Posts by jukief

15

Nearly complete JW literature collection for sale

by jukief in

as many of you know, alan feuerbacher spent 40 years researching watchtower.

during that time, he bought every item of watchtower literature he could find.

his collection is so big that it’s impossible for me to try to catalog it, although i might be able to get some volunteers to help me with that.

jukief

Pierre1977, there’s no way I can scan these documents (if he has them, and I haven’t gone through the collection, so I don’t know). I’m getting ready to sell the house and have to get rid of a whole basement of not just JW literature, but books of all kinds, tools, electronics, and everything else you can think of that Alan acquired over 40 years. I wish I could help, but I just don’t have the time.

15

Nearly complete JW literature collection for sale

by jukief in

as many of you know, alan feuerbacher spent 40 years researching watchtower.

during that time, he bought every item of watchtower literature he could find.

his collection is so big that it’s impossible for me to try to catalog it, although i might be able to get some volunteers to help me with that.

jukief

As many of you know, Alan Feuerbacher spent 40 years researching Watchtower. During that time, he bought every item of Watchtower literature he could find. His collection is so big that it’s impossible for me to try to catalog it, although I might be able to get some volunteers to help me with that. He had every book, booklet, tract, etc. He spent a large amount of money and time collecting these items. I’m posting this in case someone might be seriously interested in acquiring such a collection. My plan is to pull out the most valuable items and sell them individually; I don’t know what I’ll do with the rest. But the thought occurred to me that someone might be interested in the entire collection—or large parts of it. I’m not able to ship any of this; I’m selling our house soon and can’t possibly deal with that. But if anyone is seriously interested and wants to come to Colorado to see the collection, I’m happy to open my home to them. We would have to negotiate the price, and you would have to box it up and transport it.

If you’re seriously interested, PM me and I’ll give you my contact information.

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

jukief: I perfectly well understand your desire to believe in a God of some sort. I don't, but I understand why most people do. There are many things in the world that seem better explained by an intelligent cause, but many more that seem better explained by lack of one. And of course, there is always the problem of where the intelligent cause came from, for which no theist has an answer. "God has always existed" is just as good or bad as "the universe has always existed".

Earnest: I have never understood the "problem of where the intelligent cause came from."

I think it's a matter of what kind of thing one thinks might have always existed. Theists generally argue that our universe and life are so complex and unlikely to have come about without an intelligent cause, that they *must* have an intelligent cause. Yet by that argument an intelligent cause must itself have come about in some way from something that existed before. Otherwise, if one argues that that cause has always existed, yet argues that a much simpler physical universe cannot have always existed, then one is being inconsistent. What is more a priori unlikely: an intelligence that has always existed, or a bunch of unintelligent stuff that has always existed? If one insists that "life comes from life", making an exception for some "first cause" is just special pleading.

Earnest: To my mind we have to accept that something has always existed even if we cannot comprehend it.

I agree. The latest thinking in physics accepts that idea. But exactly what it is that has always existed is the subject of much speculative discussion.

Earnest: The idea of something coming from absolutely nothing is, to me, even more far-fetched than something always existing.

Physicists don't think that what we commonly think of as "nothing" -- empty space -- is actually empty. They think it's filled with some wierd quantum-mechanical stuff called "vacuum energy". Saying any more is way beyond my pay grade, but there's lots of information available online. But cosmologists posit that somehow, this vacuum energy experienced a quantum fluctuation (or something else entirely happened) that resulted in the Big Bang. This is related to the "multiverse" and so forth.

So scientists don't claim that our universe came from "absolutely nothing".

Earnest: And if I accept by default that something has always existed it is, to me, more reasonable that the universe that we know had an intelligent cause.

But then you're back to the conundrum I described above.

Earnest: This is not because I need to have God in my life, but only because any other explanation I have heard is even more absurd than an intelligent first cause.

From what you've said, I don't think you're up on the latest thinking by scientists. You might look up some lectures and books by Lawrence Krauss if you want to get into this. Alan pointed me in this direction and I found it all very fascinating.

jukief : It is often said by biblical apologists that God is outside space and time. How do they know that? Certainly not by any scientific means.

Earnest: I am no cosmologist although I do try and understand cosmological fact and theory. What I understand is that before the big bang there was neither space nor time. If that is a scientific conclusion then the intelligent first cause must be outside of space and time.

This does not reflect the latest ideas of cosmology. One might think of our universe as a sort of bubble in a much larger multiverse. Wierd stuff, but that just shows we don't know very much.

In the case of a multiverse, would "the intelligent first cause" just be outside of our little bubble, but inside the multiverse? Or would it be outside the multiverse altogether?

We simply don't know anything about these things. So saying that "the first cause" is outside space and time is saying something for which there is zero evidence -- but lots of speculation.

Earnest: My intention here is not just to repeat an argument. I am quite willing to be convinced I am wrong. It is no skin off my nose. But I find it difficult to understand why others come to a conclusion different to mine. Not for the first time.

Perhaps what I've said above can clear things up a bit.

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

Cofty said:

<< Even the majority of atheists are quick to agree to the statement that 'we can't prove god doesn't exist'. I disagree.

