Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot 137 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dunsscot

  Does freedom of thought really obtain in this forum? Are those who have left God's organization and Jehovah God Himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased? If those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against Jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some Olympian perspective, I beg to differ.

  First, if one mistakenly places too much confidence in his or her own wisdom, he or she unwisely ignores the ancient Greek thinker who taught us to be aware of our ignorance, namely, Socrates. What is more, modern thinkers have helped us to learn that we are very limited epistemically. Each human starts with certain presuppositions or preunderstandings, and processes the manifold of experience throuh these basic preunderstandings. Furthermore, Kant suggests that we are locked up in our minds. Thus, we can only deal with phenomena, not noumena. If Kant is anywhere near correct, an atheist or a JW opposer can speak with no more self-assuredness than a loyal Witness can. Alvin Plantinga also has shown us the prevalence of basic beliefs in other non-religious aspects of life.

  I think 2 Tim 3:8-9 says it all.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  An interesting question you pose. If I get the gist of it, can anyone ever know if they know "truth"? I suppose not.

  I am not equiped to discuss the nuances of philisophical thought. However, I do have empirical data, that supports the conclusion that my limited view of truth is/was more pramatic than the even more limited version of the truth offered to me by the Watchtower Society.

  They told me not to go to college. I did. I have had a more comfortable life as a result. They told me the end of the world was coming in 1975. I didn't believe it. As a result, I didn't get in a frenzy and/or sell everything I own to pioneer in the last days. They told me not to celebrate holidays. I did, and I and my family are happier for it. I also did not do what the majority of Witnesse do - not plan for retirement. I did plan, and it made a significant difference in my life. I provide more data, but that his the major points.
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear larc,

  I appreciate the spirit you show. I am not trying to be insulting, but simply attempting to state the way that I view matters as a one who is interested in epistemology and the structures of consciousness as they relate to religious epistemology.

  As a lurker for a few weeks, I have seen many posters state without reservation that JWs are cultic. I have also read posts by atheists, who seem to be convinced that there truly is no God. I'm not so sure that such ones can rightly make such asseverations with any degree of certainty if Kant, Descartes or Rudolph Bultmann are anywhere near correct as respects their individual epistemic theories. BTW, I apply the same epistemic standard to myself. With Descartes, the most that we may be able to say conclusively is 'We think, therefore we are.' Philosophically or even scientifically, we may not be able to go beyond this volitional (according to Descartes) insight.

  I think that no matter what religious organization one chooses to commune with, he or she has to exercise his or her critical thinking abilities. If one is a Witness, is not his or her first allegiance supposed to be to the Bible? Does not the Bible say that no man knows the day or the hour? Did not Jesus say (or it is reported that he declared) that the end will come (or something to that effect) when Christians think that it will not happen? Should not a Witness reason on such biblical principles when evaluating anything the WT or AK magazines say?

  Let's assume that the WT has printed erroneous statements in the past. Does this fact mean that JWs are cultic or false in their religious outlook? I happen to think that certain erroneous (or seeming erroneous) statements do not make a religious organization false. We are all existing in a state of existential fallenness. We have been thrown into our situational existence and tend toward ontological inertia as a result. JWs, Catholics, atheists, and Baptists are all in the same existential and epistemic boat, in a sense. Lastly, I think that human thought itself is contradictory in nature as it ascends toward the ultimate pinnacle of cognition. Read GWF Hegel and you will get my drift.

  The Holy Scriptures themselves indicate that we humans are oh too fallible in thought. Even the apostle Paul wrote that we see in a "hazy outline by means of a metal mirror" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Please keep these thoughts in mind when assessing the WT.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  larc

  duns,

  First of all, I did not take your comments as insulting. You really have to work at it to insult me. Second, I don't consider the JWs to be a cult. I do consider them to be a high control religion. I mentioned this once and people wanted to prove to me that they were a cult. Frankly, I don't care where others have them slotted, so I did not respond. Third, I am an agnostic, but there again, I don't care what others believe and have no desire to change their minds. I have no concern over the nature of God, and plan to spend zero time trying to figure it out. I try to enjoy the physcal word as best I can and try to learn as much about it as I can. I guess that summarizes my philosophy. How that fits into the thought within the Pantheon of philosophers, I have no idea.
• 

  Introspection

  Hi Duns,

  These days I find myself thinking less about philosophy than psychology. I don't have a problem with people believing in whatever they want, but I think it is a problem when it becomes harmful to people. Perhaps you've read about some of the ways that this happens in the time you've been here, if not I'm sure there are those who will readily point out a few things.

