I agree with you teejay but most won't.
Apostate Logical Fallacies -- Part 1
by logansrun 44 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Special K
Wow! Wow! Wow!
This is one of the best threads of discussion I have read since I came on this forum.
Everyone, free to express and share their thoughts and feelings from all places in their journey.
My, thought.. you would not have been able to share this together if you were all "door knocking, bible banging J.W.s"
Free Minds , free to think and free to debate or discuss. AND FREE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Thanks guys,
Special K
-
cruzanheart
If your congregation wasn’t the most loving in the world that does not prove that the JWs are wrong as a whole
I agree with that, and I spent a good 15 years trying to disprove the idea that the JWs were wrong as a whole. Unfortunately, the weight of evidence fell with a thud on the side of the JWs being, as an organization and as a whole, completely unloving. After experiencing that with six congregations and several letters from Brooklyn, I was convinced this was not "THE truth." I do know many loving and wonderful Witnesses whom I am proud to count as my friends, but they appear to be the exception.
Nina
-
kgfreeperson
The more I learn about the Watchtower Society, the more impressed I am by all of you who come across as kind and loving people who are living good lives. It isn't, to me, that people generalize from one rotten elder to the whole organization, but rather the weight of story after story of the abuse of power, the coldness, the fear--especially the fear--that constructs a picture of an incredibly toxic organization. It is within the context of this extremely controlling organization that individual JWs perpetrate the cruelties recounted here. While it is certainly true that the organization can't control each and every behavior of each and every JW, it is also certainly true that they have created a climate in which cruelty and craziness flourish. If the concern is that people only tell the bad stories and not the good, perhaps it would be useful to start a topic encouraging people to relate the good experiences. If there are a significant number, that might go a long way in achieving the balance some feel is not here.
-
Vanderhoven7
Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses not answer some questions and change the subject?
Gilles Gray writes
They do this for a variety of reasons. Here are a few of the most common.
Avoiding bad publicity
For example:-
It is well known that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. When the following question is put to a Jehovah’s Witnesses, the standard response is highly revealing:
“Would you put your beliefs first and allow your child to die if they required a life saving blood transfusion?”
If Jehovah’s Witnesses were to be completely candid, they would admit that in a situation where their child required a blood transfusion to save his or her life, and blood was all that was available, even if there were no risks and the procedure was guaranteed to save the child’s life, the JW parents would nevertheless choose to allow their child to die, rather than go against the doctrines of the Watchtower Organisation.
However, such an admission would be totally shocking, causing outrage and disgust in the minds of most reasonable, rational members of society. The result would be extremely damaging for the reputation of the Watchtower Organisation, with the vast majority of people condemning the fanaticism of this religious belief.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are acutely aware that if they were to be honest about their position, it would evoke horror and revulsion and therefore damage the public perception of their religion, so they routinely deflect away from the fundamental issues of the topic. Instead, as they have been taught to do, they use deflection tactics such as claiming that blood transfusions can be harmful, arguing that there are now various safer alternatives.
By switching the focus, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid condemning themselves and their religion, which they would do if they answered the subject directly and honesty.
Avoiding the issue
A similar example is the way Jehovah’s Witnesses react when they are confronted with their previous ‘false teachings’.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses are challenged with the fact that their Organisation has been forced to make multiple changes to their teachings, when their former doctrines have proved to be untrue, they invariably again immediately deflect away from the issue.
Mostly they twist the narrative, usually by praising their Organisation for being ‘honest’ enough to change their teachings when they have ‘new information’. However this is merely a lame excuse given to cover for the indisputable fact that many of their past teachings have proved to be untrue. They portray the ‘adjustments’ as a virtue, deliberately ignoring or concealing the fact that the changes were only made as a direct result of their failure, and were required by necessity.
They then deflect the focus away from the failings of their religion, by pointing the proverbial finger at other denominations, condemning them for retaining ‘false teachings’ over many years, claiming that other faiths are too arrogant and proud to change.
This argument allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to completely sidestep the issue of reconciling their own ‘false teachings’ by shifting the focus of attention onto the ‘false’ doctrines of rival denominations.
Similar flawed defences are very commonly used by JWs. They are under the misapprehension that highlighting the false teachings of other religions is, in some undefined way, evidence that their own religion must therefore be true. They also have the mistaken impression that the fact that other Christian religions teach ‘false doctrines’, somehow diminishes the guilt of the Watchtower for doing the same.
Jehovah’s Witnesses fail to acknowledge that the ‘false beliefs’ of other denominations do not in any way minimise the fact that they too are guilty of promoting ‘false teachings’, and that they are therefore equally as condemned.
It is truly staggering how many times you see Jehovah’s Witnesses making this false argument. Just a basic understanding of logical fallacies would disabuse them of such absurd and irrational arguments.
Avoiding facing the fact that they lack sufficient evidence for their convictions
This last example is also extremely common, and happened in my recent exchange with JW apologist Andrew Shaw.
The link can be found here.
One of the most ‘compelling’ claims which convinces Jehovah’s Witnesses that theirs is the only true religion, is their assertion that uniquely, their beliefs are wholly based on the bible. They propose that the bible translates itself, and therefore, having extensively studied the scriptures, they proudly proclaim that their teachings are in fact, those found in the bible.
From the perspective of a JW, as far as compelling evidence goes, there is no finer argument to prove beyond a doubt, that they are the true religion.
However, this assumption is clearly based on faulty reasoning.
The contradiction to their argument is the fact that all of the Watchtower’s former, now discarded teachings were also at the time, confidently declared to be ‘from the scriptures’. These former teachings were taught as bible truth with precisely the same conviction as are the current beliefs.
Logic dictates that merely claiming that one’s beliefs are ‘from the bible’ does not verify that those teachings are correct.
This clearly leaves Jehovah’s Witnesses with no sure means of knowing whether their current teachings are true or not. All their current beliefs could in future be subject to being replaced with ‘progressive understanding’ (otherwise known as ‘new light’).
When Andrew Shaw was confronted with this obvious contradiction to his position, he decided to ignore the question by arguing that the current ‘understanding’ is more convincing than the one previously taught by the Watchtower. He then deflected our exchange into a discussion over which of two ‘bible based’ explanations seemed the most plausible.
This allowed Andrew to avoid the question being put to him regarding by what means he could be certain that the current teaching on the subject in question is anymore provable than the previous one. Merely asserting that one is more convincing than the other completely failed to address the question.
Andrew decided to repeatedly avoid directly answering the question, because he knew that if he had answered honestly, it would compromise his position as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He would have to concede the point that the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be considered true merely because they are based on the bible. He would also be forced to acknowledge that he lacked sufficient evidence for his beliefs. Not a comfortable position for a loyal JW.
Wishing to avoid facing this reality, Andrew chose the logical fallacy of circular reasoning to defend his position (arguing that the reason he knows the latest teaching is true, is simply because the latest teaching is true). This allowed him to circumvent both the question and the challenge to his position by avoiding the subject altogether.
JWs focus so much of their energies on an effort to uphold their current theology and prove their religious convictions are true, that they completely neglect to take the time to consider the soundness of their epistemology.
This leaves them as sitting ducks when it comes to an exchange with an outsider who is able to identify false reasoning and fallacious arguments. They fail to realise that the arguments they present to uphold their beliefs are logically flawed, and also that the beliefs themselves are irrational.
The only way Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the onslaught of objective criticism that they are currently faced with is to deliberately choose to avoid examining the flaws in their position. Other than that, their only survival tactic is to avoid answering challenging questions by changing the subject.