[Buddha-l] Bright Buddhists [was] Vajrayana on buddha in the Buddha (Mitchell Ginsberg)

[Richard Hayes]

On Jan 16, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Jim Peavler wrote:

> On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Katherine Masis wrote:
> 
> I am more of a Russellian skeptic.

It's quite possible you are a Bright, Dr Peavler. You might want to find out whether that's what you are by looking at their website: http://www.the-brights.net/

The term "bright" was coined to function somewhat like the term "gay", that is, as a positive label for a group of people who are "despiséd, rejected, and acquainted with grief." (I recall hearing those words somewhere, but I can't get a handle on the precise reference.) The group of people who have adopted that label describe themselves as having a naturalistic worldview free of supernatural and mystical elements and who embrace an ethical system based on a naturalistic worldview. Their claim is that this group of people, known by some as atheists, are systematically persecuted, disqualified from holding public office and denounced. As one prominent Bright (the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who looks suspiciously like Jim Peavler) has said, "There are many times more Brights in America than practicing Jews. No political candidate would dream of openly denouncing Jews in a public forum, yet political candidates feel free to denounce atheists." (Personally, I find that descent into the fashionable cult of victimhood nauseating, so I hereby openly repudiate the Bright who said that and challenge him to a duel. My choice of weapon is a wizard's wand.) 

Dennett calls naturalists to come out of the closet, make a public declaration of their Brightness and demand to be counted. He even suggests that Brights make it clear to all political candidates that they cannot count on the Bright vote as long as they say inflammatory things such as "God bless America." (I would go a step further. I have gotten a file out of my toolbox and starting rubbing "In God we trust" off every coin that comes into my hands.)

My guess is that there may be a Bright Buddhist or two right here on Buddha-l. The Brights website says:

\begin{quote}
The constituency of Brights is hugely diverse. Besides those who self-identify as atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, or skeptic, there are individuals who go by their preferred affiliations, such as Ethical Culturalist, Pantheist, Buddhist, Yogi, Wiccan, Transhumanist, or Unitarian. Also part of the gamut of constituents are Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, and others who may personally maintain their religion’s cultural or aesthetic aspects, but not its supernaturalism. 
\end{quote}

It turns out that some of my favorite authors identify themselves as Brights, such as Daniel C. Dennett (whom I admire, even though I just challenged him to a duel), Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and James Randi. My guess is that my favorite Buddhist author, Stephen Batchelor, might quality as a Bright Buddhist, but I'll let him say for himself. (In fact, I'll ask him when he comes to give a Buddhist meditation workshop at the Albuquerque Quaker meetinghouse in March.)

> I do resent (deeply) being called 'politically correct'

God, yes! Er, I mean, Naturalism, yes! I hate to be considered correct about anything; it tarnishes my image and knocks my persona lopsided. And given that I don't have a political bone in my body, I would especially hate to be thought of as politically correct. What a completely distasteful idea.

It has been a while since we had a crusade on buddha-l. I'm thinking the moderators should consider making sure that only Brights remain on buddha-l. We'll purge the subscription list of all Dulls. If you suspect your buddha-l neighbors of believing in anything supernatural, turn them in to Jim or me. We'll put the fear of the Lord in them!

Brightly yours,
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes
rhayes at unm.edu