Brights Movement - Criticism

Criticism

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 naturalistic worldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than non-naturalists, such as philosophical skeptics or idealists, believers in the paranormal, philosophical theists or the religious. For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article by Chris Mooney titled "Not Too 'Bright'" in which he stated that, although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins' and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted. The journalist and noted atheist Christopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights.'" Dennett posed the idea that super may serve well as a positive title for those who believe in the supernatural. He also suggested this during his presentation at the Atheist Alliance International '07 convention.

Similarly, Michael Shermer, who is an Enthusiastic Bright, has nevertheless resisted using the term to describe himself, saying, "I don't call myself a 'Bright'.”

'Bright' is also a term used in 'Star, Bright' a science fiction story by Ross Rocklynne, featured on the April 10, 1956 episode of radio show 'X-1' that featured humans who developed vastly superior intellects. 'Brights' is the name they choose for themselves in the story, while 'Tween' is the term the 'Brights' used for humans of ordinary intelligence. Whether or not this is known to proponents of the term currently is unknown but it adds some weight to the suggestion that the term has a connotation to it that could be seen as superior.

In response to this Daniel Dennett has stated in his book Breaking the Spell:

There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen : 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're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim.

Another common criticism of the Bright movement is that the proposed terminology is superfluous, being virtually synonymous with already accepted descriptive terms such as secular humanist, naturalist, and freethinker.