The frustration of talking to a person with a closed mind

TheStumbler

Okay, this is going to be a bit of a general rant. I had a long conversation with a JW elder recently about shunning and evolution. I became qunite frustrated with the conversation and admitted this at the time. He was quite calm throughout so said my frustration might say more about me than them - they might have a point.

I wish I could could accept my family's religion but I just can't. I don't mind them having their own beliefs but it irritates me so much when they claim their own facts. A couple times in our conversation, the elder said he believed because of his personal experiences and I would never say he is wrong for that. But when he made demonstrably wrong claims like 'evolution is a faith based religion' and creation is a proven fact I just couldn't let it go.

Any way, he asked why I was becoming frustrated. I need to vent so this is was what I wanted to say but couldn't:

I have to admit I found our conversation the other night very frustrating. You asked me at the time why that was. Well, there are several reasons. You clearly have not researched both sides of the subject; you don't understand what evolution is and you are wilfully ignorant of the evidence for evolution; you constantly use discredited arguments based on misconceptions about evolution and continue to use those same arguments after repeated correction; you make no attempt to verify the creationist information you repeat; you make bare faced assertions that are demonstrably untrue; you either ignore or deny the evidence for evolution when it is presented to you; you never discuss specific details and you constantly jump around from one talking point to next.

perhaps most frustrating is your inaccurate use of language. I've lost count of the times I've explained what a theory is yet you continue to emphasise that evolution is a 'theory' as if that is some kind of winning argument. It only demonstrates that you don't know what a theory is.

You use 'theory' and 'fact' as interchangeable labels that you apply depending on whether or not you believe something to be true. Any fact you don't like you call a theory and elevate your own beliefs (like creation) to the status of absolute fact.

It seems like you redefine language to suit what ever point you are trying to argue at the time. Rather than engage with an argument you play word games instead so the conversation gets side tracked.

For example, you call evolution a religion which requires such a broad definition of the word that it loses all meaning and anything could be considered a religion. You then claim that your own religion, which clearlys ais religi in the traditional senseon, is not a religion because it's the 'truth'. Don't all religions believe their own religion in the truth?

You don't disfellowship people who leave 'The Truth' but they 'disassociate' themselves which in respect to how those people are tested is a distinction without a difference.

You don't believe in creationism but you believe in creation (despite the fact that creationism is a belief in creation). You dismiss objective verifiable evidence as 'personal opinion'.

You don't use 'arguments' because you are not arguing.

You don't try to 'convert' people.

You believe in religious freedom but you don't believe in a persons freedom to leave your own religion.

The list goes on. How can I understand anything you say when I don't know if you are using you own understanding of a particular word.

nonjwspouse

Oh I do feel your pain. ...so many do. This frustration is close to, if not completely, unbearable.

stillin

You have some good, solid complaints there. I hope you get a chance to teach this person something.

I get flustered, too, when the person whom I am discussing something with is, as you put it, willfully ignorant. It leaves me speechless, especially if I can see that there is intellect, going to waste because the mind is made up before some of the really important facts are in.

TheStumbler

One thing I noticed is he constantly changed the subject. I was talking about endogenous viral insertiobad and Lenski's long Term E.coli experiment and he'd start talking about something entireky irrelevant like how long it took Darwin to write Origin of Species - as if that address the specific evidence I was talking about?

There were a couple moments in the conversation where I think I actually got him thinking Which give me some hope. He was talking about religious freedom so I said 'you don't believe in religious freedom because you don't believe in a persons freedom to leave your own religion. If a person risks losing their family for leaving their religion then they don't have a fee choice - they have to pay a heavy cost. They are free only in the sense that a person with a gun to their head is free'. The elder was silent for a whole and tried to stutter out an answer but I don't think he'd ever considered it in that light before.

another time in our conversation, the elder was gokng on about false religion and asked 'imagine, what would it be like living under ISIS' so I replied 'I imagine it would be very much like living under Jehovah in the Old Testament'. There was a very long silence. Either he was angry or couldn't think of anything to say - I couldn't tell. After several moments of silence he said 'women had a lot more rights back then than in other cultures' so I asked about stoning to death a woman who committed adultry - just like ISIS are currently doing. He asked if I knew why such laws existed back then and admitted no but said 'if you think stoning a woman to death can ever be justifued any under circumstances then I would think much less of you'. Another silence. H. Said I didnt know what I was talking about and changed the subject.

do you think I made him think?

TheStumbler

Apologies for the auto correct typo - hopefully you can work out what the intended words were

jam

If they believe Adam was the first man and the earth

was covered by a flood 4500 years ago, you are wasting your

time...

TheStumbler

Yeah, I know its pointless. I always fool myself into think if I craft the perfect argument they will see the light. That's what I suppose is so frustrating.

They dont one even recognise the rules of argument let alone follow them. They ignore facts and draw conclusions that don't follow from the evidence. They seem genuinely unable to tell the difference between belief and evidence.

i am venting on here because it's the only outlet I have. To say this stuff to my family would damage the relationship.

i think I'm part of the problem too. I just can't let some stuff go.

berrygerry

The cult mind protects itself by going numb.

It is impossible to have a real conversation with someone who is dependent on the group.

jgnat

Have you read 1984? There's plenty of examples in there how a totalitarian regime can rewrite the dictionary towards their own ends. So goes the WTS.

I don't talk to the cultic side of Witnesses. That's a head-brick wall exercise that only hurts me. I do my best to address their natural personality. I learned this from Hassan's books about distinguishing between these two sides of a cultist.

Of course, that means that controversial subjects such as evolution are off the table.

If you are going to engage, pick one point and drill home that point, asking questions and let them hang. Make him think. People's natural reaction to "dead air" is to fill it in with words. Don't do that. Sit in silence and let him stew.

If he goes off topic to wiggle out, politely tell him that you really can't move on until he addresses your original point, and then end the conversation.

jgnat

I correct hubby's use of Witness-ese. If he calls it "necessary spiritual work", I call it "cold calls" or "peddling magazines". If he tries to correct me, I tell him what else can it be? You are calling on people who did not invite you, to speak to your agenda, not theirs. The very definition of a cold call.

The frustration of talking to a person with a closed mind

Share this