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

by Carl_Hernz 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Carl_Hernz

  I thoroughly agree, Gopher. In this society it should be unlikely that someone
  not declare to adopt any ideology unless they mean it, especially in the Deep South where I live.
  But it does happen, and I think this in unfortunate because it creates misunderstanding
  all the way around.

  Yet skepticism does have its place. If none of us allowed room for skepticism while
  Witnesses, we wouldn’t likely be here. The term “skeptic” as used in my writing above should
  be taken to refer to that other phrase that I noticed you asked about, namely “the
  culture of disbelief.” That phrase refers to the common phenomenon of modern society
  where there is unwarranted flippancy to any sort of ideology, an unhealthy unmannerly
  reproach that is fostered by negativity more than reason.

  I can say one last thing now that you’ve defined what you said about faith. From an
  apologetic approach, faith can be proven via reason (even though the subject of that
  faith may not have much in the way of concrete data). It’s a lot to go into here, and
  I think I’ve already “overwritten” my welcome, but even the supernatural experience
  of faith can be explained empirically. And it doesn’t have to be experienced by the
  beholder any more than say, a paranormal experience of agreed credence does.

  (Before I get into trouble there too, I am not saying that there is empirical data
  for ghosts. There is for “paranormal” experiences. The meaning of the data is highly
  inconclusive. So I don’t mean that such an experience or such data proves ghosts or
  that ghosts are literal spirits of the dead, etc. So please, no fights on this example.)
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  Steve2,

  As noted the “sweeping” statements may be in my choice of words than
  in anything else. I have approached this board using terminology that
  can be taken to mean different things by different people and need to
  write in a less obscure way. While I don’t see anything in my first post
  that made a negative comment about what I labeled “positive atheism”
  (meaning an authentic atheistic stand and not a mere skeptic adopting
  the label), I should be more concerned that my words get understood in
  the way I meant them. So any error is on my part.

  I am quite familiar with the writings, history, and work of Mr. Dawkins.
  And while I hold to a different position, I still hold true to my belief
  that people must be allowed total freedom to live conscientiously especially
  in the field of ideology and religion, including the free choice to be
  an atheist.

  I also don’t agree with the propaganda war against atheism anymore than I
  agree with anything of that sort that might arise from the “camp” of atheism.
  If a person is Christian then they have to agree with the adage that
  ‘God makes the sun shine and the rain fall on all people, whether they’re
  considered good or bad. You must do the same.’

  Along that vein, Christians should see in their atheist neighbor a fellow
  human and a neighbor worthy of love, respect, and service—not just as a target
  to be evangelized and then judged unworthy when they are not. Such actions would
  be a better and more productive witness to the Gospel because one doesn’t need
  to adopt it as their own to see that there is good in it. I think that is what
  St. Francis of Assisi meant when he said: “Preach the Gospel at all times...
  and when necessary, use words.”
• 

  Gopher

  faith can be proven via reason

  That sounds like a whole 'nother thread to me!

  If something is "proven", no more faith is necessary. Proof implies something is factual, demonstratable, repeatable, transparent.

  I'm not saying that there is no reason behind faith, if by reason you mean a "justification" or an "explanation". For instance you can explain your belief in a Creator by saying there is great complexity at every level in the universe. That's an explanation, but it isn't proof. I.E., faith can be explained or reasoned out, but cannot be proven IMHO.

  But as I said, this could be a whole 'nother topic.
• 

  Carl_Hernz

  Yeah, Gopher, we are using the word "faith" in totally different ways.

  I use it in the very primative form, and you are using it in a more advanced exegsis formulae.

  I mean faith as "the exercise of one's trust." In Amercian Sign Language the gesture is to point to the forehead and then make the sign that you are sticking a pole firmly into the ground with both hands. It is this form of trust that can be proven apologetically. For example I have faith in a weather report that shows a hurricane is headed my way, and I can prove that faith by my actions of panic, total confusion, and running away like I usually do in such a case.

  As to reason for faith in things like God, miracles, etc., that is different. While these can also be approached apologetically (I am not talking about the pseudo-apologetic approach of the Witnesses that is really nothing more than debate), apologetics belongs in the forum of catechesis. A forum like this is more open to debate and not something like the science of apology.

  And while I do want to thank those that were kind enough to write in their support and others who even apologized I am really bowing out now. I am sure I just caught some people on a bad day, and like Anne Frank believe that there's goodness in everybody. I'm just don't feel up to par with you fine folks, and I mean that sincerely. Thanks for the messages of welcome, but I don't like the way I have ended up feeling the short time I've been here. Perhaps I am not ready. But enjoy!