Please note that everything I write here is within the context of discussions between two Witnesses. Conversations between a JW and non JW are different in a number of ways and so I will not be discussing them here.
Many of us have tried to 'reason' with JW friends and family only to end up in frustration. This is no surprise being that JWs are instructed each week on how to use sophisticated techniques in their discussions. While they do not recognize that there is a method they are using to debate and discuss, they clearly do have one.
Many of the methods use to discuss their religion contain common fallacies in argumentation. It is important to recognize that the JW has been instructed and taught that these fallacies are actually not fallacies at all, but instead are proper intellectual reasoning! Each week at the Kingdom Hall JWs will joke about the people they stumped with their 'good reasonings', they will give parts and talks about how to box people into a corner when debating them, and much more. They live in a world in which praises and rewards bad methods of reasoning. So while it is obvious to us their arguments are totally bogus, within the JW social environment they are completely 'sound' arguments.
What are some of the fallacies that JWs will typically use?
The Something Better fallacy:
The most common of these I call the "something better" fallacy. In this false line of reasoning the JW will ignore any of the arguments you put forth because in his mind you cannot offer them 'something better' for him to believe. This reasoning comes out of a common teaching that JWs are given by the WTS, mainly that apostates can only 'tear down' the faith, but never offer anything better to believe. They are told this many times.
The Check-list fallacy
In addition to their accusations that those who leave can't offer something better, JWs are routinely given check-lists which help them 'determine truth'. Typically such lists look something like this:
Only in the "true religion" you will find...
- a rejection of the pagan trinity
- a rejection of hellfire
- a rejection of immortality of the soul
- use of the divine name Jehovah
- true Christian neutrality, and a loving brotherhood."
- the only unified brotherhood on earth
The above list is a minor sampling of the different things contained of the Watchtowers 'check-list' reasoning. Things they teach must be present in order for true religion to be present.
This "check-list" system then becomes part of the reasoning tools used by JWs. They are taught that in order to find 'something better' it must meet all of the criteria as found in the checklists. It is important to note that the JW will honestly believe the checklist is coming from the Bible alone and not some human religious institution. The truth is that the checklists are coming from the Watchtower. The WTS is then able to teach its members to judge the world by a checklist that they know nobody else but themselves can 'pass'.
The 'Running Ahead' fallacy
This fallacy basically falls into an argumentum ad hominem. It mainly consists of accusing anybody critical of the Society with 'running ahead' of the organization, thus having selfish interior motives for their disagreements. It is a common fallacy not exclusive to JWs. By accusing others of improper motives and desires the JW is able to move the discussion away from places he is not able to handle and make the discussion about peripheral subjects not related to the core discussion.
Understanding why these methods are fautly:
No matter what the topic is (1914, 607, Blood, Disfellowshipping, ect.) the end result of a conversation critical of the Watchtower and its teachings will be listening to a JW using these methods to 'prove his point'. This is why actual discussions about particular topics can many times proves frustrating and fruitless. Many times those who are critical of the Society want to discuss things based on a proper view of reasoning and thinking, while the JW wants to use unfair methods in the discussion.
So what exactly makes these reasonings bad?
I'll first start with the something better fallacy.
The biggest flaw with this reasonoing is what it does not account for. The primary assumption is that one should demand 'something better' before he leaves a religious system. Failure to provide 'something better' is interpreted as showing that that person is lost and therefore an unreliable source of information.
Taking this reasoning outside the context of JWs, it is very easy to see why it is fautly. What the entire reasoning presupposes is that it is not possible to determine if a religion is true or false without have 'all' the answers needed to refute the system. This is just a totally crazy proposition. See what happens when we put this in an entirely differant context:
Instead of talking about the Watchtower we will instead talk about the LDS Church (Mormons). Does a person need to figure out 'something better' in order to leave the LDS church? Is finding 'something better' completely necessary to help evaluate whether or not the claims made by the LDS church are true or not? The answer is obviously no. A person can verify the claims and teachings of that religion apart from figuring out what is 'better'. The system stands upon its own claims and not that of another system of beliefs. The LDS member does not have to know why every single interpretation and teaching is wrong to decide that Joseph Smith never recieved Golden tablets, that a lost tribe of jews traveled to America, or any other of the churches claims. They can be verified independently.
Likewise, the Watchtower Society makes many different historical claims about itself that can easily be verified by looking in the older publications. By going back and seeing if what happened is what the WTS says happened we can see if they are giving us the truth about themselves or not. All sorts of claims are made regarding scientific data (earthquakes, famine ect.), in addition all sorts of things are said to have been going on in the organization itself during the 1918/19 divine appointment by God of the religion. These things can be independently verified to be true or false apart from finding 'something better'. Thus, to recognize the Wathcotwer is not who they claim to be can be verified on the basis of it's own claims about itself and the world around us and not against the backdrop of 'something better'.
