The revival of naturalistic humanism under the term The Brights has sparked some interest far outside the usual core groups. The main idea is naturalism. Why, with perfectly good terms like biological naturalism and secular humanism another term was needed is not obvious to me. But, here we are, a movement of people calling themselves brights.

I immediately think of intelligence as processing power, speed and mental agility with which to think up solutions to complex problems. I was considered bright as a kid. And to now don the mantle of Bright? Odd.

You be a Bright; I'll be a Cobden.

Why this term, and not another? Well, I suppose it has something to do with the Enlightenment. I am a partisan of the Enlightenment, and am an unashamed one at that. I lean to the Scottish version, but still, Enlightenment all the same.

I've only skimmed the literature. I haven't read Dawkins on the movement yet. Daniel Dennett, in reply to a religious humanist preacher, has this to say about the new term:

I prefer bright to enlightened, which smacks of revelation, a phenomenon we brights are more than a little skeptical about. The opposite of gay isn’t glum; it's straight — a nice enough epithet, unlike, say, crooked. The opposite of bright isn't dull (or cloudy); it hasn't been coined yet, and could be, if you like, great or splendid. Let those who are not brights hijack the word of their choice and see if it will play.

Well, I'm strongly tempted to disagree with the last point. The opposite of a bright is quite obvious: the benighted.

Can we make a nicer term for them, something they can be proud of? That's up to them, of course, but may I suggest beknighted?

Think of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith. Think of the religious person's sense of chivalry, of going about doing the duty and calling of his or her Master. They see themselves as knight errants. Like knights of yore, they speak very personally of their fealty to a Lord. So call them The Beknighted!