Pseudo-Atheist Shows that Watchtower is Hard to Shake Off (Long Post)

by Carl_Hernz 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  Having followed these threads, and being a (weak) atheist (i.e. agnostic in common parlance) myself, I would say that criticism of theism and Christianity on this board as often draws on well-reasoned logic (i.e. appealing to induction, Ockham's Razor, etc.) as it does on fallacies. The most common fallacies I see here are caricaturization of belief through "straw-men" arguments and the use of misinformation in one's argumentation. These faults really have nothing to do with "atheism" as they do with polemics and styles of rhetorical argument. On this board, discussions of religion typically are polemically charged and rather than carefully laying out ones' reasoning and the many complexities of the subject (as Carl attempts to do here), it is usually much easier to take short-cuts and attack simplified caracitures or present common sensical or unresearched claims that may not have any evidentiary value. That's just the nature of freewheeling debate, especially in forums like these. And it happens even with the most intelligent, rational, and otherwise very careful writers. Even those wanting to present a matter positively or as objectively as possible may fall victim to the vice of oversimplification or distortion...our own processes of cognition (with its classification and reification schemes) militate against this. As Narkissos ably pointed out in the previous thread, Dawkins' characterization of Christianity is a narrative of his own construction that misrecognizes its subject as much as it describes it, and the emphasis in that thread on objective basis of belief (e.g. on a written text that is "beheld" contra Hebrews 11:1) is certainly an opportunity for believers to affirm their subjective experiential basis of faith. And too often, I see people here posting Internet misinformation about religious topics, such as the "Horus/Krishna/etc. was born on December 25th/in a cave/baptized/crucified/raised three days later just like Jesus" canard that is just plain wrong.

  I want to be clear too that in such online discussions, fallacies are just as often made on the other "side", such as treating an inductive conclusion as equivalent to faith, misplacing the burden of proof, and developing "straw-man" arguments and misinformation on matters that are being attacked on polemic grounds (such as evolution, for those who do not accept a theistic view of evolution). Unfortunately, online discussion boards are not the place for rigorous, careful debates. However, the caliber of discussion here is far superior than what is found elsewhere on the net, such as ... oh, say, Youtube comments. I also wish that "anti-theism" existed as a ratified word, as it seems better suited to describe the more polemic stance as opposed to the neutral a-theism (which, if taken etymologically, would imply a "without theistic belief", which best describes my own personal belief system).

  Also, I want to give a belated welcome to Carl who has written some imho very thoughtful and polite comments on these various subjects.
• 

  steve2

  It is very dense writing. The first time I read anything like this myself I had to
  re-read over and over again. Now I write this stuff?!

  What are you telling us Carl? That getting more into this sort of stuff makes an individual long-winded and verbose?? Come on now! I've got a double major in Sociology and Psychology, as well as PhD in psychology, and would argue that the ability to write concisely is something that can be learned.

  For example, my PhD supervisor told me no sentence should ever be longer than 35 words. Just that one piece of information helped me reduce the amount of words I needed to express myself in writing. I suspect that many academics - including those in my own field, psychology - have never taken the time to trim what they want to say. But it is worth it because long-winded prose loses most of its potential audience. Richard Dawkins, by the way, is a superb example of someone who presents complex ideas simply and forcefully.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  If you want to read power - check out Sir WSL Churchill speeches. Short, sharp sentences
• 

  Gopher

  If you want to read power - check out Sir WSL Churchill speeches. Short, sharp sentences

  Or check out Lincoln's Gettysburg Address delivered at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery. He masterfully put together, in a few minutes, a tremendous speech containing great ideas regarding the framework for freedom and a great nation.

  Compare that to the professional orator who spoke for 2 hours before Lincoln that day. Does anyone remember the name of that orator? (It was Edward Everett) Did his speech go down in history as one of the greatest?
• 

  nvrgnbk

  What are you telling us Carl? That getting more into this sort of stuff makes an individual long-winded and verbose?? Come on now! I've got a double major in Sociology and Psychology, as well as PhD in psychology, and would argue that the ability to write concisely is something that can be learned.
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  No, I never said it makes a person long-winded and verbose. I was laughing at myself in sort of a kick-myself-in-butt-after-inserting-foot-in-mouth kind of way.

  You didn't mean your statement as if you felt insulted, did you? I wasn't trying to insult anyone. (I say the following in jest:) Goodness, who else can I insult now? I wasn't saying that learning to write concisely could not be learned, I don't think I did.

  I honestly thought that everyone here was a lot more educated than me. I was writing at the level that I thought, however, was a bit under theological discussion. The length of the writing was actually condensed over a period of day or two before posting. I write in various styles.

  I have been a copy writer for 15 years for commercials in television, newspaper, radio, etc. I have been a humorist and stand up comic for over 20, and have written in a completely (and sometimes more than a bit "adult") style for that. I even wrote three children's books about 12 years ago. All these are different styles. I don't know how often to apologize for what some consider "bad writing" or whatever, but am I really hurting people?

  I feel like I am being reprimanded by the elders in my old congregation who once "counseled" me never to give a good public talk again. "You are very gifted beyond your years and more so than any speaker I've known in all my years," said Elder C. "But it makes us look bad. We don't ever want you to use your talents again. Just give talks like the rest of us from now on, okay, and nothing bad should happen to you."

  I am talking about the Watchtower and how it hurts people, also how it has misrepresented something called Revelation in Christendom. Goodness, is there something so wrong that my points aren't being talked about, the JWs aren't being mentioned, but I am the target? Are we no better than the Witnesses who are biting and nipping at one another?

