The Brights Movement: An Exercise in Self-Aggrandizement

[_Some Schmo]

It's not an atheists movement, it's a naturalists movement.

I don't think this is accurate. But part of the problem here is that it is inaccurate because of the misleading nature of their description. More precisely, it is an atheist naturalist movement if we convienently forget the problems with providing a coherent definition of the term natural. The problem is that God is being categorized as "supernatural" by fiat such that theists who are naturalists and see God as a natural entity are not allowed. It's a group of atheists who in addition to not believing in God also do not believe in ghosts, witches, reincarnation, conscious energy, and so on and want to exclude the atheists who do as part of this more narrow category.

If you don't think it's accurate, you either haven't read or don't understand what they're about.

And it seems pretty easy to see why a "natural god" is of such epic improbability, it's barely worth refuting. What's more likely, a supreme being that popped into existence, or a single celled life form?

God, as defined by most people who refer to him (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent), must be outside natural laws given there is no evidence of such a creature, and is therefore most accurately termed "supernatural." Slapping the label "natural" on him makes him even less probable (if that's possible).

by the way, the Brights would not deny someone membership if they called themselves a pantheist or an agnostic.

At least when I criticize Mormons, I know something about them.

And yes, Blixa, I agree... the name can be construed as pretentious, and I've told them so. They insist it's not meant that way any more the "gay" refers to people who are happy.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

And it seems pretty easy to see why a "natural god" is of such epic improbability, it's barely worth refuting. What's more likely, a supreme being that popped into existence, or a single celled life form?

God, as defined by most people who refer to him (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent), must be outside natural laws

Why? If God exists in this form, then those are the natural laws. This is why the term "natural" is so resistant to analysis and thus criticism. That said, single celled life forms didn't just pop into existence. They resulted as a consequence of natural laws guiding the behavior of energy, at least according to naturalists, and those natural laws just exist. If one can accept that as a brute fact, than God - or what became God - "just existing" can't be anymore mind-boggling.

given there is no evidence of such a creature, and is therefore most accurately termed "supernatural."

This is precisely what I'm saying the group does. It has certain opinions on what there is and isn't reason to believe. It defines those things it accepts as natural and those it does not as supernatural. It just so happens that God is part of the supernatural category. Therefore, by definition, they are atheists. People who believe in God, witches, and ghosts don't get to be Brights because Brights regard those entities as supernatural. These aren't a bunch of philosophical naturalists who got together in a big tent to allow anyone in even if there is disagreement over the content of what exists naturally. Rather it is a group of people who have definite opinions on what counts as natural and what counts as supernatural and only admits those who believe in what they think of as natural, but not supernatural.

[_KimberlyAnn]

asbestosman:

Perhaps we are mistaken, but if so I don't see why that somehow makes it OK to renege on promises. If those promises were extracted through peer-pressure then perhaps it is OK, but it will certainly come at some kind of cost. I would be more likely to wonder if such a person might make promises to me and then break them if he later feels they were made under duress or because I pressured him. Does that mean the person should feel ashamed of breaking a promise made under duress? No. I do wonder, however, how easy it is to judge when something is made under duress and when it was merely something we really wanted and later regretted the cost of.

I'm sorry asbestosman, but you're not making sense. Are you claiming it's wrong to renege on promises even if the promises were based on a falsehood? So, would a child who promised not to tell that the neighbor kid was bullying her be wrong in breaking her promise because, after all, she PROMISED not to tell, even though the neighbor was "mistaken" in asking her to make that promise? What cost would she suffer by breaking a promise extracted under that peer pressure? That the bully might beat her up? That's what Mormonism does. It bullies people into making promises, and some promises, like those made in the temple, are undertaken blindly! Then they beat people up for breaking the promises they were bullied into in the first place.

KA

[_Some Schmo]

Why? If God exists in this form, then those are the natural laws.

Again, there is no evidence to even suggest that. You're chucking darts in the dark. It makes no sense that anything exists that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, otherwise, we'd have evidence of it (not to mention the fact that something can't really be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time). "Natural" refers to that which we can observe.

This is why the term "natural" is so resistant to analysis and thus criticism.

Not really. See above.

That said, single celled life forms didn't just pop into existence. They resulted as a consequence of natural laws guiding the behavior of energy, at least according to naturalists, and those natural laws just exist. If one can accept that as a brute fact, than God - or what became God - "just existing" can't be anymore mind-boggling.

This falls apart without your base assumption that god is natural. And given that evolution is the natural means by which things become complex, it's seems rather safe to say that god (in all his complex glory) coming into being to create the universe is massively, immeasurably more improbable.

given there is no evidence of such a creature, and is therefore most accurately termed "supernatural."

This is precisely what I'm saying the group does. It has certain opinions on what there is and isn't reason to believe. It defines those things it accepts as natural and those it does not as supernatural. It just so happens that God is part of the supernatural category. Therefore, by definition, they are atheists. People who believe in God, witches, and ghosts don't get to be Brights because Brights regard those entities as supernatural. These aren't a bunch of philosophical naturalists who got together in a big tent to allow anyone in even if there is disagreement over the content of what exists naturally. Rather it is a group of people who have definite opinions on what counts as natural and what counts as supernatural and only admits those who believe in what they think of as natural, but not supernatural.

