Apostate Logical Fallacies – Part 2 of 2
In my first essay on common fallacies former Jehovah’s Witnesses commit in reference to the Society I explained the error of generalizing individual Witness behavior to that of the entire Society. The other errors I notice (to a certain degree I realize they are my opinions) are related to this, yet somewhat different. Well, here it goes…
2) Focusing on the bad, totally ignoring the good: this is most related to the fallacy I previously discussed with one exception – instead of people think of teachings. Just because many Witness teachings are false or harmful does not mean that every Witness teaching is false and harmful. All too often I see statements like, “I won’t trust anything the Watchtower says” or other sweeping statements. Really? You mean you disagree with the Awake! article on how to avoid a heart attack? Or how about the suggestions on dealing with osteoporosis -- would you ignore them?
Just because many of the teachings of the JWs are wrong or, to be blunt, stupid, does not mean that there are no redeeming qualities about the Society. I think they offer very good suggestions on public speaking, for example. I see nothing wrong with how they handle their finances in general. There are also some good articles dealing with the “new personality” and the like. In short, not everything the Society teaches is wrong. That may seem like an obvious point, but sometimes I wonder if people realize this.
3) Use of highly emotive language: Words like “evil, wicked, liars, etc.” are strong language. Hitler was an evil man. Stalin was a wicked man. Bill Clinton was a liar (sort of). But, when we start to apply words like this to the Society we may – note MAY – be making a mistake. I honestly cannot say that the GB are all liars or evil or whatever other terrible thing you can think of. Again, the human condition is very complex and these men have spent their whole lives living out a deeply ingrained fantasy. They really believe it! I think this must be taken into account before passing judgment on someone. (Some members here are extremely harsh on the GB to the point of being extremely distasteful. I am reminded of when Milton Henschel died and more than a few were saying they would like to dance on his grave or dig up his bones.)
Often I read that the GB are murderers. This is because of the Society’s prohibition on blood transfusions. But, is it really correct to call them murderers? Some people called LBJ a murderer for keeping American troops in Vietnam so long? But, do you think that was his intention -- to just kill young men? I don't think so. Misguided and his policy may have been, there is a great deal of difference between being a willful murderer and in promoting a policy which you feel you is the right and noble thing to do which happens to lead to the death of some.
There are other examples as well. I’ve read stories on this site of Dan Sydlik punching a newbie Bethelite in the stomach on an elevator, of Sydlik’s wife having an affair, of him starting to weep in the middle of a prayer at a convention. Until eyewitness reports or other hard evidence comes to light these stories will remain just that – stories. This forum is not immune to tall tales.
Well, that’s all I’ll say. I probably could go on but I think you get the picture. Basically I see too many posts which use highly emotionalized language, generalizations, black and white thinking, hearsay, and the like. How can we correct this problem? (Haha – like it will be “corrected”!) Just think before we post, that’s all. Ask yourself: Do I have my facts straight? Is there more than one way to look at this matter? How would a JW view this? If I were a JW apologist what defense would I make for them? Are my emotions getting in the way of my better thinking?
Questioning ourselves (and others) in this matter will only make our arguments against the Society that much better. We will also aid ourselves, I feel, in the process of healing from the pain this religion has caused.
Thank you for reading this essay,
Bradley