A question JWs almost never ask, but should

by slimboyfat 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  Why Xanthippe? I absolutely do mean that the practical effects of a belief system matter much more than any supposed "truth" value, or correspomdance to reality. This video, I've shared a number of times, is an excellent description of the situation that I agree with.

  https://youtu.be/cyx0rNyxFrk

  I belive there's a real world out there, of course. What I doubt is the ability of us humans ever to finally capture that reality in language. I belive in the reality of the external world. What I disbelieve is the correspondance theory of truth.

  So the question: does this religion promote a view of the world and way of life I am happy to experience without regard for any considerations of the 'transcendent'.

  Is infinitely more relevant and important than the dumb question: are the things this religion teaches about the world true in the sense of corresponding to physical reality?
• 

  cofty

  I belive there's a real world out there, of course. What I doubt is the ability of us humans ever to finally capture that reality in language. - SBF

  So what? Is it perfection or nothing to you?

  We can use language to describe and communicate something that is close enough to reality for all practical purposes.

  The only thing that matters is whether or not something is objectively true. If we are actually living in the last days since 1914 and the paradise is imminent then all the restrictions of JW life are by definition the very best way of life possible. If these things are objectively false then it could hardly be a worse choice.

  Truth, facts, evidence.
  
  
• 

  OUTLAW

  A question JWs almost never ask, but should

  Does this religion promote a way of life and view of the world that would be satisfying even if not a single word of its doctrines are true?

  If JWs honestly answered that question I doubt many would say it's a good choice.....SBF

  A common saying among JWs I heard repeatedly,growing up..

  .................................................
  

  Even If It Wasn`t "The Truth"..

  I`d Still Be a Jehovahs Witness!!..

  
• 

  problemaddict 2

  David Jay for the win. I never thought of my childhood hall as the fornicated love child between early 70's dept store catalogs.......until now!

  Anyone mentally in, will fall into the "this is the best life ever" thing. I was always taught and i quote....."even if this wasnt the truth it would still be the best way to live."

  So im not sure if i agree with the OP.
• 

  slimboyfat

  We can use language to describe and communicate something that is close enough to reality for all practical purposes.

  
  

  This statement misunderstands the relationship between language and reality. Language is not a window onto reality. No statement is closer to reality than any other. In this respect language is more like music than mathematics. For example we may feel that a certain piece of music better captures a landscape or a situation than another piece of music does. And we could discuss which piece of music fits the scene or situation better and give reasons one way or the other. Reasons that include reference to tone, melody, pace, emotion, length, circumstance of production, or whatever. But if someone was to join the conversation and insist that one piece of music was "objectively" closer to describing the reality of the scene or the situation than the other, we would immediately realise that the person has completely misunderstood the nature of music, the nature of reality, and the relation between the two.

  It is similarly wrongheaded to insist that certain linguistic utterances are "close" to reality. Statements should be judged for their practical, ethical, and aesthetic qualities. Appeals to their "proximity" to reality make as much sense as measuring the metric distance between stupidity and ignorance.

  Cofty it occurs to me that the problem here may in part be that you've never read about structural linguistics. You decry people who reject evolution without reading about it. Before ridiculing non-realist conceptions of language maybe you should make some time to understand the theoretical basis of the ideas your are criticising first. In particular the nature of the sign, composed of signifier and signified. Then how the relation between the two is arbitrary and (this is the poststructuralist insight) inevitably slippery and subject to deference/difference. That's what Derrida is all about, by the way, in a single sentence, on my reading anyway. Not obscurantist or empty, rather straightforward and profound.
• 

  cofty

  No statement is closer to reality than any other. - SBF

  1 - Planet earth is spherical

  2 - Planet earth is a flat two-dimensional disc

  One of these is closer to reality than the other.
  
  
• 

  Xanthippe

  Why Xanthippe? I absolutely do mean that the practical effects of a belief system matter much more than any supposed "truth" value, or correspomdance to reality. This video, I've shared a number of times, is an excellent description of the situation that I agree with.

  Yes I watched it. So you agree that for many years life was so dire for much of humanity that we created fantasies, religions, and that eventually when life became more comfortable we started thinking about making the world a better place for our grandchildren rather than aiming for immortality? That's what he said.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Really Cofty? How much closer? I can say Glasgow is closer than Edinburgh. It's a reasonable statement to make, and I can clarify that it is 40 miles closer or 55 minutes closer by car.

  So if it is actually true that statement 1 is "closer" to reality than statement 2 can you tell me how much "closer"? Ten miles closer? Three minutes closer? Five decibels closer?

  If you can't tell me how much closer in any sensible scientific language, then you really need to ask yourself what you mean by "closer" in this context.

  Is it closer in the sense that one piece of music is closer to fitting a scene than another? Then we are in the realm of making aesthetic judgements not objective statements about reality.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes that's exactly what I believe Xanthippe, but on top of that (listen again carefully) the whole idea of objective truth, the correspondence theory of truth, is bound up with outdated notions of escaping the real world into a world of perfect forms. We are moving beyond that to a more pragmatic engagement with our world that asks, not, how is the world really, in itself, but rather how can we construct the world in the best way to fit our objectives.
• 

  cofty

  No statement is closer to reality than any other. - SBF

  1 - Planet earth is spherical
  2 - Planet earth is a flat two-dimensional disc
  One of these is closer to reality than the other. - Me

  you really need to ask yourself what you mean by "closer" in this context. - SBF

  Pseudo Intellectual posturing.

  AKA - Utter bollocks.