Posts by dunsscot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dear ianao,

I am sure glad that you did not try to prove (apodictically) that I actually typed the email you responded to, in my waking (or sleeping) hours. Descartes aptly writes that I cannot establish with any certainty that I am either awake or asleep. The only thing that one can declare with any certainty is [ego] cogito ergo sum. My point is that while I may not be able to convince you that the Witnesses have the truth by means of logical argumentation or reasoning from the Scriptures, this fact does not mean that my argument is invalid, unsound or uncompelling. I cannot apodictically prove that there are other minds besides my own. This fact does not mean that my conviction or belief in other minds is erroneous. Nor is my assured conviction that 2 + 2 = 4 wrong because I cannot irrefutably "prove" the aforesaid proposition. The same principle applies to Witness teaching.

Lastly, when I typed that Davies once said there are some things that we KNOW are true, but cannot prove them to be such, I was not talking about BELIEFS per se. In _The Mind of God_ (pp. 100-103), Paul Davies uses Godel's incompleteness theorem to show that there will possibly always exist "certain true statements that cannot be proved to be true." The sentence, "Tom cannot prove this statement to be true," is one such example. Of course, Davies goes on to qualify his point about Godel's theorem. See page 103 for that discussion.

I hope this post clears things up in your mind.

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dear Thinker, TD, and Farkel:

I'll reply to your posts tomorrow. I promise! BTW, Thinker, can you please be a little more specific with your question. Some actual examples would help.

Thanks,
Dan

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Beloved ianao,

You think that I am a Witness because 'I believe that is what I should be'? I think you have misunderstood me.

Here is my stance on this matter. Personally, I think that objective criteria primarily governs my choice to remain a Witness.

There are a number of factors that caused me to become a Witness; some factors were objective, while others were subjective. At any rate, I now think that I can point to Scripture and show another rational agent that Witnesses have the truth. In point of fact, this event happens all the time: A Witness somewhere around the world daily shows an autonomous subject some scriptural point that causes the hearer or subject to experience "insight learning." In other words, the hearer has an "aha!" experience. Similar events are recorded in the biblical book of Acts (Acts 17 & 18), indicating that Christianity is in some sense objective from a doctrinal standpoint.

My point is that my reasons for being a Witness are objective, I think (cogito). I think that I can point to Scripture and show why the rational agent encountering the word of Christ that I preach should become a Witness. Then why isn't everyone that hears the word convinced? Why aren't people coming into the organization by the gadzillions? As you well know, there are many reasons why most people do not respond to the good news preached by the Witnesses. While I will not discuss these reasons at the moment, I think I've demonstrated that which is to be demonstrated.

While my reasons for being a Witness are objective in my eyes, that does not mean that I can successfully communicate the said reasons to you. So what? I think my being awake typing on this keyboard right now is an objective reality. Does that mean that I can apodictically prove that I am in fact awake right now and presently tapping the keys on this faithful old board? Descartes says that I cannot. Furthermore, Alvin C. Plantinga notes that we cannot prove there are other minds either. Nor can I prove (apodictically) that I have been alive longer than five minutes. Saul Kripke also discusses the Wittgensteinian skeptic, who may make us wonder if we can prove that 2 + 2 = 4. I have actually attended college with certain persons who thought that you cannot "prove" such a proposition, even if it is true.

To end this email, I will just observe that I think JWs believe many true propositions that can only be apprehended under certain epistemic conditions. For instance, an argument must not only be valid or sound, it must also be compelling and cogent. In order for you to be convinced of my beliefs, you yourself must concur with certain basic beliefs of mine: My argument must seem cogent to you. If you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God or that God exists, etc., then my logical demonstration would simply be signifiers in the wind. My inability to convince someone via argument does not mean that a Christian JW believer lacks objective criteria for certain tenets he or she holds. Paul Davies (famed astrophysicist) once claimed that there are certain things we know are true, but we cannot authenticate such facts. I think I somewhat agree with Mr. Davies. :-)

THE END

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dear CPiolo,

I have not responded to AlanF or Farkel, it is true. But my non-response has nothing to do with non-interest or inability. (Nevertheless, I will admit that I am only a midwife of ideas, unable to actually bring them to fruition in others, but I like to assist.) Unfortunately, I am not blessed with the attribute of ipseity. :-) I am one person and cannot adequately reply to every post. AlanF was remarkably genial, but he wrote a book. In case you have not noticed, there is one Duns on this forum, but a number of individuals interacting with the Scot. Furthermore, I do have a life outside of this forum. But I don't want to bore you with that story.

I might just add that my primary purpose at this point has been to set out my agenda and theoretical approach, while observing the methodology being employed in the discussion taking place here. BTW, all of youse folks who seem antipathetic toward theory, remember that while theory without practice is empty--practice without theory is blind.

Bye,
Dan

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dear bigboi,

Could you give me some examples of "things" that the WTS has changed frequently? I happen to think that the changes may not be as frequent as some are inclined to think.

Secondly, I'm not sure what critical life or death matters you're talking about. Normally, blood transfusions are classified thusly. But what other issues do you have in mind?

Sincerely,
Dan

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dear free2bme,

I think you understand where I'm coming from, because your name expresses the way that I presently feel. I now enjoy the truth more than I ever have since I am determined to obey God as Ruler rather than any human.

