Any skeptics/brights/atheist/agnostic types out there?

[anthromom]

I'm one of the UFO-curious who is primarily a skeptic/atheist in "real life." I'm not a true believer in anything, not even skepticism. My world view is evidence-driven and I strive to keep my mind free of magical beliefs and (as far as any human can prevent it, given the nature of the human mind), lies and self-deceptions. I also have added myself to the count of "Brights" (The Brights' Net - Home Page).

I'm curious: Are there are others in this group like me?

 

[Facius_Cardan]

Sure I'm an agnostic and my reasoning is, as much as possible, based on evidence and the scientific methodology (that may make me a skeptic of sorts). What I find impossible is for someone to have a "mind free of magical beliefs". The sheer concept is an utopia. I think that our mechanism of abstract thought automatically creates a penchant, a predisposition for a mytho-magical frame of mind. We can try to fight against it and, to a certain degree, mask that side of our mind, but in the end even the more hardened atheist or skeptic will find holes in his logic and reasoning that point towards an non-materialistic (or non-naturalistic if you prefer) frame of thought. We can only move forward in the investigation of things like the UFO phenomena if we, as human beings, admit that fact, because denying it leads to the lack of honesty (and modesty) that frequently characterizes skeptics.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Taken from "The Brights" website:

What is a bright?

A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

Reason and Purpose

Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures, even politically/socially repressed. To be a Bright is to participate in a movement to address the situation. (Note: the upper case Bright signifies someone who fits the definition and registers on this Web site.)

There is a great diversity of persons who have a naturalistic worldview (free of supernatural and mystical elements). Some are members of existing organizations that foster a supernatural-free perspective. Far more individuals are not associated with any formal group or label. Under the broad umbrella of the naturalistic worldview, the constituency of Brights can undertake social and civic actions designed to influence a society otherwise permeated with supernaturalism.

This website of The Brights’ Network registers brights into an Internet constituency of Brights and serves as a communications hub for actions that align with the aims and principles of the Brights movement.

Can Brights impact society's outlook regarding the naturalistic worldview and the people who hold it? That remains to be seen, but if you are intrigued by the possibilities, you are invited to explore this Web site, learn more about the Brights movement and, if your worldview fits the definition, then register as a Bright.

The Brights’ Principles succinctly characterize the movement:

We are a constituency of individuals (the registered Brights);
We conserve original definitions (of a bright);
The Brights' Net offers a pragmatic action connection for Brights;
The Brights' Net functions as an Internet entity (not as a membership organization);
The movement is inclusive of the varied Brights who support its aims;
The movement is carried forward by these individuals (the Brights) and is not describable by other labels;
The Brights, and not others, are to define their movement;
The movement is to be a positive force toward full civic participation (fairness for all);
The Brights seek acknowledgement and influence in society.

Hmmm? Another Debunker Rapid Response Squad perhaps? I see they list James Randi as one of their "Enthusiastic Brights". I'll bet!

 

[anthromom]

Actually, what I said is that I STRIVE to keep my mind free of magical beliefs, then qualified the next phrase with a statement about the failings of the human mind. Several years ago, I made a conscious decision to try to rid my mind of magical views of events. Sure, it's an uphill battle against what MIGHT be some hard-wiring.

BTW, I am an anthropologist, and I've lived in an African village amongst peoples whose world view is markedly different from anything we in the so-called developed world would understand. It is an interesting experience going into such a place as a "scientist" and then coming to understand their way of seeing things.

I have not felt the need to turn to magico-religious, non-materialistic or non-naturalistic explanations for the UFO phenomenon. It is enough for me that 1) there seems to be good *evidence* something is out there, and 2) if it is in the capacity of our senses to understand it, maybe someday we will.

 

[Kandinsky]

That's quite a busy forum they have over there and the associates list is quite impressive. The 'four horsemen' are all there too. What puts me off is the notion of it being a 'movement' and advocacy group. I tend towards critical thinking and evidence naturally without being party to an overt agenda or manifesto. I'm already in a 'constituency of individuals' without seeking any more acknowledgement or influence in society than already exists.

