User:Archola/Bright

''Disclaimer: This is filtered through my own worldview as a religious radical centralist. Radical centrism attempts to foster cooperation through communication and compromise. While I recognize the gray fallacy, I believe that most dichotomys/dillemas are false, and that the truth usually lies along either the mean or the excluded middle. As a Lutheran I profess the adage, "Blessed are the peacemakers." I also recognize that much of the following is subjective.''

Thesis: Robert Steadman (User:Robsteadman) brings a unique worldview to the Jesus discussion by serving as a "devil's advocate" of sorts, forcing us to examine the subject from viewpoints we may never otherwise have considered. However, his points often become lost through conflict. His behavior is often disruptive, leading to repeated edit wars, talk-page fights and interuption of discourse.

Professed worldview of Robert Steadman
Robert Steadman's worldview differs significantly from that of the most active participants, many of which are either post-Enlightenment rationalist (including a number of secular historians) or metaphysical (including a range of religious views).

Rob's professed worldview is:

1. Athiest: No god/s. Some athiests confirm the historical, secular carpenter turned rabbi named Yeshua. Rob, however, does not.

2. Bright: This is a complex meme set that arose from the perception that the Enlightenment was somehow left unfinished, and thus the Bright meme is inherently transformational. Brights seek to improve the world through promotion of their core beliefs. It is not known how long the Bright meme has existed; Carl Sagan was arguably a Bright (cf. The Demon Haunted World). The word, however, arose from a relatively recent (c. 2003) social movement professing this worldview. The movement also has a historic connection to the theory of memetics. The word "Bright" was coined to refer back to the Enlightenment. The connotation that members are "Bright" while the earlier movement was merely "lit" is intentional. Reference was also made to the way the meaning of "gay" has changed over time, originally meaning "happy" and now meaning "homosexual." Brights similarly seek to claim the term "bright" for themselves.

2.1 Brights value naturalism over supernaturalism. This is arguably their primary value.

2.2 Brights value rationalism over irrationalism, and reason over emotion. "Rationalism" refers to the Enlightenment definition, ie logical positivism and/or scientism. Formal logic is less likely, as Rob had refused to consider philosophic proofs.

2.3 Brights value skepticism over uncritical belief acceptance. A Bright adage is "Demand proof," without which there is no fact. Provisional truths are merely guesses.

A Bright may conflate one or more of these points, ie by asserting that naturalism is inherently rational, and supernaturalism is inherently irrational. The transformational nature of the movement may lead to activism or a strong sense of identity or purpose (although I'm less sure about this point).

Beyond accepting the core beliefs, being a "Bright" is somewhat self-defined. "Anyone who fits the definition and says, "I am a Bright" is a Bright." (Source: the-brights.net.) This may be more a matter of recognition than decision.

Although Brights are formally inclusionist (beyond the core beliefs), the transformational and somewhat elitist nature of the movement may make communication with a non-Bright difficult. In Rob's case this has led to marginalization through social dynamics, which a Bright may attribute to repression by one of the "lower" values, ie supernaturalism. Rob has made repeated references to the "god squad." A similar pattern may be inferred from the website the-brights.net: "Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures, even politically/socially repressed." It is important to note that it is Rob's behavior, not his worldview, that I take issue with.

3. Rob's user page affirms the following world view, based on quizfarm.com. (It should be noted that Rob characterizes the test as "daft.")

3.1. Modernist: 100%. Consistent with the Bright meme.

3.2. Materialist: 100%. Consistent with the Bright meme.

3.3. Existentialist: 88%. Consistent with the Bright meme.

3.4. Postmodernist 69%. Rob likely recognizes the value of metanarratives, but holds his own to be superior.

3.5. Cultural creative: 38%: Another recent paradigm beyond the Modernist/Tradionalist dichtomy. Cultural creatives tend to be open-minded, optimistic, altruistic and in search of their self-identity (creating their own culture, hence the name). Rob scores somewhat weakly on this scale.

