If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Disillusioned JW

  waton, during most of my time as a baptized JW (including the entire time I was a ministerial servant) I was very disturbed by the Apostle Paul apparently saying that women shouldn't be allowed to preach to the congregation and become ministerial servants (deacons) and elders in the congregations. But while I was a JW I reluctantly accepted it since I thought the NT taught it.
  

  Later, while I was an independent Christian (which included me having some liberal Christian ideas) as a result of research I came to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (and possibly) verse 36 possibly were not Paul's words and possibly were a forged addition to Paul's letter. In Paul's letter he said he wishes that all people, including women, in the congregation prophesy. Saying that women must not speak in the congregations would contradict the idea of all people in the congregations prophesying in the congregations.

  Also while I was an independent Christian I learned that at Romans 16:1 Paul says that the woman named Phoebe was a deaconess/deacon ('ministerial servant') minister in a congregation. But, not all Bible's (including the NWT) properly translate it as such. The ASV translators' note to the verse says "Or, deaconess". The RSV in the main text says "a deaconess of the church". The NSRV in the main text says "a deacon of the church" and its translators' note says "Or minister". The TNIV and the 2011 NIV also say "a deacon of the church".

  See also https://juniaproject.com/3-new-testament-female-leaders-phoebe-junia-prisca/ which says that Paul commends Phoebe as an ordained deacon, Junia as an apostle, and Prisca as the pastor of a local church (along with her husband).

  Another idea I learned was that in verses 34-35 Paul might have been quoting those whom he disagreed with. I learned the above from the following books:

  - Bart D. Ehrman books called Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities.

  - The Magna Charta of Woman (originally published in 1919 under the title of The "Magna Charta" of Woman According to the Scriputres") by Jessie Penn-Lewis (a woman). Chapter 1 called ' "Ye All Can Prophesy...." ' says in part the following.

  ' "All" might prophesy, said the Apostle, that "all may learn," as God gave word of wisdom or word of knowledge to one and the other--surely women as well as men--both "alls" obviously including all who might be in the assembly. This was Paul's light from God for the church in Corinth, in answer to the objections of the Judaizers, which he now proceeds to quote. The very writing of the words seems to stir his indignation, for he follows them with the abrupt exclamation or question "What? was it from you [Judaizers, or criticizers, at Corinth] that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?... If any man thinketh himself to be spiritual [see ch. 12:1--knowing the Spirit, and what comes from Him], let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandments of the Lord" (vv. 36, 37).'
  

  - Centenary Translation of the New Testament,"Published to signalize the completion of the first hundred years of work of the American Baptist Publication Society", Translated by Helen Barret Montgomery, copyright 1924 and published in 1924. In her very scholarly translation for 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 she has the subheading of "Question Regarding Women in the Churches". She begins verse 34 as follows. ' "In your congregation" [you write]' "as in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches ...'. For verse 34 she the following footnote. "This can only refer to the oral law of the Jews, as no such prohibition is found in the Law. Paul is probably quoting a sentence from the Judaizers."
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  See the CNN news article called "The ‘Benjamin Button’ effect: Scientists can reverse aging in mice. The goal is to do the same for human" which is located at https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/health/reverse-aging-life-itself-scn-wellness/index.html . It mentions molecular biologist David Sinclair (who is also a Harvard professor) who has reversed ageing in mice.The article says "Recent tests show he has a biological age of 42 in a body born 53 years ago."

  I have a best selling book of his called Lifespan: Why We Age―and Why We Don't Have To. I bought the book used but so far I have only read a small amount of it. See also https://blog.insidetracker.com/david-sinclair-harvard-anti-aging-success which has an article called "Q&A: How Harvard's David Sinclair Unlocked His Own Fountain of Youth".

  See also https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03403-0 which has an article called "Reversal of biological clock restores vision in old mice". See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Sinclair .
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  News article: "‘Miracle molecules’ discovered? Scientists find compound that reverses aging, develop ‘longevity drug’ " located at https://studyfinds.org/miracle-drug-reverse-aging-process/ .See also https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/960488 . [That latter article is called "New molecule developed at Hebrew U. may prevent age-related diseases and increase life expectancy and wellness: With a constant renewal of cell vitality in diseased tissues, this new drug will hopefully lead to the treatment or prevention of diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s".] Those articles were based upon an article in the science journal called Autophagy. The abstract of the science journal article is located at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15548627.2022.2078069?journalCode=kaup20 . The abstract of that article says the following.

  "Impaired mitophagy is a primary pathogenic event underlying diverse aging-associated diseases such as Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases and sarcopenia. Therefore, augmentation of mitophagy, the process by which defective mitochondria are removed, then replaced by new ones, is an emerging strategy for preventing the evolvement of multiple morbidities in the elderly population. Based on the scaffold of spermidine (Spd), a known mitophagy-promoting agent, we designed and tested a family of structurally related compounds. A prototypic member, 1,8-diaminooctane (VL-004), exceeds Spd in its ability to induce mitophagy and protect against oxidative stress. VL-004 activity is mediated by canonical aging genes and promotes lifespan and healthspan in C. elegans. Moreover, it enhances mitophagy and protects against oxidative injury in rodent and human cells. Initial structural characterization suggests simple rules for the design of compounds with improved bioactivity, opening the way for a new generation of agents with a potential to promote healthy aging."