If we define god as the 'god and father of Jesus', and 'prove' in the everyday sense of 'show with objective evidence to be true beyond reasonable doubt', then I am convinced we can prove god does not exist.

The key is not evil in general but 'natural evil' over which humans have no control. >>

I completely agree. That's why Alan and I usually are careful to specify "the biblical God" (note the caps) or "gods" (without caps). Like Russell's Teapot, the existence of gods has no solid evidence for or against, but the biblical God is fairly well defined, both by the Bible (despite all manner of contradictions) and by three millennia of Jewish/Christian/Islamic tradition. It's within that tradition that fatal contradictions arise: contradictions between biblical statements about God's nature and personality and descriptions of his behavior; and between many biblical descriptions of God and his actions, and physical reality. The contradiction between "God is love" and "God ordered the killing of 42 children who mocked Joshua" is an example of the former; the contradiction between "God is love" and 600 million years of pain and suffering due to predation and all manner of natural disasters illustrates the latter.

<< This diversion to your thread is a spin-off from this epic thread...

There is a summary of the topic here...

and a summary of the 8 main arguments that emerged here.... >>

Wow! That dwarfs even the old chronology threads!

I really like your summary.

<< Perhaps I should add the 'Rohypnol defense' and the 'four-sided triangle defense' to the list! >>

I agree, except that the former is so crazy that only its originator would defend it.

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

Island Man said:

<< If we're to take seriously the kind of gymnastic special pleading reasoning that SBF and other apologists are using, we might as well throw logic out the door altogether and naively believe any preposterous claim no matter how contradictory. There's no position that cannot be justified - no matter how ridiculous and contradictory - with the kind of reasoning being employed by apologists. That is a huge red flag suggesting that there's something definitely wrong with their reasoning. >>

Exactly. William Lane Craig is among the most vocal of Christian apologists, and if you listen closely to what he argues, you find that much of it is special pleading. He even continues to repeat bad or false arguments that were defeated by his opponents years ago, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I admit to having a hard time reading the writings of such apologists, but a memorable one was Alister McGrath, a theologian who in 2007 published the book "The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the denial of the divine" in response to Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". It's not memorable for good arguments, but for its incessant, gobble-de-goop claims that to the ignorant seem to be arguments, but not to anyone who carefully parses his sentences. I read a number of paragraphs up to three times, and still could not figure out what he was trying to say. I'm a professional editor of technical material, and have often been responsible for rewriting obscure papers to make them readable. I'd be hard pressed to do that with McGrath's book. Slimboyfat's writing is similarly obscure. I've often wondered if such obscurantism is a product of thinking muddled by an emotional need to uphold childhood beliefs, or is deliberate. I'm convinced that many JW apologists, including JW leaders, suffer from both problems.

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

Earnest said:

<< I will have a look out for the book you mention, "A People For His Name: A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and An Evaluation", and see if I can't find it in a library. >>

Good luck with that. There were only a couple of hundred printed. Right now Amazon has an original for $240, and a facsimile (by Tony Wills, the author's real name) for about $24.

I perfectly well understand your desire to believe in a God of some sort. I don't, but I understand why most people do. There are many things in the world that seem better explained by an intelligent cause, but many more that seem better explained by lack of one. And of course, there is always the problem of where the intelligent cause came from, for which no theist has an answer. "God has always existed" is just as good or bad as "the universe has always existed".

As for most everything about a god being a matter of faith, I long ago realized that faith -- belief without real evidence -- is generally a product of childhood learning. A child absorbs the culture, and is often deliberately indoctrinated with religious belief, without being given solid reasons for it. This persist into adulthood, and it's very hard to shake.

As for JWs being God's chosen people -- no way! Even if the God of Bible exists, he is supposed to be the God of Truth, but JWs, from the lowliest rank-and-file member to Governing Body members, are no more interested in Truth than they are in building spaceships to the stars. They give lip service to the Truth, and they sometimes make a show of devotion to Truth, but in practice the leaders are gross liars, concerned mainly with maintaining their traditions and their membership rolls, and the rank-and-file are perfectly happy with this. They're only too happy to disfellowship anyone who points out where they've not conformed to the Truth. Furthermore, there are dozens of biblical teachings that the JWs do not conform to. When someone points them out, a JW will shout, "apostate!"

You misunderstood my example of being burned to a crisp -- it was ME, not a friend, who claimed to have been burned up. So there is no way to make excuses for my claim, because you're in front of me and I'm speaking directly to you.

What you say about being able to prove or disprove the existence of the Christian God is technically true, but not very practical, in my view. We decide what to do about most things in life based, not on strictly logical or mathematical proof, but on weight of evidence. Since we don't get to chat with God, that's the best we can do. Alan and I have weighed the evidence, as I described above, and made our choice as to what the facts are. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

"Fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. . . In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

Earnest said:

<< I have also said that both the argument from incredulity and the argument from the law of non-contradiction are subjective. >>

I disagree with the latter. The universe, so far as we have observed, contains no self-contradictions. Two plus two equals four, period. It does not equal three or five or anything else. Things cannot be in two places at one time. God cannot create a square circle -- BY DEFINITION. These facts are not subjective and they are not mere opinions.