Any JW would agree that a person can leave a church like the LDS, recognize it as a false institution but not actually know what real truth is. When this is applied to their own group though, they will make the unfair demands that the person them tell them what the real 'truth' is.
I would say that the check-list idea really is directly related to the something better method of reasoning. The two kind of go hand in hand. It works somewhat as a trap. The JW will first get you to offer up 'something better' and then once you do, he will tear it down based on all of the things in the 'check-list'. If you are then able to overcome any of his arguments in the check-list (and these are the discussions that end up lasting hours) the JW will eventually accuse you of "running ahead" and have selfish motives. At the end of it all you feel like you are running in circles, never making any progress with them.
How to use this understanding to your benefit
Understanding where people "are" is a major requirement in knowing how to effectively help people.
My suggestion is that instead of focusing on an actual argument about particular doctrines, historical facts, biblical interpretations and the like, one should rather focus on introducing proper methods of thinking to the person.
As time went on I learned how to do this with my wife. Rather than try to tell her 'what to think', I focused on the fundamentals of 'how' to think.
If you go right into trying to show a JW errors in the religion they will simply reinterpret whatever you show them. "That's not a lie, it's just a mistake!" is a very common response.
Instead of trying to find all the right 'facts' needed to break through, do little things to help the person pick out what bad reasoning is. Eventually they will make the connection.
One thing I liked to do was point out how bogus similar arguments appears in other religious institutions. I'd point out how flawed disfellowshipping is in the LDS or Mennonite church for instance. The same arguments are used by those groups to support the practice that JWs use, so when you show how in error they are you are indirectly criticizing the Watchtower. Open ended questions are great as well. Try to leave things open and let them connect the dots.
Don't get me wrong, this can be very hard as well. Answers such as 'since we alone have Gods spirit we are better' can always put a damper on things. But remember what you are up against. Things are many times no where near as bad as we picture them to be.
There is no 'official' way to talk with JWs. The above discussion only scratches the surface of what exactly is going on inside of the mind of a JW. Take time to learn about the people you wish to have meaningful conversations with. Understand that they have not only been mislead on what to think, but are also being taught the wrong ways on how to think.
Things to understand about talking to a Jehovah's Witness...
by drew sagan 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
drew sagan
-
Sirona
Wow excellent post.
I agree with you completely that they will just say that the JWs have made mistakes and they'll alter their views when you tell them what is wrong with the religion.
How would you suggest helping them to think outside of the box without being too obvious?
Thanks
Sirona
-
Awakened07
Thanks. A nicely put and well thought out post. I think I'll put it in my Favorites.
-
drew sagan
I think a great way to go about it is talking about how these bad methods of thinking are present in other groups. If you tie what these other groups do and say with JWs, make sure to keep it brief. What you really want is for them to recognize bad reasonings on their own. Trying to point them out can be very confrontational and that is something to be avoided imo.
-
JeffT
Drew regarding the "check list"
Have you (or any of the rest of you) read "Apostles of Denial" by Edmund Gruss. I read it as part of my research when I was leaving. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. He points out that large chunks of Witness doctrine is built around what they don't believe, not what they do believe. I.E. we don't believe the trinity, we don't believe in hellfire. If those concepts didn't exist, they 'd have nothing to talk about, since that is how they define themselves. Their whole religion is built on a foundation of stuff they DO NOT believe. Odd way to establish your religion.
-
drew sagan
JeffT
Have not read the book but understand the concept quite well, i'll have to check it out.
Ever since C.T. Russell the Watchtower has always been 'topic' based. Certain topics where chosen by Russell as points of discussion. His final conclusions on these subjects really seem to be at the 'core' of Watchtower teaching. Usually the conclusion is a rejection of a mainstream doctrine and it's subsequent replacement.
In the Watchtower the rejection of a doctrine is usually seen as much more important that actual acceptance of the new doctrine. This is because it is much more advantageous for the Watchtower to make you believe that everybody else on this planet is corrupt rather than focus on all the details as to why their assumptions are correct.
Remember that 'brighter light' can actually change what they do believe at any time. That is why they seek to define themselves by what they reject.
The idea of discerning wheather or not the Watchtower has been chosen of God independently of the rejection and/or acceptance of doctrinal teachings is something a JW has a hard time comprehending. Because the methods used to convert a new member are based on the "check-list" system, a person entering the Watchtower is taught a distorted method of how to evaluate information from the very beginning.
