사용자:Luftschloss/작업실/브라이트 운동

파일:Bright Logo.png

Symbol of the Brights

브라이트 운동은 자연주의적 세계관에 대한 대중적 이해와 인정, 가령 자연주의적 세계관을 가진 사람들에 대한 승인을 목적으로 하는 사회운동이다. 브라이트 운동은 2003년 파울 가이저트와 밍가 퓨트렐에 의해 시작되었다. 이 운동은 다음 목표를 추구하는 인터넷 시민연대를 구축하는 것을 목표로 한다.

1. 초자연적이거나 미신적 요소로부터 자유로운 자연주의적 세계관에 대한 대중의 이해와 인정을 추구한다.
2. 자연주의적 세계관을 가진 사림들이 시민들에게 중요한 사안에 있어서 타당한 행동을 할 수 있으리라는 대중의 인지를 획득한다.
3. 이런 사람들이 완전하고 공정한 시민 사회참여를 할수 있도록 사회를 계몽한다.

브라이트 운동은 무신론자, 불가지론자, 인본주의자, 회의주의자, 그리고 세속적 종교인 등의 다양한 부류의 구성원들을 포함하는 광대한 공공 시민연대의 구축에 초점을 맞춘다는 점에서 전통적인 회원제 기구와 스스로를 구분짓는다. 또한 전통적 회원제 기구와 다르게, 브라이트운동은 그들 전체를 대변하기 보다는, 구성원 각각이 스스로의 입장을 대변한다.

브라이트(Bright)라는 명사 표현은 가이저트에 의해 긍정적인 뉘앙스의 포괄적 단어로 제안되었으며, 퓨트렐은 브라이트를 "초자연적이고 신비주의적 요소로부터 자유로운 자연주의적 세계관을 가진 사람"으로 정의했다. 다니엘 데넷은 초자연적인 것을 믿는 사람들들을 슈퍼(Super)라고 부르는 것을 제안해왔다.

2009년 현재, 브라이트의 슬로건은 "자연주의적 세계관을 계몽하고 늘리자" 이다.

역사

파울 가이저트는 1960년대에는 시카고의 생물학 교사, 1970년대에는 교수로, 1980년대에는 기업가 겸 저술가로 일했으며, 1990년대에는 공립학교에서의 종교 교육에 관한 학습자료와 웹사이트를 공동개발했다.

2002년에 "신을 믿지 않는(godless) 미국인들의 워싱턴 행진"에 참가하기로 결정하면서, 그는 신을 믿지 않는("godless", 사악함)이라는 명칭에 불만을 갖고, "이성집단"을 묶을 더 좋은 표현을 찾기로 했다. 그는 동성애자를 뜻하는 긍정적 단어 "게이"처럼 새롭고, 긍정적인 단어이며 널리 수용될 단어를 찾았다. 2002년 말, 그는 "브라이트"라는 신조어를 만들었지만, 그것을 즉시 발표하지는 않았다. 브라이트 운동의 공동창시자인 밍가 퓨트렐과 함께 일하면서, 그들은 이미 존재하는 철학적 단체에 가입되어 있지는 않지만 비종교적인 개인들을 한데 뭉치고 활력을 주고 싶어했다. 이를 위해서 그들은 "브라이트"의 정의 뿐만 아니라, 인터넷을 통해 뭉치는 시민연합이라는 발상을 생각해냈다.

Having tested this idea during the early months of 2003, they launched the Brights' Net website on June 4, 2003. The movement gained early publicity through articles by Richard Dawkins in The Guardian and Wired, and by Daniel Dennett in The New York Times. Within a year, registered Brights numbered in five figures and spanned 85 nations.

The movement has continued to grow and experienced accelerated registrations following media debate around "new atheism" prompted by a series of book releases in late 2006 including The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, God Is Not Great, The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation. As of January 2010 over 50,000 Brights registered from 186 nations.

The Brights' Net

The Brights' Net web site serves as the hub of communication and action projects in the Brights movement.

The Brights' Net recommends project priorities and facilitates the formation of local groups, known as Brights' Local Constituencies (BLCs). There are BLCs in London, Paris, several cities in the United States and Canada, and various other locations worldwide.

However, Brights act autonomously in doing their part for the furtherance of the Brights movement. No person or entity, including The Brights' Net co-directors, can speak for all Brights.

Brights

Within the definition of bright, many, but not all, brights also identify variously under other terms or identities, including atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, objectivist, rationalist, naturalist, materialist, agnostic, skeptic, apatheist, or even naturalistic pantheists or classical Deists, and so on. Even so, the "movement is not associated with any defined beliefs," as written on The Brights' Net website. One of the purposes of the Brights' Net is to include the umbrella term bright in the vocabulary of this existing "community of reason".

However, "the broader intent is inclusive of the many-varied persons whose worldview is naturalistic" but are in the "general population", as opposed to associating solely with the "community of reason". So persons who can declare their naturalistic worldview using the term bright extend beyond the familiar secularist categories, as long as they do not hold theistic worldviews. Registrations even include some members of the clergy, such as Presbyterian ministers and a Church History Professor and ordained priest.

Dawkins' analogy in the aforementioned Guardian article is instructive, comparing the coining of bright to the "triumph of consciousness-raising" from the term gay:

Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". ... Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Despite the explicit difference between the noun and adjective, there have been comments on the comparison. In his Wired article Dawkins states, "Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights [noun] to be bright [adjective] is a matter for research." Daniel Dennett, in his book Breaking the Spell, suggests that if non-naturalists are concerned with this connotation of the word bright, then they should invent an equally positive sounding word for themselves, like supers (i.e., one whose worldview contains supernaturalism). Geisert and Futrell maintain that the neologism has always had a kinship with the Enlightenment, an era which celebrated science, free inquiry, and a spirit of skepticism; they have endorsed the use of super as the antonym to bright.

Notable brights include biologists Richard Dawkins and Richard J. Roberts, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and stage magicians and debunkers James Randi and Penn & Teller. Other brights include Amy Alkon, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Babu Gogineni, Edwin Kagin, Mel Lipman, Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Air America Radio talk show host Lionel and Massimo Pigliucci.

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'.”

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 [not by me]: 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 rationalist.

See also

• Atheism
• Metaphysical naturalism
• Naturalistic pantheism
• Out Campaign
• Religiosity and intelligence
• Scientific skepticism
• Secular humanism

External links

• The Brights' Net – The originating hub of the Brights' constituency
• Teaching About Religion In Public Schools: Worldview Education