Reason’s Greetings! Say Brights to Supers

Let's give the ultimate Reason this season

By William M Briggs Published on December 23, 2017

The email salutation began “Reason’s Greetings.” It continued:

Friends. Family. Food. Festivity. What else?

Another basis for a bit of seasonal merriment could be the human capacity for rational thought. The radiant spark of reason does offer hope of our species wending its way to a brighter future … somehow. Brights can celebrate that capacity, and each do our best to nourish it!

How nice of these brights to think of me at Christmastime!

Merry and Bright

What’s a bright? According to them, a bright “is a person whose worldview is naturalistic (no supernatural and mystical elements).”

Founder Paul Geisert conjured up the term back in 2003. He and Richard Dawkins thought brights would do for atheists what gay did for men who have sex with men.

Brights are a branch of the new atheists, a self-declared “community of reason,” folks who try to claim reason as their sole territory.

Now you may think bright is a stuffy, patronizing and annoying term for atheist. Which it is. What after all is a non-bright? A dim? Because of this obvious insulting inference, brights got a lot of grief and a fair share of teasing over the word. So they juiced their powers of reason and conjured a contrasting term for believers. Which is supers.

Super-Duper

To them, a super “is a person whose worldview includes supernatural and/or mystical elements.” Some find this cloying, but it is at least not condescending.

Merry Day to brights and supers, then!

Merry Christmas day, that is. The day of Christ’s birth . A birth we know was special via history and revelation — and through the use of reason.

Brights are a branch of the new atheists, a self-declared “community of reason,” folks who try to claim reason as their sole territory. By their definition, a believer in God cannot be using reason, and must be enslaving himself to superstition and corrupt authority.

Stir the pudding three times.

Superstitions are not all bad. Brights point to “research” that argues superstitions “evolved to help us survive.”

A superstition is the false association of an observation with an effect. It is thus an error in reason. Yet superstitions are “adaptive,” say these researchers. “As long as the cost of believing a superstition is less than the cost of missing a real association, superstitious beliefs will be favoured.”

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

So evolution, via some unknown mechanism, made brains naturally take to superstition and eschew true reason. But somehow — and nobody knows how — brights can go beyond their evolutionary hard-wiring and leave superstition behind. It appears biology mandates superstition, but some people are gifted with abilities above biology. Is that reasonable?

Unreasonable Reason

Superstition is one thing, but it’s reason itself that brights hang their fedoras on. Reason is what they possess in abundance, and which their rivals freely abandon in search of belief. They say things like, “Belief without proof is no virtue. Insisting on proof is no vice.”

Yet there are many instances in which proof (of the sort they imagine) is impossible. And if no proof can be had, then it is indeed a vice to insist upon it. For example, we may assume the brights believe in mathematical axioms. An axiom is a proposition about mathematical objects which by definition has no proof, but which must be taken “on faith” as true.

Without these axioms, no mathematics is possible. Yet even though all mathematics has no ultimate basis in proof, brights would likely not jettison math as easily as they have abandoned God. That would be unreasonable.

Unthinking Reason

Many new atheists are uncurious. They are satisfied with their self-taught understanding of theism, which is why they are ever congratulating themselves for “destroying” straw men of their own creation. I know this to be true, because for many years before I returned to the fold, I was one of these guys.

It was only after investigating the challenging, subtle, complex and above all rigorous arguments for the existence of God that I realized how unreasonable I had been. To give you a flavor, here are the first three lines of a proof of God’s existence by philosopher Ed Feser (don’t worry about understanding this):

1. That the actualization of potency is a real feature of the world follows from the occurrence of the events we know via sensory experience.

2. The occurrence of any event E presupposes the operation of a substance.

3. The existence of any natural substance S at any given moment presupposes the concurrent actualization of a potency. …

Now you can say this is many things — opaque, difficult, obtuse, even mistaken — but what you cannot say is that it is not the product of reason.

Therefore, the best Christmas present we supers can give to our wayward bright brothers, is the gift of our reason. Merry Christmas, brights!

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Elizabeth Litts

    Gives a whole new meaning to the Christmas “fruitcake”!

  • Bill Raynor

    Would that make them “lightbringers?” I’ve heard that term before, somewhere.

  • Libby K

    “Brights” …
    legends in their own minds.

  • Alice Cheshire

    Brights also argue that morals can be found via reasoning, though that seems unreasonable to me. Most don’t believe in “morals” per se anyway. There is a condescending arrogance to the whole thing—a “I am better than you” note that is totally without reason. Wait, I thought they were about reason………

  • Hilarious opening paragraphs 🙂

  • Very enjoyable

  • MadMagyar

    Well, I guess that makes me a super bright. Gifted both ways, and humbled that God even regards me for all the times I have failed to use either.

  • swordfish

    “Yet there are many instances in which proof is impossible.”

    This is misleading because theists almost always believe in a god who interacts with physical reality – answering prayers; steering evolution; performing miracles, and so on. These sorts of claims require evidence to support them.

    “Many new atheists are intellectually uncurious.”

    I don’t think there’s any reason why atheists should take religious claims seriously, any more than they should take claims that ghosts exist, or that the US military has a crashed UFO in Area 51 seriously. In any case, most “new atheists” have already investigated these intellectual “proofs” for god, but we just don’t find them convincing. Sorry!

    • realDEEBEE

      Yes, but theists do not hide the nature of their belief. Atheists do that. The basic premise, prove me there is a God, and if you cannot I am going to believe that there is no God — is obviously a belief and not reason.

      • swordfish

        Wrong. Disbelief isn’t a type of belief, in the same way that “no car” isn’t a type of car. The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim, which in this case is theists. You’ve fooled yourself here by using misleading language. Atheists don’t “believe there is no god”, rather we “don’t believe there is a god” – these two statements are not the same.

        Is “not believing in ghosts” a belief? No. It’s a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence.

Inspiration
Sometimes the Lord Says, ‘Don’t Let Him In’
Nancy Flory
More from The Stream
Connect with Us