3.6. Romanticist: 25%. Since romanticists value emotion over reason, this is consistant with the Bright meme.

3.7. Fundamentalism: 25%. As Brights tend to be progressive, this is consistent with the meme.

3.8. Idealism 0%. This is what I find most disturbing. Rob has no idealism whatsoever--everything relies on cold hard fact. Rob has also professed an insistence on physical proof even where this may be inappropriate.

Rob and other viewpoints on the Jesus article
1. Religion: To Rob, religion is largely if not entirely refuted. Rob has little use for religion except possibly in the cultural and ceremonial senses.

2. Critical historicity: There is more commonality here, although Rob asserts that historians have accepted the claims of Christians uncritically. Historians have followed a method similar to Sherlock Holmes' adage "Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Rob goes beyond normal skepticism (dismissing what is impossible under the naturalistic worldview) to dismiss even the possible without physical proof.

The secular historical view of Jesus is:

a) A lower-class carpenter turned Rabbi,

b) whose power was charismatic and thus outside the traditional power structure, and

c) from the Jewish culture, whose strong oral tradition explains the lack of "extant contemporaneous documents," especially twenty centuries later.

Considering all of the above, it would be extraordinary (one might say a miracle) if any incontrovertable physical evidence would have survived outside the movement that Jesus started. Yet such a miracle is exactly what Rob has requested. Allusions have been made to Socrates and other figures from antiquity, yet Rob refuses to allow the comparison (except, for some reason, to Julius Ceasar. Rob repeadedy refers to coins with Ceasar's inscription, yet refused to explain how this would relate to Jesus, who inscribed no coins).

Rob also confuses the historicity of a,b,c above with such details as:

1) The Star of the Magi

2) The Slaughter of the Innocents and

3) The feeding of the Five Thousand.

1 and 3 are possibly supernaturalist, and 2 flows from 1. It's not surprising that Rob, as a Bright, would discount 1, 2, and 3. So have many secular historians. However, Rob further asserts that 1, 2 and 3 cast doubt on a, b and c, an assertion with which few secular historians agree.

Behavior
Rob holds a definition of NPOV that goes beyond Wikipedia's definition and arguably equates with his own worldview. He has been known to repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy such as 3RR and WP:POINT. Rob dismisses edits he does not agree with as "vandalism." Rob's behavior has polarized the talk page to the extent that he marginalizes his own position: many feel that he represents "the fringe view," although I still prefer to remain open-minded at this point.

There has also been heated exchange that both sides have percieved as personal attacks. Rob has made comments that are offensive to Christians (perhaps to all religions) and critical historians alike. Rob also refuses to consider other viewpoints than his own, considering them conflating the values of Bright-Ism with what he considers lower values, e.g. defining "faith" as "an attempt to lower the reasoned and rational to that of the irrational."

Rob has made repeated assertions that he has been unwilling or unable to take to first principles, leading others to perceive his statements as dogmatic, psuedoskeptical, or relying on fallacies such as proof by assertion and argument from silence. It should be noted that some of his assertions can be shown to flow logically from his worldview as defined above. It should also be noted that, in light of his worldview, we have also made remarks that he considers offensive. For a Bright, the word "faith" is doubly offensive as it implies both supernaturalism and unskeptical belief. Likewise "dogma" attacks his values of rationalism and skepticism. It should be noted that Rob refuted my "pseudoskepticism" remark by professing himself as a Bright, on which I base my above analysis. Unfortunately, Rob refuses to apply these principals to his own behavior.

It should be noted that recent attempts have been made to engage Rob in extended rational discourse (re:Point, Counterpoint, Wikipoint). Avery Krouse has made an impressive attempt to appeal to Rob as an enlightened individual, asking him to consider the broader view and not to get caught up in the heat of the moment. Such efforts have met with some, but limited, success. This may be because these are essentially Enlightenment techniques, and as a Bright Rob feels that he has moved beyond being merely "lit." In retrospect, it is not surprising that Avery's attempt failed, considering Rob's utter lack of idealism as per: the Quizfarm poll.

Some wikipedians have lost their temper at times, which only affirms Rob's belief that he is more rational than we are. Both Rob and some others have arguably violated civility, although both sides have arguably provoked the other and feel justified in their complaints.

Solutions
I am open to suggestions. Keep all comment belowArch O. La 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)