  Notice that the article mentions "spermidine". That substance was first isolated from semen and it was found in human sperm, hence its name. Many foods are high in spermidine, including dry soy bean, chicken liver, green peas, corn, shell fish, and blue cheese. Spermidine is commercially available as supplemen. https://www.lifespan.io/topic/spermidine/ says the following.

  "It is worth noting that much of the Mediterranean diet contains spermidine rich foods. This may at least explain the phenomena of the “blue zones” and why people there often live longer than elsewhere.

  If you struggle to get enough in your diet you can also get it as a spermidine supplement. The synthetic spermidine used in supplements is identical to the naturally occurring molecule.

  ... It is most well known for its ability to boost autophagy, a cellular recycling routine that can help cells remove waste and unwanted components, which is also the most likely reason it may influence aging."

  https://novoslabs.com/best-anti-aging-supplements-that-harvard-scientist-david-sinclair-takes/ says that spermidine is one of the supplements which David Sinclairtakes.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Sometimes JWs wonder if the WT/JW is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?' I say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism

  For me, it is because it acts like a giant cult. No thanks.

  "In a recent court case involving the right of the ICR Graduate School to teach science from a Biblical perspective, a physics professor from California State University at Long Beach testified that if Isaac Newton were on the school's faculty today, his position on creation would prevent the school from being recognized by the State of California. This professor objected to statements such as the following in Mathematica Principia where Newton said:

  "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.".

  When questioned how this professor could make such a statement about one who is recognized as possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, he replied that if Isaac Newton persisted in maintaining a creationist position as he did in Mathematica Principia, knowing what we know today, he would not be recognized as a credible scientist."

  Article

  
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Isaac Newton concluded that the dogma of a Triune god was false doctrine and therefore he refused ordination in the Anglican Church. He also came up with the date of the year 1914 and he predicted (based upon the Bible) that the world will end in the year 2060.
  

  I think that if Newton were alive today (and thus had knowledge of many of the scientific discoveries made in the past 200 years) he would not be a theist and instead would be an atheist or a deist. I think he would also be convinced of biological evolution and of cosmological evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton says the following.

  "Although born into an Anglican family, and a devout but unorthodox Christian,[8] by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christians.[8] Scholars now consider him a Nontrinitarian Arian.

  ... As well as rejecting the Trinity, Newton's studies led him to reject belief in the immortal soul, a personal devil, literal demons (spirits of the dead), and infant baptism.[15] "
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  DJW,
  
  Newton had a practice of thinking outside of "settled" science (and theology). This helped him shape his three laws of gravity. However, Einstein (another believer in God) later proved Newton to be wrong about the laws of gravity.
  

  So, Newton was wrong about a lot of stuff. He believed in alchemy and that you could create gold from other metals. So what? That's not the point is it?

  The point is that like the Roman Catholic Church did in times past, the scientific materialists / naturalists attempt to STOP rational thoughts that don't confine themselves to their dogma.

  They support their illogical belief systems by pretending to not to know a lot of things.... like where information comes from:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience
  

  Professor Richard Lewontin (1929–2021), a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), explains how this ideology restricts thought. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

  ‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

  Again, no thanks.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sea Breeze, though Einstein said he believed in God he also said he did not believe in a personal God (and thus was not a theist). Atheist Richard Dawkins said Einstein only used the word "God" as a metaphor when Einstein said he believed in God and that Einstein was a naturalistic pantheist. But, in reading Einstein's quoted words (some of which are in translation from German to English, rather than originally said in English) I don't think Einstein meant that. Einstein also said he doesn't think he is a pantheist, but there are two kinds of pantheists. The modern kind of pantheist has a naturalistic view of the universe, whereas the old kind of pantheist thought the universe literally was God. It is not clear to me what kind of God Einstein believed in. I get the impression that Einstein was not a deist.
  

  Sea Breeze Newton's theistic thoughts in regards to Newton's cosmological model in which a God maintains the universe are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge.See https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/mechuniverse.htm which says the following. "Newtonian gravitational theory practically demanded a continual miracle to prevent the Sun and the fixed stars from being pulled together. Newton envisioned an infinitely large universe, in which God had placed the stars at just the right distances so their attractions cancelled, as precisely as balancing needles on their points." [See also https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section3/new14.html which also says Newton though the universe was static on large scales.] Therefore if Newton were alive today and still believed in such an outdated cosmological model - one dependent on God frequently intervening to maintain the positions of the celestial objects, while also having modern scientific knowledge, then Newton would be thinking irrationally in regards to cosmology. That would indeed mean he had a number of obsolete ideas about the working of the universe and that he would not be credible as a scientist in regards to cosmology.
  

  Newton believed in a static universe (not an expanding one) which was infinite in size. That is because the universe to him did not look like it was expanding. Such a model forced him to believe the stars were perfectly positioned by God, in order to prevent the pull of gravity from causing all of them to end up in one mass. He didn't know the universe is expanding and that it (at least of our local 'bubble universe' if a multiverse exists) is finite. If he were alive today and aware of the evidence of a expanding universe and yet rejected it, and believed that God was maintaining the universe, then he wouldn't be a credible scientist of cosmology.

