationship between education level and religiosity, I suspect as a percentage of the total, there are just as many idiot atheists as there are idiot theists.) I think though, that this perception is not quite fair. Certainly, there are many outspoken, name-calling atheists who genuinely believe they are smarter than theists. (These are probably also the dumbest atheists.) The perception seems more to come from the theists’ own insecurities, than from any real statements made by atheists.

Atheists use terms such as “critical thinking” and immediately a theist takes that to mean that the atheist has just said that theists do not think critically. According to the basics of critical thinking, and using evidence to support one’s claim, theists, in fact, are not using critical thinking skills. That does not make them stupid; it makes them faithful, or credulous, depending upon your view.

The big problem arises when theists attempt to take on atheists directly, and then actually do become a bit stupid. One way of doing this is to counter-attack using the same critical thinking tools used by atheists (and scientists, and skeptics, and philosophers, and many others). An example of this is Dinesh D’Souza, fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. (I have never been prouder to be a Cal bear.) In his attack on atheists in the Wall Street Journal in October of 2003, D’Souza states,

The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.

This, he argues, is the atheist fallacy, or the fallacy of the Enlightenment. Unfortunately for D’Souza, his argument is a better known fallacy, called the straw man. An atheist, or anyone with a naturalistic worldview, does not necessarily presume this. Instead, non-religionists believe that nothing that cannot be verified by experiment should be accepted as a universal truth solely because someone in authority says it is so. Plus, a theist “knows”? How? This is exactly the kind of argument from revelation that atheists abhor, and stand against.

Another way theists try to take on atheists is by attempting to “prove” their views. This is probably the worst. Look at former child star Kirk Cameron and his Aussie cohort, Ray Comfort. This, really, is just embarrassing for everyone. Comfort “proved” the existence of his god, basically by saying, “C’mon, I mean, look at the banana!” Cameron has tried to disprove evolution by holding up a badly photo-shopped image of a hybridized animal while saying, “Have you ever seen a croco-duck?”

That anyone of a scientific bent ever tries to engage with these two men is really a shame, but that doesn’t stop everyone. Last May these two had a debate with two atheist members of the Rational Response Squad at the Calvary Baptist Church in Manhattan. While I would expect that the arguments of Comfort and Cameron would be so obviously hollow and meaningless as to not even merit responses, these 2 atheists really tried to engage with them. On Nightline, discussing the event, Brian Sapient, one of the atheists, said, “if I knew that their belief system was flawed and I didn’t say anything, I would find that much more disrespectful [than telling them that they are wrong].” Basically he is being courteous in telling them that they are idiots.

Does anyone actually wonder why atheists are perceived as arrogant know-it-alls?

No, calling myself an atheist is probably not something I will ever do.