Some of the 'Brights' already have a great deal of respect and influence in society; why add this extra dimension? Also, if a 'Bright' is acting on behalf of their 'Movement,' shouldn't they acknowledge that fact to the people they are engaged with? By this, I mean they should identify themselves in real life and on-line. By identifying themselves as 'Brights,' I imagine they would run the risk of being interpreted as being somewhat cultish; on the other hand, having a non-declared agenda becomes disingenuous and secretive.

Quite the Catch 22.

 

[anthromom]

So if James Randi counts himself as a "Bright," that makes Brights "Another Debunker Rapid Response Squad"? That's the same logic as saying all people who listen to the Paracast are "true believers."

My absolute "favorite" skeptic of the ilk you describe is Michael Shermer. He closed his mind a long, long time ago.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So if James Randi counts himself as a "Bright," that makes Brights "Another Debunker Rapid Response Squad"? That's the same logic as saying all people who listen to the Paracast are "true believers."

My absolute "favorite" skeptic of the ilk you describe is Michael Shermer. He closed his mind a long, long time ago.

There are some here who think are far too many "true believers" on these forums, although i have yet to encounter any "regular" contributors who i could classify as such.

The Brights seek acknowledgement and influence in society

Maybe not "Another Debunker Rapid Response Squad". But why would they need acknowledgement and influence in society? Why do "(pseudo)sceptics" and "Brights" feel the need to try to influence society for any reason?
Did you try to encourage the tribe you lived with to move away from their world view and adopt more western, scientific principles? Or were you content to accept that tampering with their way of life was unnecessary.
In any event it doesn't matter what an individual thinks or believes. Whether they have a naturalistic world view or they believe in leprechauns. To each their own.
The "brights" seem to think that they need to redress some sort of naturalistic imbalance and that the people who have magical beliefs or beliefs that have been over represented in public far too long. Is that correct? They seem to count on the fact that the more "uppercase Brights" who are part of their movement, the more credibility they will have.
Good Luck!

 

[anthromom]

My role as an anthropologist was not to change anyone's world view, but to come to understand what was going on there. My area of research (demography and fertility) didn't require that I understand anything but the subject matter I was studying, but I was there long enough and deeply enough entrenched in that social world that I experienced and came to understand some things we westerners would think are pretty strange. For example, one day I was standing at the back door of my little house, which was enclosed in a small compound surrounded by a high hedge, and I saw in my yard two dogs. I had been an occupant of that place for some time, and I'd never seen these dogs before. Nor did I understand how they got into my yard. Furthermore, they were the strangest looking dogs I'd ever seen. I remember standing there and puzzling over what they were, wondering if they were even dogs or what they were. I mentioned this incident to a member of the community we anthropologists would call our "key informant," and he said to me, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen." I heeded his advice, knowing that there would be all sorts of social consequences if it got around in the village (and it would have spread quickly) that these strange animals had been in my yard. There would have been all sorts of implications, especially since everyone already believed the people renting me the house (they were also my neighbors down the hill) practiced witchcraft. I can't tell you what these animals were, or why they were there, or even if the villagers' beliefs about them would have been accurate. I never saw these animals again, and I never mentioned it to anyone.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

So if James Randi counts himself as a "Bright," that makes Brights "Another Debunker Rapid Response Squad"? That's the same logic as saying all people who listen to the Paracast are "true believers."

People have a strong inclination towards manicheistic thinking - things are either its good or bad, real or imaginary. When I speak with people who have an interest in paranormal phenomena, most of the times I end being labeled as a skeptic simply because I don't take things for their face value and require further information and/or evidence to make a decision. Frequently, skepticism walks hand-in-hand with arrogance and spurious self-assurance and I don't identify with such feelings (I'm a natural doubter). I think we should have an open mind, but that opening, instead of being a crater where everything can fall in, must be equipped with a variety of filters that allow us to select what should or should not merit our attention. That may be the reason why I never had the need to join a particular group, like the Brights, because I've never been able to find anyone whose way of thinking was exactly equal to mine. That will probably never happen because every mind is unique and even if, through societal conditioning, we acquire a common basis of reasoning, relationship and probably even consciousness, the individual will always possess some independence and idyosincratic qualities. That's why sharing ideas and thoughts is such a stimulating exercise, because through the debate of different worldviews we get to challenge our own conceptions and actually learn something new, instead of just taking everything in because we believe it or denying it for the sake of rationalism and skepticism.

