The stench of Amateur Bible auto-didacts!

by Terry 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  You haven't read broadly enough, then Terry. Ann O'Maly's work is very good.

  Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Ann O'Maly's work IS very good.

  How would I know unless my intellect were at least close enough to appreciate it? You see, how does one "judge" quality of expertise if one does not possess it themselves?

  Take music, for example. Frank Zappa (quoted above) was a musical genius. Now, "genius" statistically is an "outlier" which is a "deviation" from the norm.

  Can a non-genius declare somebody a genius if said genius has not been officially tested? I don't think you have to be crushed by a boulder to know for sure it is heavy:)

  My personal test of things is what I'd call the PRACTICAL TEST. All it means is "does it work in the real world in a demonstrable way"?

  But, a magician could defeat my test because a magician knows how to manipulate appearances to achieve unexpected ends.

  Bernie Madoff fooled experts for a long long time. He only had to appear to have genuine credentials and expertise to cheat people out of millions of dollars.

  Bottom line: your liability for being deceived rests within your ability to TEST to a certain degree of certainty by a standard practical enough to yield demonstrable results.

  Beyond that, I just can't speak with any authority.

  As far as "reading broadly enough" I worked for 6 years in the Religion and Philosophy section of Half-Price Books and did not have to pay to read scholarly tomes and a wide variety of authors.

  I know I could only go just so far and no farther because of my own limits. But, I'd say I did the best I could with what was at my disposal. I have enough self-education to make me dangerous to myself :)

  Are we talking

  Betty Ann O'Maly?
• 

  Christ Alone

  You're right that Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not a science (in German, a Wissenschaft). The deliverances of the physical sciences alone are taken as authoritative guides to our understanding of the world, and the confident assumption is that the picture of the world which emerges from the genuine sciences is a thoroughly naturalistic picture.

  A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel which a person who is secularized will not. Yes, a Christian society is biased. But so is a secularized society. Although few secular humanists will admit to such.

  For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! Or, to give a more realistic illustration, it is like our being approached on the street by a devotee of the Hare Krishna movement who invites us to believe in Krishna. Such an invitation strikes us as bizarre, freakish, even amusing. But to a person on the streets of Delhi, such an invitation would, I assume, appear quite reasonable and be serious cause for reflection. I fear that evangelicals appear almost as weird to persons on the streets of Bonn, Stockholm, or Paris as do the devotees of Krishna.

  That is why apologetics are so important. If the situation of rejecting any sort of faith (as is largely seen in Europe) is not to degenerate further, it is imperative that we shape the intellectual climate in such a way that Christianity remains a live option for thinking men and women. Saying that no one comes to Christ because of argument is a bit shortsighted.

  Our western culture has largely let Biblical Christianity get pushed into the "intellectual" closet of Fundamentalism. Anti-intellectualism and second-rate scholarship has become the norm.

  Christian philosophy needs to become more prominent than even natural theology so that others can see that there are logical and intellectual reasons for believing in the Christian worldview. Apologetics is vital in fostering a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as a viable option for thinking people. In most cases, it will not be arguments or evidence that bring a seeker to faith in Christ—that is the half-truth seen by detractors of apologetics—but nonetheless it will be apologetics which, by making the gospel a credible option for seeking people, gives them the intellectual permission to believe.
• 

  jgnat

  You see, how does one "judge" quality of expertise if one does not possess it themselves? - Terry

  If we couldn't, then the great discoveries of the past would have passed in to anonymity, wouldn't they? Great answers do stand out. We did not need Newton to tell us that Einstien had "got it".

  Can a non-genius declare somebody a genius if said genius has not been officially tested? - Terry

  Benjamin Zander can play me a little prelude by Chopin, and move me to tears. Do I have to be an expert in classical music to know I've been moved?
• 

  Phizzy

  C.A is saying, as I understand his post, that christian Apologetics is the way to make it intellectually permisssable to "believe".

  The problem is that such Apologetics start from a false premise, that faith and reason are bedfellows. They cannot be, reason, i.e fact based, testable trust that certain things are true, is not faith..

  The "Gospel" too is a nebulous thing that is as varied as the individual faith of the multitude of christians.

  Apologetics is no more a science than theology, as Dawkins said "You might as well have a Degree in fairyology".

  As to Terry's contention that the auto-didact is not qualified to judge above the level of his/her knowledge, that must be axiomatic, but, we auto-didacts, if we have taught ourselves critical thinking skills, and a reasonable amount in the field in question, can usually spot the false argument, the lie, the self-agrandiser etc etc and so can avoid attaching ourselves to false teachers, as we did when JW's.

