Examples of Rhetorical Fallacy in the Watchtower

by leavingwt 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  leavingwt

  From the excellent website, JW Facts, here are a few examples of Rhetorical Fallacies within the Watchtower.

  Red Herring

  A red herring is the introduction of irrelevant material into a discussion to divert attention away from the points being made.

  A common Witness retort to a difficult question is "Where else would we go?" This is a red herring as it diverts attention from answering the issue at hand.
  
  Likewise to say "The Watchtower does not present false information, the magazines are filled with valuable and informative articles" is a red herring, as the issue is not that there is much that is correct, but that there is key information that is wrong.
  
  When discussing why Witnesses do not have blood transfusions, the blood brochure makes the comment;

  "Up to this point we have established that the Bible requires the following: A human is not to sustain his life with the blood of another creature." Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood p.17

  Aside from the dubious quality of the points made, this is a red herring because that is not the point established. The point established was that blood was not to be eaten, not that it could not sustain life. In fact, blood sustains life when meat is eaten. The subtle introduction of the red herring phrase "not to sustain his life with the blood" is then the basis for introducing the concept that the Bible forbids blood transfusions. As shown at Blood, this is dangerous and incorrect misapplication of Scripture.

  Suppressed Evidence

  Suppressed evidence is manifest when relevant evidence is hidden and ignored.

  The Watchtower argument for Jesus death on a stake instead of a cross is a prime example as it places emphasis on a small number of sources (such as inaccurate information from Vines Dictionary), ignoring the large weight of evidence that a cross was the foremost form of impalement in Jesus day and the method of his death. In the linked article, it can also be seen that information is suppressed when the Watchtower partially quotes sources, hidding the true meaning of the source.
  
  Discussions of its history in Watchtower publications is another area of suppressed information. This includes statements that they accurately foretold the events of 1914 and that they only correctly came to understand the "superior authorities" in 1962.
  
  It is expected that debaters and lawyers will suppress evidence so as not to undermine their own position, but a religion claiming to be the only purveyors of truth should not require the suppression of evidence.

  Lies

  A lie is the most obvious form of rhetorical fallacy.
  
  An example is when the Watchtower claims not to have ever changed its doctrine back to a previous viewpoint - a flip flop.

  "At times explanations given by Jehovah's visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case." Watchtower 1981 Dec 1 p.27

  This is untrue, as there have been such doctrines regressing back to previous viewpoints, often many times. For instance, some of these regressions are discussed in the following articles:

  • Superior Authorities
  • Oral Sex
  • Revelation interpretation

  Please see the link below for many more examples:

  http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/rhetorical-fallacy.php
• 

  Knowsnothing

  always enjoy your posts LWT.
• 

  RagingBull

  Yes, they certainly are "wishy washy" (i love that phrase.)

  "WHERE Would We Go?"...ya mean "TO WHOM" (I say that each time someone says that in a comment or whatever.)
• 

  Magwitch

  Thank You LWT
• 

  leavingwt

  bttt
• 

  Crisis of Conscience

  Thanks LWT (and jwfacts). Excellent points.

  CoC
• 

  unshackled

  Good stuff, leavingwt. If you don't mind I'll add my own, having just looked at the latest public Aug. 1 Watchtower. This jumped out at me.

  From the article titled "Should Children Learn about God?", this from a paragraph on page 3:

  "What about the idea that children should grow up before learning about God and religion? That view ignores this fact: A child’s mind is like an empty bucket waiting to be filled. Really, parents face a choice; either fill that “bucket” at home with the moral principles and beliefs that they feel are appropriate or allow the rainstorm of ideas outside the home to fill the child’s mind and heart."

  Think this is called a false dilemma. The question is should children grow up before learing about religion? They present that children's minds are like empty buckets. Then offer 2 choices:
  - parents fill that bucket with their moral principles and beliefs
  - or...the outside world will fill that bucket with a rainstorm of ideas

  The false dilemma is that IF you don't teach them your religion as a child, the only other alternative is to let the outside world teach them whatever they want.

  Teaching your child your religion is NOT the only other alternative. Why can't a parent NOT be religious but STILL have decent morals and principles to pass on? They offer the misleading assumption that ONLY religion is moral.

  Of course, they don't leave it at that any religion will do. At the end of the articles they state you need to know what to teach your children about the bible. And to do so, contact Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  leavingwt

  unshackled: Great points. Thank you for adding them.

  Indeed, parents can teach their children HOW to think, and help them to develop CRITICAL thinking skills.
• 

  unshackled

  It's amazing how blatant their use of logical fallacies is. Of course, I had no clue back when I was JW...just lapped it up. Since joining this site I can't read anything by the WTBS without sirens going off with all their intellectual dishonesty.

  Have learned a lot thanks to the shared knowledge on JWN.
• 

  slimboyfat

  A book called The Rhetoric of Religious 'Cults': Terms of Use and Abuse has an interesting rhetorical analysis of the brochure A Book For All People published by the Watchtower Society. The book was adapted from the PhD thesis presented to Glasgow University by language scholar Annabelle Mooney.

  http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Religious-Cults-Terms-Abuse/dp/1403942854

  After a lengthy discussion of many of the rhetorical strategies deployed in the brochure A Book For All People Annabelle Mooney writes in conclusion:

  This pamphlet lacks defensible substantive arguments. It is only apparently logical and coherent because of argument structures, common themes and semantic manipulation. Premises are presented as bland and generally acceptable (because the claims they make are so weak and qualified) but these premises are strengthened in unforeseen ways by the time the pamphlet comes to its conclusion. It is important to look not only at argument structure, but how it is that these arguments work. The simplest reason is that they look like logical structured arguments. If close scrutiny is not exercised (this is a pamphlet after all which claims it is not even trying to convert readers) everything can sound quite reasonable. A wide range of subjects with which the normal reader is probably not familiar, let alone an expert, are used as vehicles for an argument which is cumulative rather than strictly linear.
  The manipulation of grammar and semantics is also important to the final effect. The removal of agents, the introduction then discarding of weakening terms such as 'some' and 'probably' make the arguments difficult to pin down and very difficult to object to. Any questions that are asked are closed and because of semantic manipulation only have one answer. In the movement from premise to conclusion, the continual modification and strengthening of such terms as 'influence', takes advantage of semantic context. Between the introduction and recapitulation of these terms, the context is changed so that a more specific interpretation of the term is required. It looks as though one is agreeing with something rather inoffensive. But the final effect is far more powerful.
  I am not suggesting that every person who reads this pamphlet will embark on a Bible study course. But to do so would not be a difficult choice to make. Much work has to be done in introducing facts and information not included in the text to discount thoroughly many of the arguments made. In its own terms the text is coherent. But it is these terms which must be placed under investigation. (Page 104)

  The chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses is well worth reading in its entirety.