The Anger of Compassion

A Bright Note

Is--and if so, why?--the term "Catholic child" offensive? Well, I was a Catholic child, and (as a child) the term never bothered me. But Richard Dawkins can raise your consciousness about that. He's raised mine.

Richard Dawkins is a stout defender of evolution, a Fellow of the Royal Society, faculty member at Oxford, and well-known author of River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Selfish Gene. He's also penned a startlingly appealing column in Saturday's Guardian, "The future looks bright".

A fine writer, Dawkins draws the reader right in:

I once read a science-fiction story in which astronauts voyaging to a distant star were waxing homesick: "Just to think that it's springtime back on Earth!" You may not immediately see what's wrong with that, so ingrained is our unconscious northern hemisphere chauvinism. "Unconscious" is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising comes in.

I suspect it is for a deeper reason than gimmicky fun that, in Australia and New Zealand, you can buy maps of the world with the south pole on top. Now, wouldn't that be an excellent thing to pin to our class-room walls? What a splendid consciousness-raiser. Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on top. The map would intrigue them as well as raise their consciousness. They'd go home and tell their parents.

The feminists taught us about consciousness-raising. I used to laugh at "him or her", and at "chairperson", and I still try to avoid them on aesthetic grounds. But I recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising. I now flinch at "one man one vote". My consciousness has been raised. Probably yours has too, and it matters.

(Dawkins goes on to mention his own favorite consciousness-raising effort, which I won't reveal here: go read his whole piece here.)

It does matter. Interesting food for thought, too--and I now want one of those south-pole-on-top maps--but still: Is this of any relevance to readers of The Anger of Compassion, to advocates of reason and freedom? Dawkins convinces me that it is:

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. 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". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Dawkins is dead right here. I, too, regret that "gay" has been hijacked--Dawkins's word, remember, not mine--as it has. Further, I shall never, ever forgive Democratic/Leftist activists in this country for the way they have corrupted the word "choice." But--and here is an important difference--I do not resent that "hijacking" of "gay," nor do I know anyone who does. The word "gay" as it is used today serves an important purpose, exactly the purpose Dawkins explains above; it is accepted usage now, and in terms of public relations the purpose it serves is crucial. And, Dawkins goes on to say, the same coup can be accomplished again:

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "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.

Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright.

I like it.

I am a bright.

In his excellent Atheism: The Case Against God, George H. Smith points out that "Atheism, even in today's 'liberal' atmosphere, is still somewhat unacceptable. Simply being an atheist may be acceptable--if, that is, one keeps it to oneself. What is frequently considered inappropriate is to advertise this fact, or openly to attack religious doctrines." He goes on to say that "the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and [....] this irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful."

Harmful, indeed: Leonard Peikoff makes short work of the very concept of god on page 31 of his Objectivism: The Case Against God, where he asks

Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance." It is causality.

Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.

Is God infinite? "Infinite" does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. But A is A. Every quantity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of "infinity" denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subdivision. For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite.

Can God perform miracles? A "miracle" does not mean merely the unusual. If a woman gives birth to twins, that is unusual; if she were to give birth to elephants, that would be a miracle. A miracle is an action not possible to the entities involved by their nature; it would be a violation of identity.

Is God purely spiritual? "Spiritual" means pertaining to consciousness, and consciousness is a faculty of perceiving that which exists. A consciousness transcending nature would be a faculty transcending organism and object. So far from being all-knowing, such a thing would have neither means nor content of perception; it would be nonconscious.

Peikoff concludes, "Every argument commonly offered for the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy."

He is right, of course (even though he carries on to page 32...sorry), just as Smith is right. And yet, in today's god-besotted America there are two foolproof means of branding oneself as nuts: by claiming that God has spoken to you, or by declaring that there is no God. Indeed, as Smith himself declares in the Introduction to his book, "You are about to read a minority viewpoint."

So Dawkins is right as well, as he advocates the Geisert-Futrell nom de guerre, and he's right for some very good public relations reasons: "People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright."

Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too familiar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?"

I do want you to read Dawkins's own Guardian column, so I won't post his answer here--or the follow-on question.

I like the term "bright." It includes the brilliant Dawkins himself as well as Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, Antony Flew, Ayn Rand, Verdi, and Objectivist bloggers Arthur Silber and Joshua Zader and Diana Hsieh. And me. And, as far as I can tell, the Buddha himself.

Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them and all that crap), on the other hand, were not brights. Martin Luther and the Crusaders and Saladin and Torquemada were not brights. Osama bin Laden and Pope John Paul II and Jerry Falwell are not brights. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush sure as hell aren't brights, and wouldn't admit it if they were. Which leads to a delightful question encountered at the end of Dawkins's column. Again, go read it.

Great. I'll take my stand.

Meanwhile, you can sign up as a bright at this site.

Bright move.

Oh, and I double-dare you to challenge the Guardian's deservedly famous crossword...

Posted by Craig Ceely at June 22, 2003 10:05 PM