  I think that gaining as much knowledge as you can is far and away of more benefit than saying "It's all above my head", just don't think of yourself as anything more than you are, an intellectual midget in a land of Giants like Leo, Ann and others,(remember Narkissos ?) who kindly let us stand upon their shoulders.
• 

  Christ Alone

  The problem is that such Apologetics start from a false premise, that faith and reason are bedfellows. They cannot be, reason, i.e fact based, testable
  trust that certain things are true, is not faith..

  This can be true of some, but is not neccesarily true of all Christians. Faith and Reaon ARE 2 different words with 2 different meanings. Trying to compare the word "reason" to the word "faith" is nonsense. They mean different things. Faith can be reasonable just as faith can be unreasonable. It SHOULD be reasonable. Is it always in all people? No. But it can and should be for a few different reasons.

  1. Christian faith should show that there is a source and foundation for knowledge, reason, and rationality. The source and foundation is found in a rational God. If God created the universe to reflect a coherent order, and he made man in his image with rational capacities to discover His design, then logic and rationality are to be expected features in a Christian theistic worldview.

  2. Christian faith does not violate the basic laws of reason. While they often transcend a finite human comprehension, they are not irrational or absurd.

  3. The Bible encourages attaining knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. It also promotes intellectual virtues such as discernment, testing, and reflection.

  4. Faith should be supported by evidence, facts, and reason. It should be defined as a confident trust in a reliable, reasonable source (God). Reason can be properly used to evalutate and confirm faith. Faith and reason can compliment each other.

  Reason alon cannot cause faith. The Bible says that God is the one that gives faith. However, the use of reason is normally part of a person's coming to faith, and serves to support faith in many ways. Faith is foundational to reason, and reason can serve to evaluate or confirm our faith.
• 

  Terry

  You see, how does one "judge" quality of expertise if one does not possess it themselves? - Terry

  If we couldn't, then the great discoveries of the past would have passed in to anonymity, wouldn't they? Great answers do stand out. We did not need Newton to tell us that Einstien had "got it".

  Discoveries in science are Practical because they are demonstrable. Nobody cares about the speed of light in every life, do they? Does anybody care about gravitational theory in everyday life? No. Newton died in 1620 and probably would not have had much to say about Einstein:)

  Benjamin Zander can play me a little prelude by Chopin, and move me to tears. Do I have to be an expert in classical music to know I've been moved?

  I fail to understand what the subjective experience of listening to music has to do with my comments on Frank Zappa. Could you clarify? You did not quote the part

  of my statement which was intended to address what we can APPRAISE about what we do not KNOW:

  I don't think you have to be crushed by a boulder to know for sure it is heavy:)

  Meaning: You don't have to be a genius to apprecaite the beauty of music.
• 

  Terry

  I think that gaining as much knowledge as you can is far and away of more benefit than saying "It's all above my head", just don't think of yourself as anything more than you are, an intellectual midget in a land of Giants like Leo, Ann and others,(remember Narkissos ?) who kindly let us stand upon their shoulders.

  I make no complaint about gaining knowledge.

  My complaint begins with trying to use it to prove Unicorns don't exist or that 607b.c.e didn't start a prophetic countdown to 1914.

  Feel perfectly free to disagree.

  But, somebody please put me out of my misery by cut and pasting just ONE example of any apologist who came on this forum and had their mind changed

  because somebody set them straight on 607 b.c.e. with one of these gab-fests about regnal years and such!

  That is the only PRACTICAL use of auto-didactic preoccupations such debates could produce in my view.

  Your mileage may vary, of course.

  It took me years to realize what my personal limits are!
• 

  Terry

  Our western culture has largely let Biblical Christianity get pushed into the "intellectual" closet of Fundamentalism. Anti-intellectualism and second-rate scholarship has become the norm.

  Well stated! Bullseye. True believers are anti-intellectual BUT arguments trying to prove that 607 is wrong ARE intellectual. The twain don't meet!
• 

  Finkelstein

  The WTS. organization could be used as a shinning example of how amateur theologians can create a religion, not out of

  theological expertise and training but solely upon what they preach toward cultivating the publics interest.

  Publishing your own theological expressions has a huge advantage in drawing attention to yourself in this sense.

  I'm sure all of the WTS. editorial writers were aware of this, to be sure, it was their expressive intent and perhaps also their responsibility

  to make it all look so convincing and alluring.
• 

  PSacramento

  True believers are anti-intellectual

  Seriously now? you believe that?