RESPECT

This is another installment of reality from your friendly neighborhood critical thinker. Nathaniel was asking me about RESPECT and I realized that this is a topic that I have always wanted to write about as a humanist. Time to get started….
As with many things in life, most of us would have trouble defining respect poignantly. And yet we use it quite commonly. One of the most common confusions lies in mixing up ‘respect’ with ‘being impressed’. We often do this is our daily lives. ‘Wah…he run 2.4km so fast…respect sia.’ This cheapens the meaning of respect. You are merely impressed with his speed. You can however respect the work that he puts in to achieve that speed. The work which he would have put in to achieve that speed is worthy of respect because it speaks of nobility in action, namely discipline and mental fortitude.
When I deconstruct the concept of respect, I find that it comes in two main forms of which I will discuss below- inter-personal respect and humanist respect.

Inter-personal respect is not a given nor can it be forced. Anybody who demands respect from you and/or uses a position of authority to make you conform to respecting them often are motivated by vanity, egotism and insecurity. Respect should only be earned through noble actions in particular fields and/or character and this happens through social intercourse. Thus inter-personal respect is subjective and not all-encompassing of an individual. The reality is that an individual may be worthy of respect in one field of life but not others.

The above however does not reduce in any way humanist rights [which are universally given and an increasingly institutionalized form/s of respect] that we accord to each other as fellow equal members of the human family. We should also accord this respect to animals as humanists given that we are equal living creatures with no biological or moral superiority.
Institutionalized ‘respect’ is another facet of ‘respect’ that is a reality in everyday life. It is put in place by institutions and enforced with sanctions. Therefore it is not genuine respect. It is merely a façade and an act of submission/subjugation of one’s will in the presence and knowledge of an unequal power nexus. Therefore I did not place institutionalized respect in my conceptual understanding of ‘respect’.
In summary, we accord humanist respect to all because we acknowledge our equality. Interpersonal respect however is earned through demonstrating nobility in action and/or character. And everyday heroes who are indeed worthy of our respect are everywhere if only we carefully looked.

Critical analysis of Hamza Andrea Tzortis' lecture- Islam or Atheism. Which one makes more sense

I apologise. My shift keys are busted. Therefore I could not key in question marks in the title.

This is not a post on Islam. Hamza asks “Islam or atheism: which makes more sense?” Therefore this is a post on fallacies in critical thought. I am a proponent of critical thought and will be intellectually honest. I am not an atheist. I am a proponent of critical thought, a humanist and a naturalist. Please do not take the position of a creed against me. I have written multiple posts on multiple subjects of illogical and uncritical thought. Read my critical analysis of his talk and judge for yourself if I have wronged him by identifying the fallacies in critical thought below that he had committed. (Question everything and everyone and that includes me.)

Hamza does not understand philosophy as he so claims. Since he clearly states that he is using rationality and philosophy to prove his case, he deserves to be judged on that basis.
He states that his position is one of a rationalist. Then he should know that an asserted casual chain with no proven premise (“God exists” is an unfalsifiable claim) only shows the effect. We cannot affirm the consequent from the effect.

His argument that he is of a rationalist stand and that atheists are of an empirical stand are in ‘opposite camps’ is a terrible crime of ‘false dichotomy’. Rationalism and empiricism are mutually supportive tools of critical thought. And by delineating that empiricism is not ‘rational’ in nature is pure intellectual dishonesty.
He then attacks Dawkins personally- ad hominem- thereby emotionally getting the audience on his side before attacking Dawkin’s argument. Dawkins has done this to others before too. We should do well to always remember to avoid this human failing.

He then goes on to try to argue for immateriality of the cause which is unfalsifiable and thereby inconclusive. Once he has taken this step, he can insert any answer that he wants without any proof.

He tries to prove the logic of asking for the regression of cause to be illogical.“ The very question denies the existence of the universe.” Thereby should we not ask the question? Did this line of rational thought not give us many answers to questions in life?

'The cause must have a will.' Yet again, this is unfalsifiable and also not consistent with reality. Not all causes have wills.

"This is so in line with the Quran’s answer.' What he does not educate his audience on is that many other religions also hold this view. Therefore he is engaging in a fallacy of critical thought that is “cherry picking”.
Then he goes on to defend miracles. He states that natural laws are inductive generalisations of patterns in the universe. This is equivocation. Contrary to what he says, Natural laws are overwhelmingly consistent inductive observations of patterns in the universe.

He states that consciousness is immaterial and therefore does not have its roots in matter. This is yet again unfalsifiable. Consciousness is a complex cognitive state that we are still discovering about. Should we not be intellectually cautious and hold our judgments first before we set a cast-in-stone explanation? He says that ‘Dawkins says that he does not know.’ This is a perfectly acceptable position for a critical thinker to admit that you do not know all yet. Why does he fault Dawkins for this?

He then goes on to talk about the Quran as a linguistic miracle. But he fails to educate his audience about other religious text such as the Rig Vedas which are linguistic miracles as claimed by their believers as well. Yet again, this is ‘cherry picking’.

And his argument about the massive following of his faith thereby proving its validity is one of ad populum.

He then goes on an “Atheists have no moral basis” attack. This is the fallacy in critical thought known as “mudslinging”. He reduces the atheistic goal in life to “procreation of DNA” and commits the “straw man” fallacy in critical thought.

In conclusion, Hamza's whole premise for his argument is based on a generalisation that the position of atheists is that of empiricism thereby reducing the two camps into a falsely dichotomous state and his oppon...ent to a 'straw man' [another fallacy in critical thought] which he then proceeds to knock down. In the process, he commits many other fallacies in critical thought. Therefore his entire argument is not sound nor maximally reasonable.

Tom Harpur- Horus and Jesus

Horus preceded Jesus as a historic record by roughly 2000 years. There were 180 exact parallels between these two man-Gods. Below are some of these similarities.

Both

- were conceived by virgins
- were fathered by Gods.
- foster fathers were of royal descent.
- their births were heralded by a star, announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.
- survived death threats when they were young.
- had missing life histories from age 12-30 and were later baptized at 30.
- their baptizers were beheaded.
- were tempted in the desert by their rivals and resisted.
- walked on water, healed the sick, revived the dead and restored sight to the blind
- were executed and resurrected.