 

[anthromom]

It's interesting that folks are identifying skepticism with such things as close-mindedness and arrogance -- because some skeptics are closed-minded and arrogant. That's basically the same kind of error that the closed-minded skeptics make about people interested in UFOs -- hey, as far as they're concerned we're all deluded. OR we all believe UFOs are ET.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

It's interesting that folks are identifying skepticism with such things as close-mindedness and arrogance

The problem is that some of the most outspoken skeptics often give that sensation. That doesn't mean that all skeptics are arrogant or that, on the other side, all believers are idiots. People should be intellectually honest and acknowledge that, though we have amassed an amazing body of knowledge throughout the ages, there still are unexplained phenomena out there. I sincerely believe that many of those manifestations will be explained in the coming decades, sometimes by apparently simple processes (to the dismay of hardened believers).

 

[The Pair of Cats]

It's interesting that folks are identifying skepticism with such things as close-mindedness and arrogance -- because some skeptics are closed-minded and arrogant. That's basically the same kind of error that the closed-minded skeptics make about people interested in UFOs -- hey, as far as they're concerned we're all deluded. OR we all believe UFOs are ET.

If you are closed minded and arrogant then you are not a true sceptic in the "Pyrrho" sense of the term, you are a debunker. Unfortunately groups such as "the brights" and Psicop et al, attract such people to them and they are usually the loudest voices heard. Having said that, I am sure not all are debunkers, as such.
I am curious. How does your experience with the tribe sit with you and your "bright" membership when ..."A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements" or did you consider your experience to be explained by natural means and reasoning?

 

[anthromom]

A "real" skeptic (as opposed to a "debunker") wants to be intellectually honest. That's part of what it means to be a skeptic. A "real" skeptic will be interested in how one's own mind can trick, and work to defeat that within oneself. The problem with so many of the well-known skeptics is that their skepticism is a belief system in itself with a set of tenets about what one is supposed to believe as a skeptic. It's Skepticism with capital "S" -- as opposed to true skepticism, which is ultimately about intellectual honesty and clear thinking.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

As I've tried to explain in my previous posts in this forum, I think that one of the main frontiers in investigating the paranormal is the human mind/consciousness. The human being is the only constant in all the manifestations and investigating, for instance, the UFO phenomena will certainly lead us to great discoveries in the fields of psychology, neurology and cognitive science, both from the side of the witness' perceptions and the investigators' take on their testimonies. The main problem is that, after many decades of pondering about these themes, our scientific community still hasn't been able to define a methodology through which a coherent investigation can be made (that emerges from the constant quarreling among those who think there's something of interest in UFO's and those who simply deny the whole thing). Taking the development of the social sciences as an example, we can see that there was a great struggle for the definition of the objects of study of each discipline and the adaptation of the scientific method to the fields tackled by, for instance, psychology, sociology and anthropology. Frequently, these objects of study become intermingled within the social sciences and, ultimately, cross paths with the exact sciences.
The UFO problem will have to be approached by a wide array of expertises, ranging almost all scientific disciplines. We've had many good studies made by physics, psychologists and other specialists. But, at least in my view, the UFO phenomena is so broad that specialization can only make sense as part of a whole, inserted in a overarching study led by multidisciplinary teams. I also think that if the evidence is strong enough, the majority of the public and academic commmunities will accept its value - after all that's how science is supposed to work.

 

[anthromom]

Philip, to answer your question about my experiences in the village and how they might fit into my essentially scientific world view --

I saw what I saw. It is a fact, correct? Do I know what it means? No. Would the villagers' possible interpretation of evil spirits or a bad omen have been correct? I am agnostic on that. Again, I don't know the answer. My Christian missionary friends in the nearby town, however, felt that there was a battle for souls going on over Western Kenya. I don't know how they would have interpreted the situation with the "dogs" in my yard, but it might have either been 1) they were indeed evil spirits, or 2) they were merely dogs and the locals were superstitious, which was itself evidence of inherent evil. They would have been unsurprised by the strangeness of my experience because they'd had odd experiences too.