  Now that is the point, isn't it?

  Regarding the quoted words of Richard Lewontin (words which creationist love to quote), that has been elsewhere from rationalist point of view.

  [Note: I don't time to further edit my post since I have to get ready to go to work. Hopefully I don't have major typos in my post.]
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Now that is the point, isn't it?

  No, of course that is not the point. I suspect that you are merely pretending to not get the point.

  Why not just explain how your new philosophy views where information comes from? It is a simple enough question that I'm sure you can see the importance of. But, I doubt you will attempt to address this.

  All the same, if you and your top thinkers in scientific-naturalism can't find a suitable unguided and unintelligent information source, then:

  Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

  -Arthur Conan Doyle
  

  So for me, this is the dock where I get off the scientific-naturalism boat. In your OP you asked the question; Why? The point is that the thought restrictions that your new philosophy dictates to you, are simply not acceptable to me. But, you are welcome to ride that boat all you want.

  Not for Sea Breeze though. Thought freedom and truth matters to me. Setting sail for those shores.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  SeaBreeze when I wrote "Now that is the point, isn't it?"I wasn't referring to what is your point, but rather to what my point was and to also two I considered to be the point of "a physics professor from California State University at Long Beach". In the post where referred to that professor you made no comment asking where information comes from nor did you discuss the topic about it. In the post where you mentioned "Professor Richard Lewontin" the only thing you wrote about "where information comes from" was part of one sentence. I no no interest in talking about, but did have an interest in talking about your comments regarding Einstein and Newton, so that was what i did.

  When was at at the break room computer this morning at work I noticed that your post which mentioned Lewontin had a video embedded in it (or a link to a video) about an enigma about where information comes from. I did not see that at home because of my old computer system with a very slow internet connection. I this did know until my break at work that was a subject which you considered to be your point.

  I have not yet watched the video (I can only watch away from home) and i might not ever watch, since that topic is of very little interest to me. I don't ask myself where does information comes from. I don't even have a clear idea of what you mean by "where information comes from?", since your question since it is very broad. In order for me to have a good idea you need to define what you mean by "information", in the sense which you are using the word. If you mean specific kinds of information, you to state what those kinds are.
  

  If you asked specifically where does the information in DNA comes from, I would understand that question. But that subject also is very little interest to me. However I would say that it involved natural selection acting upon mutations in prior DNA which produced benefits to the organisms contained the revised DNA. If the question is about where (or how) DNA first came to contain information, the I would say it was by natural selection acting on prior DNA in such a way which enabled the revised DNA to have better survival rates (than the earlier DNA) and/or better replication rates. But I have no interest in determining a more detail answer to the question. I don't have a number of interests that primarily creationist apologists (such as yourself) have.

  Furthermore, I have no interest in playing a game of Whac-A-Mole, figuratively speaking. If I were to answer one of your creationist type questions, then you would ask another, and if I answered it, then you would ask still another, and on and on and on, etc. I don't want to use a considerable amount of my time in such, since I am much more interested in other things. Furthermore, I know I can't change your views about creationism and thus I no interest in doing so. But I do have some interest in preventing other people from adopting some of your creationist views. I also have an interest in helping people to abandon some creationist views which you also have. As a result sometimes I will comment on what you say about creationism. A similar situation applies to some other things you (and others) say on this website.

  I spent 40 minutes of my precious free time to think up and type this post and I don't want to devote more to the matter, thus I have now finished making this post.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  It seems like (judging by https://scienceleadstogod.org/information-enigma-where-does-information-come-from/ & https://evolutionnews.org/2015/10/introducing_the_1/ ) the Enigma video features Stephen C. Meyer and Douglas Axe, both of whom are of the Discovery Institute, and thus that the video is promoting Intelligent Design. I have no interest in watching Intelligent Design videos and reading Intelligent Design literature, nor in other pro creationism content. I had my fill of that type of content from the WT's literature, and such very sadly led me astray from accepting evolutionism (cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution) for about 30 years of my life.

  Furthermore, it seems like the Discovery Science video program is a program of the Discovery Institute, instead of the mainstream cable TV network called (or formerly called) "Discover (or Discovery? or "Discovery Science" or something similar).

  There is so much pro Intelligent Design content and other types of pro creationism content (criticizing evolutionism and naturalism) on the internet these days, and not enough pro evolutionsim content on the internet of the type which refutes the claims of the creationism content. As a result a great many of people are likely getting duped into believing in some form of creationism, or getting duped into continuing to believe in some form of creationism. How discouraging, to me at least.

  Here is a point to consider. My naturalistic philosophy does not impose any thought restrictions upon me nor does it place any dictates me. I am not IProfessor Richard Lewontin and I do not think the way he does in all matters pertaining to science. I thoroughly examined Intelligent design (or other types of creationist ideas) before I adopted scientific naturalism, and even from time to time after I adopted scientific naturalism. For me, the the various creationist approaches were inferior to the scientific naturalist approaches.