Atheism as a Valid Religious Point of View - Dec 15

 In our recent meeting a link to a "debate" was shared between Stephen Colbert and Ricky Gervais over the extent of  differences in beliefs between those that believe in one God, and those who do not believe in any god.  In one case a "believer" (Colbert) denies the existence of all the gods that have ever been identified but one, and a non-believer (Gervais) denies all those plus even this last one.  Ricky points out that Stephen rejects 2,999 of 3,000 gods, and Ricky rejects all 3,000.  So, what's all the fuss about?

Thinking about this argument strategy, I thought it might be a good time to revisit the concept of atheism.  I asked Bard to develop an outline that could be used to justify that atheism is a valid religious point of view.  Bard responded:

<Bard> Sure, here is an outline of an argument that atheism is a valid religious point of view:

Introduction

• Define atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
• Explain that atheism is not the same as agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
• State the thesis that atheism is a valid religious point of view.

Body Paragraph 1: Atheism as a Belief System

• Discuss how atheism has a coherent worldview that explains the universe and human existence without the need for supernatural forces.
• Highlight the ethical and moral principles that many atheists uphold, such as humanism, compassion, and justice.
• Address common misconceptions about atheism, such as the idea that atheists are immoral or that atheism is a rejection of spirituality.

Body Paragraph 2: Atheism in History and Culture

• Provide examples of prominent atheists throughout history, such as philosophers, scientists, and activists.
• Explore the cultural and religious diversity within the atheist community.
• Address the historical persecution and marginalization of atheists in various societies.

Body Paragraph 3: The Legal Recognition of Atheism

• Discuss the increasing legal recognition of atheism around the world.
• Examine the arguments for and against the inclusion of atheism as a protected religion.
• Address the challenges and opportunities for atheists in promoting their beliefs and practices.

Conclusion

• Reiterate the argument that atheism is a valid religious point of view.
• Emphasize the importance of respecting the beliefs of others, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.
• Call for greater understanding and tolerance of atheism in society.  <End>

<Des>  Bard does not provide the hard facts and data that they suggest form the supporting basis of their suggestions, which I think is a good thing.  The reader is left to ask the right questions and find the information Bard points out in the outline.  That is what Google is for.  

Philosophy of Invasion - Nov. 17

 Broadly speaking, can one country invade another and use any of the philosophical perspectives noted below as a justification?  I asked Google's Bard AI to identify the philosophical basis for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Bard nicely outlined several, and offered supporting and contradictory points of view on each.  Basic human evil even made the list, in both radical and benign versions.  We have discussed the nature of evil in the past, but have not really dissected it into these particular types, although WW2 could certainly be invoked as a key example.

My hope is that we can go down the list and consider the issues as Bard has presented them.  What list would Bard have generated if we considered the Hamas/Israeli war?

<Des> What philosophical issues were raised when Russia invaded Ukraine?

<Bard> Russia's invasion of Ukraine raises a number of philosophical issues, including:

• Just war theory: Is the invasion justified under just war theory? Just war theory is a set of ethical principles that govern the use of military force. It holds that war is only justified as a last resort, in self-defense, and to achieve a just peace. Some philosophers argue that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified under just war theory, as it is a response to NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's alleged genocide of Russian speakers in the Donbas region. Others argue that the invasion is not justified, as it is not a last resort, it is not proportionate to the threat posed by NATO or Ukraine, and it is unlikely to achieve a just peace.

• Self-determination: Does Ukraine have the right to self-determination? The right to self-determination is a fundamental human right that allows people to freely choose their own political status and form of government. Russia has argued that Ukraine's right to self-determination is limited by its own security interests. However, most philosophers and international law experts agree that Ukraine has the right to self-determination, and that Russia's invasion is a violation of this right.

• Humanitarian intervention: Is it permissible to intervene militarily in Ukraine to protect civilians? Humanitarian intervention is the use of military force to protect civilians from human rights abuses, without the consent of the government responsible for those abuses. Some philosophers argue that humanitarian intervention is permissible, even when it violates the principle of state sovereignty. Others argue that humanitarian intervention is only permissible when the human rights abuses are very severe, and when there is a good chance of success.

• The responsibility to protect: Does the international community have a responsibility to protect civilians in Ukraine? The responsibility to protect is a norm in international law that holds states responsible for protecting their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its own population, the international community has a responsibility to intervene. Most philosophers and international law experts agree that the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians in Ukraine.

• The nature of evil: What does Russia's invasion of Ukraine tell us about the nature of evil? Some philosophers have argued that the invasion is an example of radical evil, which is evil that is committed without any moral qualms or regard for the suffering of others. Others have argued that the invasion is an example of banal evil, which is evil that is committed by ordinary people who are following orders or simply going along with the crowd.

These are just a few of the philosophical issues raised by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The war is a complex and challenging event, and there is no easy answers to the questions it raises. However, by thinking critically about these issues, we can gain a better understanding of the war and its implications for the future of international relations. <end of Bard's response>

Nov 3 - Be skeptical, Very skeptical...

 I recently listened to Bergstrom and West's new book Calling Bullshit.  The authors are UW professors, one in biology and one in information science.  They highlight popular topics, scientific papers, political statements, and more, and show how statements made are misleading, data used to support topics is not valid for any of several reasons, hypotheses are incomplete or developed after the study was underway, and so much more.  It is a full course given at UW, condensed to some extent to be presented in just over of 10 hours if all you do is listen.

I thought we might discuss how we each protect ourselves from the ubiquitous barrage of dis- and mis-information that surrounds us every day.  Perhaps you can bring your favorite BS statement that we can debunk, or at least dissect.

The publisher's blurb taken from Audible.com:

Bullshit isn’t what it used to be. Now, two science professors give us the tools to dismantle misinformation and think clearly in a world of fake news and bad data.

Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news abound, and it’s increasingly difficult to know what’s true. Our media environment has become hyperpartisan. Science is conducted by press release. Start-up culture elevates bullshit to high art. We are fairly well equipped to spot the sort of old-school bullshit that is based in fancy rhetoric and weasel words, but most of us don’t feel qualified to challenge the avalanche of new-school bullshit presented in the language of math, science, or statistics. In Calling Bullshit, Professors Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West give us a set of powerful tools to cut through the most intimidating data.

You don’t need a lot of technical expertise to call out problems with data. Are the numbers or results too good or too dramatic to be true? Is the claim comparing like with like? Is it confirming your personal bias? Drawing on a deep well of expertise in statistics and computational biology, Bergstrom and West exuberantly unpack examples of selection bias and muddled data visualization, distinguish between correlation and causation, and examine the susceptibility of science to modern bullshit.

We have always needed people who call bullshit when necessary, whether within a circle of friends, a community of scholars, or the citizenry of a nation. Now that bullshit has evolved, we need to relearn the art of skepticism.