Actually, they'll let anyone register. They don't do any kind of interview or background check to make sure you fit a particular belief profile.

And it is not correct to say that believing that god is supernatural makes you an atheist. There are plenty of people in the world who believe in the supernatural.

[_asbestosman]

I'm sorry asbestosman, but you're not making sense. Are you claiming it's wrong to renege on promises even if the promises were based on a falsehood?

No especially since I do not think the church promotes falsehood. I am saying that merely supposing that it is falsehood is insufficient. However, I do open the door for reneging when there are more compelling reasons.

So, would a child who promised not to tell that the neighbor kid was bullying her be wrong in breaking her promise because, after all, she PROMISED not to tell, even though the neighbor was "mistaken" in asking her to make that promise?

No. Promising not to tell puts others in danger and therefore tattling is precisely what one ought to do. This is not unlike lying about hiding Jews from Nazis. I'd lie through my teeth for those sort of things. Even so, I suspect that I would suffer some consequences for that lie even though I would still consider it the right course of action. Next time people will be less likely to trust me if they believe I somehow might think there's a higher reason involved for me to lie. It doesn't make my actions wrong, but it does carry a consequence even if it is not necessarily deserved.

What cost would she suffer by breaking a promise extracted under that peer pressure? That the bully might beat her up?

Those are precisely the sort of questions one must ask. To put one's life or the life of others at risk is one thing. To inconvenience oneself about the food one can eat or beverages one can consume seems entirely different.

That's what Mormonism does. It bullies people into making promises, and some promises, like those made in the temple, are undertaken blindly! Then they beat people up for breaking the promises they were bullied into in the first place.

I don't think people are bullied into making temple covenants. Well, I think some might be. Even so, I think people need to weigh the consequences of breaking said promises. If they truly were bullied into it and I believe it, I would not lose any trust. On the other hand I will tend to put more trust in those who continue to inconvenience themselves (at least on trivial things such as food) because of promises even if they no longer believe in the reasons for which those promises were made. Sexuality may be different, but something tells me that sex ain't the only reason to keep living. I don't even think it's the most important thing in life. It may very well be one of the most pleasurable, but maybe drugs is more fun (not saying they're equivalent in consequences or importance). I wouldn't know because I've never tried. Anyhow, I certainly leave the choice up to them and do not fear befrending them or letting them have the same benefits as I enjoy.

[_Who Knows]

On the other hand I will tend to put more trust in those who continue to inconvenience themselves (at least on trivial things such as food) because of promises even if they no longer believe in the reasons for which those promises were made.

Wow. Sorry to hear that man.

Do you hold the same opinions on converts to the LDS church?

[_asbestosman]

Do you hold the same opinions on converts to the LDS church?

Yes.
Again, it has the stipulation that it shouldn't be life-threatening or such. Thus I would certainly hope that someone who converted from being a Jehovah's Witness to becoming a Mormon would be willing to have a blood transfusion. I would have more resepct for a Jew who became LDS who continues to obstain from pork because of promises--unless of course he'll starve otherwise (unlikely).

[_Who Knows]

Do you hold the same opinions on converts to the LDS church?

Yes.
Again, it has the stipulation that it shouldn't be life-threatening or such. Thus I would certainly hope that someone who converted from being a Jehovah's Witness to becoming a Mormon would be willing to have a blood transfusion. I would have more resepct for a Jew who became LDS who continues to obstain from pork because of promises--unless of course he'll starve otherwise (unlikely).

But when someone from another religion joins the LDS church, that act alone is breaking a promise.

[_asbestosman]

But when someone from another religion joins the LDS church, that act alone is breaking a promise.

Correct. But like with lying about hiding Jews from Nazis, there is a higher principle involved.

Now I grant that determining when higher principles are involved can be tricky. I won't hold it against someone for joining another church if I belive they are truly convinced that such is the right move. However, I know of few people who suddenly believe that they must consume alcohol (except as part of a religious ceremony) or must be gay in order to fulfill a higher moral principle. I believe that to be a key difference.

[_KimberlyAnn]

But when someone from another religion joins the LDS church, that act alone is breaking a promise.

Correct. But like with lying about hiding Jews from Nazis, there is a higher principle involved.

Now I grant that determining when higher principles are involved can be tricky. I won't hold it against someone for joining another church if I belive they are truly convinced that such is the right move. However, I know of few people who suddenly believe that they must consume alcohol (except as part of a religious ceremony) or must be gay in order to fulfill a higher moral principle. I believe that to be a key difference.

Asbestosman, you're digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I honestly cannot believe what you're saying.

YOU believe there is a higher principle involved in someone joining Mormonism, but I'm sure stalwart Jewish parents who's son decided to become Mormon wouldn't see it that way. How can you be so myopic? So it's fine to break promises made to other religions, but not fine to break the promises made to the Mormon church, even if they were made under duress? And why do you think joining your church entails some kind of higher moral principle? Why are you right and everyone else wrong?

And what the hell? Do really think people suddenly decide to become gay? Here's a clue: They don't! It is a higher moral principle to be true to one's self than to keep coerced promises made to a weird religion started by an adulterous, lying criminal!

Irritated,

KA