I lived in both Kenya and Zimbabwe and associated with all sorts of people, but was mainly either with African university professors and intellectuals, or out in the village. Most westerners I knew sheltered themselves among the ex-pats and USAID/Embassy people. They didn't understand what was going on. To them, it was all aid, economics, and how to get people to plan their families. Many were highly critical of the people and the country, and some were fearful -- some of it founded, of course, but a great deal out of misunderstanding. This is what happens if you stay on the surface. I have likened Africa to going to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles: the grass looks like a regular park if you stick to the sidewalks, but when you walk on the grass, you find that the tar is seeping up and is all over your shoes. The bucolic scene is really an illusion. This is what it's like. It may have a veneer of modernity and Christianity, but the old life is still there, the old beliefs are still there, and it sticks to you.

 

[tyder001]

anthrowmom I certainly appreciate your starting this thread. When I first saw it I thought "Oh Lord not another look at me I'm an enlighthened atheist and I'm trying to save the sky god believers from themselves." However, your answers have been well thought out and honest.

I have a problem with true believers be they atheist or Christian. I mention those two because I grew up with only those two worldviews represented so that's really all I knew in my youth. (which was a long time ago now.) I consider myself a skeptic. If by skeptic you mean somebody who follows their own path and has their own life experience and has to pretty much see it or experience it to believe it. On the other hand if by skeptic you mean somebody who thinks we all came here by the "accident" of a primordial soup and that the human spirit is no more than a chemical reaction and an offshoot of the evolutinary process as oppossed to a reason for the process then no. In that case I would be lumped in with the creationist and the fanactics and the religous nuts. Although I assure you I don't belong in those camps.

I find myself wanting to go back to the "church" my wife and I were married in. Not because I think it's the only way or that I'm a sinner. I enjoyed the quiet time with my own conversation with God during the worship and the Communion services. However, because I'm not a right wing repulican (or a left wing dem for that matter) Also, because I do doubt and even reject much of the dogma of the church I'm not sure I can ever really go back. I say that to say this. You might find that even though you share certain "feelings" and worldviews with the "Brights" that you will not be able to follow the herd. In time the very things that (rightly, in my opinion) caused you to move away from so called magical thinking may also cause you to take a step back from an organization that follows a purely outdated 18 centuray mechanistic worldview. But, I could be wrong. Either way I look forward to reading more of your experiences in Africa and other places.

Peace.

 

[pixelsmith]

I am a member of the Not-So-Brights. We don't give a rats ass what anyone thinks.

 

[anthromom]

Tyder001, I think our brand of skepticism has much in common. If somebody tells me people believe in gods because there is good data that a "god spot" in the brain produces the experience of perceiving a higher power when probed, I will acknowledge that such a spot most likely exists. But I will not interpret the presence of such a place in the brain to mean that the perception is illusory. This requires a second step for which I don't think there is information. And I don't think we know enough about "consciousness" to be able to conclude absolutely that our sense of being-ness is just an artifact of neurons, meat and DNA. The truth is we don't know -- and the evolutionary biologists and neurologists don't know either.

I know a couple of women in the Brights group I'm in who practically idolize Christopher Hitchens. I don't idolize anyone, although I'm awfully fond of Michio Kaku's work, and if I'd want to be like anyone, it would be Saint Frances of Assisi.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

Photo of my rat Marshmallow's "rat's ass" added to my photo album. Rats, as I am sure you know, are quite "bright."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I've started to come around to the school of thought of letting people believe what they want to believe. As long as no one is getting hurt emotionally or financially (which is why people like Sylvia Browne piss me off), the rest is fine. Just don't tell me your opinion is more valid than mine. It probably is in your mind, but not in mine.

To the regular posters, sorry I've been gone for so long, I've been REALLY busy over the last few weeks.

 

[tyder001]

I was just thinking about you. Hadn't seen you around in a little while. Hope things are well.

Oh, wait I was just thinking...then you posted....

Welcome back.