Being smart has never been easier. (I'm really talking about being perceived as smart, which, arguably, isn't always the same thing as being smart.) Of course, in this data-drenched age of ours, when a single Google search can culminate in factual overload, any claim to having smarts should be a tough sell, what with the factual-knowledge bar resting higher now than ever before in human history. Surely, there must be some long and torturous test involved, and the competition has got to be murderous, right? Actually, no. To join the society of smart people, all you have to do is opt for being rational. That's it.
Opting for being rational, of course, refers to rejecting superstition and fantasy and the Republican Party. In short, it means saying no to religion. This isn't as harsh as it may sound. In practice, saying no to religion can mean 1) being an atheist, 2) being "spiritual" but not religious, 3) being religious but rejecting "organized" religion, 4) going to church but maintaining a "whatever" attitude toward the service, or 5) being a person of faith but not one of "those" people of faith. The hardest to pull off is 5), with 1) being the option containing the most perks.
Once you've opted for rationality (by rejecting religion), what's next? Nothing, really. It's all a ritual of allegiance. "Rationality," after all, is left-talk for science, and once we've proclaimed our support for same, we're off the hook. And the benefits that come with taking the side of science... wow. Imagine your every claim and position enjoying the backing--the imprimatur, if you will--of science. For instance, say that you're on line at a religious blog post and you assert, "god believers cant think because their brain washed by the church," and someone takes issue with that obviously factual sentiment. No sweat. Simply point out that, as a person on the side of science, your claims are automatically endorsed by reason, logic, and Richard Dawkins. "Based on fact," after all, means "endorsed by."
And it is very important that we keep our opinions and positions factually-based. Of course, some people even go so far as to equate "factually-based" with "factual," but imagine the following fictional but embarrassing situation, in which a presidential candidate, determined to take a factually-based stance, merely states a statistic:
Moderator: What's your view on poverty in America?
Candidate: 15.1 percent of Americans lived in poverty in 2010.
Moderator: Ohhh-kay. But how do you feel about that statistic?
Candidate: 15.1 percent of Americans lived in poverty in 2010.
Audience: (Laughter)
And whereas, upon learning that 15.1 percent of Americans lived in poverty in 2010, one person might conclude, "Something must be done," another person might look at the same data and say, "Well, it's their fault for not being rich." Both are factually-based, but one is a Democratic sentiment and the other is Tea Party-inspired.
Anyway, back to topic, pledging allegiance to science is the quick and easy step to being smart, at least on today's left. But what if it weren't that simple? What if, to truly be considered smart, one had to actually be a scientist? After all, how many of us are scientists?
Think about it. Suddenly, denouncing faith and/or the faithful wouldn't be enough. Posting platitudes about logic and reason and pointing out that true is the opposite of false--these would no longer suffice. Politicians who intoned, "We need more science education--that'll solve all our problems" might get the funny looks their claim merits. Suddenly, the society of smart lefties would be a much, much smaller group.
The self-proclaimed "brights" in question know this. That's why they keep the ritual of being smart on the level of a salute, why membership in the logic and reason club is based on allegiance. But, in so narrowly defining intelligence (not to mention truth and reason), and making a small subset of our fellow liberals the granters and takers of that label, what are we setting ourselves up for?