  I suddenly feel very very stupid. I believe in people's innate dignity and that they should be treated with respect, but maybe my actions are being misinterpreted. If I don't belong here, please tell me. Like I mentioned in a previous posting elsewhere, I was just looking for support from other exJWs. Sorry if I hurt any person, truly, no joke there. Really, if this is what it's going to be like every time I say something, why did I leave the Witnesses in the first place? I don't believe everyone is like this, but I am really puzzled...
• 

  Gopher

  Carl,

  With all your experience in the JW organization, and your professional writing experience, you certainly can make a great contribution to this disussion board. I really hope you don't feel that your effort was a waste. --That looks like you put a lot into it!

  The presentation didn't clarify for me this poinrt -- Do you think people who become atheist after leaving JW's do so strictly because JW's misrepresent Christian belief? Or was the point to show that all atheists fail to understand the subtleties in the scriptures, as well as to understand that faith has to be "experienced" rather than believed?

  While it's true that if I had stayed JW I wouldn't be an atheist, becoming atheist was a 7-year process for me, not one that just occurred out of a reaction to my JW experience. And I do understand that faithful people have experienced what they believe to be God's presence in their lives. Does my failure to believe in a God (and therefore such experiences) automatically make me an opposer or misunderstander of Christianity? Or could it be that I simply don't believe, but have a live-and-let-live attitude towards the beliefs of others (as long as such beliefs are not used to interfere with the freedoms of others or are used to hurt society at large)?
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  Gopher,

  No, I don’t believe that all people who become atheists after leaving the JWs do so based
  on their misrepresentations.

  I stated in the original post: ”The individual who takes such a stand not just as a
  synonym of the label skeptic, but as a conscientious enlightened philosophy for life may
  not be considered to be of the same sort of a person who is just acting obstinate in
  rebellion against the teachings of Christ.” In other words, I am not talking about a person
  who makes a well-informed choice. I was talking about people whose choice is limited by
  damage on the faculty of free thought caused by the Watchtower.

  Some people choose the term “atheist” when in reality they are a “skeptic.” Others base
  their stand on even less reasoning. The main point is that the JWs inflict great
  limitations on the ability to make informed choices while in their organization
  that sometimes carries over. This can be seen not in merely discussing the points of
  atheism or even in dogmatic declarations of the ideology, but in the “symptom” of
  suppression of those with opposite views.

  I personally don’t believe that the Scriptures have to be studied to adopt theism.
  Not all theism is Christian, and not all Christianity is sola scriptura based (the
  majority of Christianity still adheres to what they call Apostolic Tradition), so
  therefore atheism isn’t based on any failure to study the Bible for subtleties. One
  of my best friends is atheist, and his choice is not based on ever considering
  religion at all.

  Does faith have to be experienced rather than believed? I am not sure I understand
  the question entirely. I understand the word “faith” in the classical term of a
  grace of God, but others consider it credulity. Experiencing faith according to
  this terminology would mean that faith is believed when experienced. They are synonymous.

  However, not all theology adopts this view of faith, so it is difficult to
  give an answer without a point of reference to understanding your view of the words you
  use in your question.

  As to your last question, again I turn to my original post: “I believe in the innate
  right of all persons to be free to follow the dictates of the conscience in matters
  of belief or adoption of ideology. This right to such freedom of conscience should
  be protected by law, and no individual must be forced to act in any way contrary to
  their conscientious dictates. As a Christian and writer of theology I agree with the
  findings of the ecumenical council of Vatican II that declares that not every instance
  of positive atheism—the explicit rejection of God—is to be regarded as the result and
  expression of personal sin.” Being atheist doesn’t automatically make one opposed to
  anything. It just means you aren’t a theist. Technically speaking, to some people
  Buddhism isn’t theist, it’s atheistic because it denies the existence of a god. So
  being atheist doesn’t imply a misunderstanding of religion or imply a full knowledge of it.

  However some skeptics oppose of religion, and some who oppose of religion are
  atheists. But one doesn’t automatically come with the other.
• 

  Gopher

  Thanks for the clarifications. To read what some believers say, the explanation of why they have faith is "you have to experience it",. i.e., it cannot be explained in terms of science or non-experiential proof. That's why I framed the question in terms of "believers experience the presence of God in their lives". Perhaps some people choose belief even though they haven't experienced God, but want to.

  I want to comment on this:

  Some people choose the term “atheist” when in reality they are a “skeptic.” Others base their stand on even less reasoning.

  Declaring oneself atheist is usually not a casual choice, especially in a religious society like the United States. If you say you're atheist, many people will apply pejorative terms to you such as "hedonistic", "uncaring", or even worse. It's more acceptable to say you're "agnostic" or "spiritual but not religious". I accept the term atheist in spite of such inaccurate labels, and I further assert that many atheists are very humanistic and caring. They just have humanistic motives for giving and being good, rather than being prompted to do so out of faith in an unseen deity.

  As you stated atheist is simply "not theist". It is a choice to not believe in a deity, not because of 100% certainty, but because one believes that the existence of a deity who cares is rather unlikely. (Of course among atheists, some are anti-theist and outspokenly say there can be no deity. But to say all atheists are that way is a misunderstanding.)
• 

  steve2

  Carl,

  I take on board your points. Indeed, if I caused any hurt, I apologise. It did seem in your earlier posting that you were making certain limited assumptions about why some have become athiests.

  Have you read Richard Dawkins The God Delusion? Among other things, he argues cogently - and at times powerfully - that Christians often make the most conveniently sweeping assumptions about athiests in the name of not facing up to some of the arguments that call their beliefs into serious question.

  If you haven't read Dawkins' book, please do so. It may not make you an athiest, but it may well make you more cautious in the assumptions you make about athiests. I wish you thoughtful reading...