...there's been a fair bit of resistance to the term "Bright" already, some from people who might otherwise be sympathetic (e.g. some of the folks on Crooked Timber), some from creationists and their apologists (like this guy, Michael Rea) with whom there can be no accomodation anyway. Like Dennett, I agree with Dawkins when he says "it is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked). . .", although I might take care to point out that otherwise smart people can have stupid beliefs, or keep themselves wilfully ignorant of facts supporting positions that they don't agree with. (To argue, as Rea does, that a position must be respectable if a lot of people, including "well-educated and otherwise reasonable, honest, and sound-minded individuals", hold it is, well, ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. Not only is that fallacious reasoning, but counter-examples are obvious--so obvious that it's clear that Rea doesn't count as reasonable, honest, and sound-minded on the topic.)
Still, judging by the reaction I've seen so far, "Bright" does seem to be overreaching.
Interesting misunderstanding here. I don't claim that "lots of smart, honest, etc. people believe that p" implies "p is respectable". I claim, in short, that you shouldn't demand respect from people whose views you dismiss as not respectable. Somebody here needs to read a bit more closely before dismissing me as unreasonable, dishonest, and non-sound-minded on this topic.
Posted by: michael rea at July 22, 2003 08:55 PMSorry, but no matter how closely I read I just don't see what "The problem, however, is that Dennett wants to dismiss as intolerable (and fanatical) not only marginal, radical religious views but also some that are widely held by well-educated and otherwise reasonable, honest, and sound-minded individuals." is trying to convey unless it's the implication you deny. Without that implication, what's "the problem"? If your claim is merely that respect ought to be reciprocal, then how widely held the views are is, or ought to be, irrelevant, no?
Posted by: Joshua at July 22, 2003 08:56 PMWell, my point isn't exactly that respect is reciprocal. A physicist professor is well within his rights demanding respect (on the topic of physics) from those wholly ignorant of physics while at the same time disrespecting whatever crackpot views about physics that they might come up with. (And, I'd say, the same goes in biology.) But among relevantly well-educated and otherwise reasonable, honest, and sound-minded individuals, respect (generally) ought to be reciprocal. So it does matter for my point, I think, that there are creatonists who are (relevantly) well-educated, reasonable, etc. If there weren't such people, then I'd think Dennett was well within his rights for showing the disrespect that he seems to show.
Perhaps it's instructive to compare Dennett with another public opponent of creationism: Philip Kitcher. Kitcher's attacks on creationism (as it is defended by Henry Morris & co.) are, I think, terrific, on target, and both respectful and disrespectful in exactly the right places, at least so far as I remember. He doesn't (to my recollection) say that one would have to be a fool to be a creationist; but he does, quite rightly and quite appropriately, cast aspersions on various developments of the view. If it seemed that this were all that Dennett and Dawkins were doing, I'd have no objection.
Posted by: michael rea at July 22, 2003 08:57 PM