  You seem like a well educated fellow, so let me ask you: What do you think? Evidently you still believe that the WTS is God's organization. What are your reasons? I can say you're just another human who doesn't really know anything in the end, but I think you deserve a chance to make your case. While I think you do make a good point that everyone would do well to keep in mind, you can just as easily apply that to anything or anyone. As you said: "If Kant is anywhere near correct, an atheist or a JW opposer can speak with no more self-assuredness than a loyal Witness can." That works both ways. All things being equal, then, the Witness perspective is also not any better than the others. I think we need to get into specifics to have meaningful discussions here.

  "It is not so much that you use your mind wrongly--you usually don't use it at all. It uses you. This is the disease." -Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now
• 

  peterstride

  While on the question of dogma, we do well to heed the apostle Paul's advice, that we are all human and falible....which also means that we should not judge others for believing things differently than us. That's something that the WTS fails in, since it judges everyone else with the most severity.

  Other issues stand out. For example, how many times has the Watchtower pointed out that if someone says that something is going to happen, and it does not, then that someone is a false prophet?

  Well, the WTS predicted that the end would come several times, including 1918, 1925 & 1975. The masthead of the Watchtower (or was it the Awake) up until 1995 stated that it was a promise that those that saw 1914 would live to see Armageddon. Once the 80 years had expired, they quietly changed that also. There are many many examples like this out there.

  You have to know the history to know where a certain group is going, not blindly accepting them and forgetting their past history, just because "they are human and they make mistakes". By knowing their history, you will know their future, since they will make the same mistakes over and over and over again.

  You certainly wouldn't invest your money with an investor that has a terrible track record, would you? How much more important is your life then?

  Just my thoughts on the matter,

  Respectfully,

  Peter Stride
  Toronto, Canada
• 

  Eusebius Hieronymus

  A couple of simple questions?

  What would the learned theologian Rudolf Bultmann have said about a belief system that allows innocent children to bleed to death, literally, to show a symbolic "respect for the sanctity of life"?

  Does the upper-echelon Witness code of silence for perpetrators of pedophilia show evidence that "human thought itself is contradictory in nature as it ascends toward the ultimate pinnacle of cognition?" My sense of humanity transcends philosophical acceptance of such repugnant behavior.

  What would Descartes think about an organization that says "Don't think, we'll tell you what to think"?

  You conclude JWs are not wrong in such a religious outlook?

  Ignore such fundamental truths at your own peril. JWs are certain NOT in the same epistemological boat as the groups you mention, who simply do not exhibit the same rigid, inflexible high-control behaviors.

  Jerome
  "I doubt, therefore I am"
• 

  TR

  Dunsscot,

  All I can say is this: I know a helluva lot more about religions now than I did as a JW. I learned a few things about the WTS that most JW's don't know. Those things are good enough to keep me away from the WTS. Just because I don't have an "Olympian perspective", it's enough perspective to raise some major red flags.

  TR

  "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
  form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson*
• 

  Farkel

  dunnscot,

  : Does freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?

  No. Freedom of thought is obtainable under all and any circumstances. Despite the gains made by science, we can still have freedom of thought even if we are in solitary confinement, or even worse, if we are still dubs. Did you perhaps mean freedom of "expression?" If you did, then here is the place for that. There are limits, but very few and the limits are good ones.

  : Are those who have left God's organization and Jehovah God Himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?

  What, exactly is "God's Organization?" Please be specific. There will be a quiz. And by implication you have stated that leaving "God's Organization(tm)" is the same a leaving "Jehovah God Himself." Please show evidence for that assertion.

  : If those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against Jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some Olympian perspective, I beg to differ.

  Define "Jehovah's people." Be specific and be willing to hear other points of view. We don't take shit for granted in here. Define "Olympian perspective," vis a vis "vile" utterances "against Jehovah," too. Even more importantly, show specific proof that uttering those so-called "vile utterances" would even bother a God who is so far removed from us all that is pathetic; like our words are going to change HIS day when he won't even do a damn thing to help AIDS victims, for example? (Until he kills 99.99% of the humans on this earth, that is.)

  : First, if one mistakenly places too much confidence in his or her own wisdom, he or she unwisely ignores the ancient Greek thinker who taught us to be aware of our ignorance, namely, Socrates.

  Right. Read the collective works of the JW Governing Body, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Charles Taze Russell before you dare go further. I can help you out here and show you that JW leaders are the WORST among humans who "mistakenly place too much confidence in" their "own wisdom" and ended up hurting countless people as a result.

  On the otherhand, "apostates" merely point that fact out.

  : I think 2 Tim 3:8-9 says it all.

  I think Proberbs 14:24,25 says it all. Not to mention Matthew 23:15.

  You big dummy. Consider yourself "Farkeled."

  Farkel
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  With the questions you pose, I have to ask you, what is it you believe? So far, you have pointed out some of the problems associated with finding truth. However, at the end of the day, we still have to have formed some conclusions. What, pray tell, are your conclusions?