I really do think it is important to realize how from the very beginning potential converts are instructed in bad methods of reasoning. It's really key to understanding how people end up getting stuck in the Watchtower. -
neverendingjourney
Dawg recently had a topic where he said that he had forgone any attempt to argue doctrine with the Witnesses. He made that comment in regards to a JW who came on the board a few days ago taking an anti-trinitarian approach and claiming that most apostates embrace the trinity doctrine once they leave. My response, which I feel applies in the context of your topic as well, was as follows:
It’s funny that you mention this because I spent a considerable part of the day thinking about this very thing. I think you have to keep the concepts that underlie the Jehovah’s Witness world view in mind when dealing with them. They have become convinced that: (1) the Bible is the inerrant word of God, (2) Armageddon is just around the corner, and that the (3) the only way to survive Armageddon is to be an active member in good standing with the Jehovah’s Witness religious organization (4) which is the only religious organization on the planet that has God’s blessing and (5) is the only channel that He’s using to communicate his will to mankind. Once they accept these basic premises, NOTHING you say will convince them to leave. You can’t argue logic because they are trained to disregard logic and obey the organization first. Remember those precious reminders about how Abraham obeyed Jehovah despite how illogical the command to kill his own son might have seemed to him?
In order to get people to accept those premises they begin by teaching them simple doctrines, such as the rejection of the traditional Christian concept of the trinity, which appears to be a slam dunk, at least when exclusively using their religious literature. Since the majority of those JWs not born in are recruited whey they are at emotional low points in their life and already searching for God or “the truth,” it only takes a few of these “slam dunk” doctrines to get them hooked. First they roll out the beliefs on the trinity, the immortal soul, paradise earth, and so on. Then the recruit becomes convinced that the witness must have the truth because these beliefs are clearly right and they are a rejection of mainstream Christianity. The “where else can we go” mentality begins to sink in, and then they just accept all of the other stuff that has little or no support (the faithful and discreet slave teaching, 1914, etc.) later once they have already become convinced that the witnesses have the truth. At this point, circular logic becomes firmly entrenched and logic will NEVER convince any witness that has reached this level to leave.
For instance, if the society says apostates are mean, evil, deceitful people, in the mind of a loyal JW they are. Why? Because the FDS says so. And the FDS was appointed by God. And God’s word, the Bible, is infallible. And if I want to survive Armageddon I must obey the FDS. And I must obey because the FDS says to, etc. Besides, where else will I go? Mainstream Christendom embraces all of these false doctrines that only the JWs reject. You get the point.
From my perspective, the only way to use logic to get a JW to leave the religion is to catch them when they have become disillusioned with the religion or are otherwise in a position where they are willing to begin to entertain the idea that maybe things are not truly as the FDS says they are. If you can start to put some chinks in the protective armor of their underlying premises, then you might be able to make logic work for you. But a JW will only allow anyone to put chinks in their armor if they are willing to let you do so, provided that they are a true, blue believer. Otherwise, the witness will dismiss what you say and repeat the “obey the slave” mantra in his mind.
Back to the original JW poster, although I didn’t read his post, I assume that he’s arguing about the trinity because that doctrine forms part of the most basic, core doctrines that a person learns and accepts when in the process of embracing JWism. If he’s a legitimate believer (and I always doubt how a true believer can bring themselves to post on JWD), he’s simply trying to bring us apostates back to square one and become JWs again. He’s expressing the most basic doctrines that are used to lead people down the path of embracing Jehovah’s Witness religious thought. Perhaps he thinks that if we can be reminded of how solid the JW’s anti-trinity teaching is, we’ll somehow go down the same road he went down when becoming a Witness. Or, perhaps, he’s just using this topic, which I thought was the easiest point to argue while out in service, in an attempt to win a debate against the dreaded apostates. Whatever the case may have been, I agree with your point overall. Arguing dogma with a Witness doesn’t work, and it doesn’t work because of the existence of those underlying, airtight premises that they accept, premises that only lead to circular reasoning and the dismissal of any arguments that go against the teachings of the FDS.
-
drew sagan
neverendingjourney
Thanks for posting those comments.
I've been a supporter of not getting into doctrinal arguments with JWs for quite some time. They are really pointless. The main thrust of a JWs argumentation is getting you to say what you believe so he can tear it down. It is much better to function outside of that reasoning. If you do not discuss with the JW things he has been trained to tear down the conversation can go much better.
Recognizing exactly what they do believe (like Dawg pointed out in the that first paragraph) and then realizing exactly how they intend to support those beliefs (what i've posted in this topic) can help a person avoid pointless debates about things unrelated to the main issue at hand, that being "has the Watchtower been chosen by God and is there any substantial proof? -
startingover
Great stuff! Nothing I can add, just marking for further reference.
-
drew sagan
glad you like it startingover