This is the argument my dad used to justify "new light"

marmot

I was talking with my dad the other week and I revealed my doubts (well, not doubts really, conviction) that Noah's flood didn't cover the earth.

He tried the usual, first he printed up all the stuff on the flood that he could find on the WT CD (even though I told him that I already read everything the society has ever written about the flood) and when that failed to convince me he brought out the ol' Trust in Jehovah(tm) line

Plus, he said that since I was so enamored with science to disprove the flood I should consider how science doesn't have the same position on certain subjects compared to the past and that it's based on progressive understanding.

This stopped me in my tracks for a bit, but something didn't seem quite right about that line of reasoning. True, science clings tenaciously to views that may be thrown aside after a new discovery is made, but old scientific views aren't covered up and hidden away.

Plus, science has a peer review process, unlike the "new light" system which relies only on the contributions of a self-serving isolated group of old men in an ivory tower in Brooklyn.

uwishufish

You are correct there is peerm review. And old theorys are spoken as stepping stones. New work never reverts to disproven theory of the past as being law.

uwishufish

bttt

Mary

Plus, he said that since I was so enamored with science to disprove the flood I should consider how science doesn't have the same position on certain subjects compared to the past and that it's based on progressive understanding.

Surprisingly, I know a number of Witnesses who secretly believe that Noah's Flood was probably a local event-----not a world-wide event. Of course, they're not allowed to say that very loud, but it's still interesting......

This stopped me in my tracks for a bit, but something didn't seem quite right about that line of reasoning. True, science clings tenaciously to views that may be thrown aside after a new discovery is made, but old scientific views aren't covered up and hidden away.

Nor do scientists insist that you shun family members who believe differently. You should ask your dad how he would feel if, in 5 years time, the GB came out with 'new light' that says Noah's Flood was probably a local event.

nvrgnbk

Our dads think exactly alike.

Irritating isn't it?

Smart guys, just brainwashed.

When everything presented to them is seen through the Watchtower "eye", they can't be deprogrammed.

No information, no matter how damning, will alter their view.

Their self-identity is so tied up in all things Watchtower that to admit that they were duped is to admit to a life wasted.

How many individuals are prepared to do that?

Good luck, marmot.

Anti-Christ

Plus, science has a peer review process, unlike the "new light" system which relies only on the contributions of a self-serving isolated group of old men in an ivory tower in Brooklyn.

I think you hit the nail right on the head there. Science is the search of the truth, trying to understand our world as for the crap tower they take authority as the truth and not the truth as authority. The process of science is very different then the process of religion.

nvrgnbk

Anti-Christ, your post made me think of a quote...

Faith means not wanting to know what is true.

-- Nietzsche

AlphaOmega

The thing with science is that it is continually searching and adding new evidence into the melting pot.
The Watchtower usually ignores new evidence (for example - the cuniform receipts disproving 607 BC etc).

The Watchtower claims to rely on the Bible. The Bible is unchanging - so there cannot be new evidence ensuing from it. So where does the Watchtower find any basis for new evidence that is supposedly contributing to New Light ?

The simple answer is that there cannot be. It simply changes the doctrines to suit it's current drive.
The Watchtower simply announces that things have changed - that they have a "greater understanding" now - based on what ?

Look at the example of the May 1st QFR - what new evidence was brought to light then ? None ! They simply said that they had a "new understanding" (if I remember rightly).

Also, science is not one unified body - hence there are many people all striving for the same goal - that of understanding. It has no overall leadership - and hence no overall body to serve... The new theories and evidence adds to the GLOBAL understanding. It just exsists under the umbrella of "science"...

...unlike the Governing Body.

All the docrines, all the practices are created by them, and fed down. There is no independent research allowed. No "free thinkers" saying, "you know what, maybe XYZ... let's find out if that's a possibility".

The teachings are simply "magicked" into existance. Then the "evidence" is cobbled together in a hurried fashion. Then later that same "evidence" is used to back up a contrary teaching.

Science deals with "what is observed", then theories are created to work out "why it is so", and further evidence created to prove or disprove the hypothesis. It is objective.

Watchtower deals with a problem, then creates the doctrine to plug the gap. This can only ever be a temporary solution.

Anti-Christ

Faith means not wanting to know what is true.

-- Nietzsche

Nice quote

Gopher

So your dad said you were enamored with science, trying to disprove the flood.

There's plenty of evidence that a worldwide flood as described in the Bible is completely unscientific. It's easily found on the web (and has even been discussed in past years on this website). The burden of proof is actually on believers who make the assertion that it happened. It's not on an unbeliever to disprove the myth.

And I would believe your dad is enamored with (the correct phrase is actually "enamored OF") many outputs from the scientific world. Science has developed the breeds and hybrids of many foods he eats. Does he grow all his own food? Science brought him the oven and microwave. Does he cook over the fire? Science brought many conveniences, too many to name. Does he want to give all those up? Science has brought us the Hubble telescope with unparalleled views of our universe. Does he want to give that up?

Science has also brought us many explanations of the world around us, including how life changed to the point where we are (evolution) that have been carefully studied and documented.

Science is a noble endeavor. No wonder you're enamored of science.

This is the argument my dad used to justify "new light"

Share this