The logical fallacy of the "they're imperfect" argument

by gubberningbody 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  gubberningbody

  Is the fallacy of the "complex question".

  The fallacy of the complex question is generally understood by the following example:

  "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

  Now if you have never beaten your wife, nor implied that you have or had the tendency, this question ASSUMES another question was asked and answered in the affirmative.

  For example the following WOULD make sense if this was the series:

  Questioner : "Have you ever beaten your wife?"

  Answerer : "Yes"

  Questioner : "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

  We all know that this sort of questioning is wrong, however it IS evident in the following:

  WTComplainer: "The WTBS has done X" (where 'X' is an acknowledged wrong)

  WTApologist : "Well they're imperfect."

  The ASSUMPTION is that the WTBS HAS authority to do "X".

  In the mind of the WTApologist this is the series:

  WTApologist :"Is the WTBS the organization used by Jehovah?"

  WTComplainer:"Yes"

  WTComplainer: "[But] the WTBS has done X" (where 'X' is an acknowledged wrong)

  WTApologist : "Well they're imperfect."

  What the WTApologist is doing is inserting an answer to an unasked question in the affirmative.

  What the WTComplainer would have said instead would have been the following series:

  WTApologist :"Is the WTBS the organization used by Jehovah?"

  WTComplainer:"No"

  WTComplainer: "And the WTBS has done X" (where 'X' is an acknowledged wrong)

  WTApologist : "Well they're imperfect."

  WTComplainer:"And you don't get the point, you idiot. I dispute their authority to tell anyone anything. These people are neither faithful, nor discreet and it is entirely

  besides the point that many of JW's are nice people, or even that exposure to scripture has helped many to become acquainted with the same."
• 

  Heaven

  "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

  Usually, when I'm asked questions of this nature, I follow with a second question. Something like this...

  "What makes you think I'm beating my wife?"

  So it follows then that the conversation would go as such...

  WTComplainer: "The WTBS has done X" (where 'X' is an acknowledged wrong)

  WTApologist : "Well they're imperfect."

  WTComplainer: "Well, then, they are just like you and me now, aren't they? And hence, they are no more inspired than we are."
• 

  gubberningbody

  True, Heaven, however it doesn't address the fact that the koolaid-drinking JW hasn't addressed the authority issue. Remember Paul saying what he said in Romans 13 w/regard to the higher authorities, there's nothing in that that indicates these "higher authorities" must be inspired for them to have relative authority. The JW needs to justify the authority of this body in which he or she is putting idolatrous faith.
• 

  Heaven

  Perhaps I should add the following...

  WTComplainer: "Well, then, they are just like you and me now, aren't they? And hence, they are no more inspired than we are. As such, they have no more authority than what you personally give them."
• 

  gubberningbody

  Not to be punctilious, Heaven, but you're doing the same thing the JW does. (implying a question was answered in the affirmative)

  WTComplainer: "Do people or groups need to be inspired by Jehovah before we are enjoined to obey them?"

  WTApologist: "Yes"

  WTComplainer: "The WTBS has done X" (where 'X' is an acknowledged wrong)

  WTApologist : "Well they're imperfect."

  WTComplainer: "Well, then, they are just like you and me now, aren't they? And hence, they are no more inspired than we are. As such, they have no more authority than what you personally give them."

  The WTApologist implicitly believes that inspiration and authority are not synonymous or necessarily connected. He or she would point to the Roman govt as an example. He or she

  would reject the inclusion of inspiration with authority.

  This is why it needs to be established just what it is that is discussed in terms of authority and where it starts and stops.

  Exactly what was the congregation in the 1st century?

  Was it a unified whole?

  If so where was the unity?

  Was there a governing body or not?

  Where did congregational authority begin and end?

  Did Paul go beyond what Jesus intended?

  Was Paul setting up things as an example to be followed as if it were a divine pattern, or just one of local convenience?

  Can it be undeniably proven via scripture that Jehovah has always had representation on earth?

  If so, what was it that was cut down in Daniel?

  If it was restored, to whom was it restored?

  To a person or group?

  If so was it Jesus, or was it men pretending to represent him?

  The koolaid drinking JW hasn't even begun to think any of this through.
• 

  Heaven

  This is why it needs to be established just what it is that is discussed in terms of authority and where it starts and stops.

  There is no authority except what each JW personally gives them. I have seen this in my own family. Some give them more authority than others. It's a variable thing with each of them.

  As for me, I give them zero authority.
• 

  gubberningbody

  That may be true in practice, Heaven, but in argumentation if you leave it (the clear exposition on authority) alone you let them retain their insanity.

  You have to knock the koolaid in the dixie cup they're carrying out of their hand.

  (well you don't have to, but I prefer to get physical)
• 

  rebel8

  My response to 'they're imperfect'--

  'You are totally correct. That's why it would be dishonest of us to think so only in retrospect, after bad decisions are made, bad acts are done, and wrong statements are made. Since you know they're imperfect, they're imperfect before a statement is subsequently exposed as incorrect.'

  The affirmation 'they're imperfect' is inconsistent with blind obedience.
• 

  White Dove

  Why were the Bible writers bang on when writing the Bible (people say the Bible is infalable because of being inspired and writers directed to write.) but the spirit directed GB is not? Bible writers were imperfect as well. Why is the Bible inflalable but the WTS is not? Both were spirit directed, so...
• 

  Gayle

  True,,true,,they're imperfect, so we have every right to question and disagree!