No, I don't always talk this way. Furthermore, contrary to my good friend "f's" contentions, I am not trying to impress anyone. The truth is that I love philosophy: I am immersed in the life of the mind. But I love the Bible and Christianity even more, and I do not think that the two facets of life are mutually exclusive. It took a lot of money, reading, and time to learn philosophical jargon. Now I'm going to use my education to help others, even if some misunderstand my tactics. :-)) Just think of Socrates and the real Duns Scotus. You'll then understand my project. I love people, and I hate to see one side of a story told. Hopefully my presence here will result in a more fair and balanced presentation on this forum.

Christian love,
Dan

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Deaf "f."

There is nothing contradictory about saying on the one hand that I can and do treat my fellow autonomous subjects as "ends" while noting on the other hand that I refuse to fellowship with those removed from God's clean organization.

When Kant said that we should treat humanity (both ourselves and others) as ends, he evidently meant that we should not treat humanity as objects to be used for purely selfish ends. We are not supposed to objectify humanity or use humanity for our own selfish gain. Moreover, Kant emphasizes respect for humanity when he puts forth this ethical directive. There is no non sequitur here.

In what way does "shunning" violate Kant's ethical admonition concerning treating humanity as ends? How is "shunning" selfish? In what way does it objectify humanity? What else is a Bible-believing Christian to do in light of 1 Cor 5:11-13 and 2 John 7-11? Check the Mosaic Law to read about further prescriptions for heretics (ala Tertullian). <BG>

Rhetorically yours,
Dan :-)

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dear Introspection,

Your question is difficult to answer because one's experience of love falls under the "lived existence" category somewhat. In other words, I have experienced agape since I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Love brought me to the organization, and it has been a major factor in my staying. I know brothers who would truly show the spirit of Christ and give their possessions and life for you (1 John 3:10-18). These same men and women never consider one's epidermal schema or existential situation when deciding whom they want to befriend. That is, regardless of your race, ethnicity, gender or socio-economic status--many, many brothers and sister manifest agape love.

Are there examples of folks who do not show agape. Yes, there are! But the whole matters more than the part, IMHO. The Bible even indicates that some Christians may at times act more wickedly than those in the world ruled by Satan (Cf. the example of King Manasseh and the man in Corinth, who was sleeping with his father's wife). Such circumstances serve as tests for authentic servants of God.

But I'm telling you what I have experienced. This very love is an objective reality for me. Maybe you did not see this love in the organization. But remember that we have two different frames of reference, introspection, so I'm not about to tell you what you have or have not experienced. I'm just telling my side of the story in Gilsonian style.

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dear TD,

1) The JW religion is a "closed" system, plain and simple. I have weighed the pros and cons of an open vs. a closed system, however, and concluded that neither system is satisfactory IMHO. I personally advocate a system that essentially is a mean between the two previously-mentioned systems. For if Christianity is God-given and objective in nature when it comes to doctrines, individual believers should not have the freedom to pick and choose which doctrine they want to either believe or apply. Either homosexuality is okay, or it is not. Either we are allowed to drink too much, or we are not. God is triune or He is unipersonal or He manifests Himself/Herself/Itself in an infinite number of ways. Biblical Christianity does not seem to allow room for a totally open system doctrinally speaking. Conversely, I do not believe that a Christian should be barred from sharing ideas that may run counter to the beliefs of God's ecclesia. Such concepts should be put forth in a spirit of mildness and humility, however.

2) I think that God will hold His representatives responsible for abusing their respective offices. A proper enunciation of God's law is supposed to emanate from the mouths of God's representatives (Mal 2:7). At the same time, a humble servant of God recognizes that he is always capable of misconstruing the divine message; we are fallible, plagued by ontological inertia, and finite (limited in understanding, among other things). A Christian will thus insist upon the provisional nature of any theological understanding posited by him or her. (One friend told me that Brother Karl Klein stressed this point before he died.)

3) I am not minimizing life or death situations, when I talk about small details. I'm just saying that any so-called errors committed by the JW organization have to be juxtaposed alongside the entire framework of JW teaching and praxis. Even blood tranfusions or deaths that result from refusing such medical procedures must be weighed in this light. One Baptist professor of mine even understood this point. He felt that Witnesses have the right to refuse blood transfusions and seek alternative means of treatment. They perform risk/benefit analysis as they strive to maintain a clean conscience before God. Like Abraham, there are times when they choose in some sense to suspend the ethical for a certain telos.

Duns the Scot

137

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

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.

dunsscot

Dearest bigboi,

I do not think that JWs base their beliefs on lies. Their unique doctrinal framework is founded on biblical exegesis that is filtered through certain preunderstandings under the guidance of holy spirit.

Secondly, do not berate what you do not understand. Admittedly, a number of continental philosophers have used seemingly obscure or tortured language that is difficult to grasp at first blush. It does not mean that such language lacks depth or substance. Duns Scotus was called the "subtle doctor" because his writing style was opaque (in fact, the formula "dunce cap" has its origins in my man); Heidegger and Hegel are often criticized on the same score. It is Heidegger who talks about a thing showing itself from itself.

When one delves into the abstract depths of each man's thought, however, he or she begins to tap the surface of a brilliance that has hitherto been unrealized. I try to be concise on this forum, while being philosophically precise. This fact does not mean that I'm trying to be glib.

Duns the Scot