It is often said by biblical apologists that God is outside space and time. How do they know that? Certainly not by any scientific means. And it is arguable that they know it even by biblical means. The Bible says nothing specific about space or time in the sense that we moderns understand them; it merely implicitly assumes that they exist in the primitive sense understood by Near Eastern peoples thousands of years ago. What these apologists claim is really just the accumulated speculation of several thousand years of religious speculation.

On the subject of whether a loving Christian God exists, I agree with cofty:

<< I am talking about the god of xtian theism the god and father of Jesus. This god is love. Love means what we do to promote the well being of others. >>

The God of the Bible is clearly modeled after the kings of the Near East such as Nebuchadnezzar. As such, Richard Dawkins, in "The God Delusion", describes this God thus:

<< The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. >>

It's easy to find several biblical passages justifying each of these charges. Do these facts in any way describe a God of Love? I think not. Such actions on the part of God are the exact opposite of promoting the well being of others. What they promote is the well being of God.

The logical contradiction is obvious: a God of Love MUST promote the wellbeing of others; a God who does not is not loving. Therefore, a loving God does not exist -- by the Bible's own descriptions of its God's actions and by what we can infer from 600 million years of pain and suffering due to predation in the animal kingdom. A deistic god, or some other supernatural god might exist, but not the omnibenevolent biblical god.

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

I hadn't intended for the OP to veer off into such an interesting topic, but now that it has I'll add more two cents.

I think that arguments about the existence of a deistic god are pretty useless, in the same sense that arguments about the existence of Russell's Teapot are useless. Since there is no definitive evidence either way, non-belief rests on lack of evidence in favor of existence, and belief rests on faith -- belief without evidence -- and not much more can be said. Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God" is a good read on this.

Slimboyfat speculates that perhaps the Christian God might be able to reset time back to the beginning, and work things such that the universe contained no suffering or evil. There are all manner of what I think are fatal problems with that, especially for Bible believers.

First, the Bible nowhere contains the faintest hint of such an idea. It defines evil basically as doing what God disapproves of -- not as the modern philosophical notion of "things that cause suffering". Since any sentient creature can at any time do something that God disapproves of (note how the Bible fuzzily indicates that Satan and Adam and Eve did this), evil is built into the basic structure of God's universe.

Second, the way JWs explain it (and most Christians accept some form of this), evil came into the world of mankind when God made a bet with Satan that at least some humans would try to obey God no matter what nasty things Satan did to them. The story of Job is the prime example here. Humans will experience the downside of this bet -- the effects of evil -- until God says, Enough! I don't know about you, but I resent being forced to experience all manner of unpleasantness merely because two gods made a bet. It seems to me that an omnipotent, omniscient God could do better.

The JWs teach that God has allowed Satan to test mankind for thousands of years in order to prove to all potential onlookers for all time that sin/evil -- disobeying God -- leads inevitably to disaster. That's a lousy test, though, because it assumes that no supernatural beings, including God, really understand human nature. God, as the Creator, should know every detail of how humans will act in all possible situations because he knows that nature. According to Genesis, "the sons of God" (apparently supernatural angels, whatever they are) took on human form and reproduced with human women. If they knew enough to do that, then they must know the details of human nature as intimately as God does. So all that these supernatural beings need do to understand what people will do in all situations is refer to the architectural plans for humans. No need for testing -- not by all-knowing supernatural beings.

Third, to be able to "reset time to the beginning" would destroy the notion of free will. The reason takes some explaining.

In 1884 Edwin Abbott published the tongue-in-cheek science-fiction novel "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" whose main character lived in a two-dimensional universe called Flatland. All inhabitants were two-dimensional geometric figures, such as squares, circles and lines. They had no conception of our three-dimensional universe. Now imagine that God takes snapshots of each instant in the Flatland universe and stacks them up next to one another in a three-dimensional space, infinitely close together. Then he constructs a time-slice motion picture machine that looks at each slice of the stack, one after another, and projects them onto a big two-dimensional viewing screen. What God would see on the screen is Flatland going through "time". The stack would appear to be a sort of giant, three-dimensional worm sitting statically in a three-dimensional space. As the time-slice projector cycles along, the slice of the stack it's projecting is "the present".

Now extend this idea by one more dimension. Here, our three-dimensional universe is the equivalent of Flatland, and each slice of it would exist in four dimensions. We can't picture this, of course, but many authors have written humorous or serious stories along these lines. Time would then be a fourth spatial dimension, and there would be a four-dimensional time-slice machine looking at each three-dimensional slice of the four-dimensional stack and projecting it on a three-dimensional viewing screen -- our own universe.

For this four-dimensional thing to work, the time-slice stack would have to be a static construction. In other words, at the beginning of our universe, God would have to construct the stack as a structure that cannot change, because "time" is actually the time-slice machine running through each slice of the stack. This gets back to the widely discussed philosophical notion that, if the universe is really a clockwork construction, cycling on via the operation of set physical laws, then the entire history of the universe was fixed at the instant of creation. In other words, the operation of physical laws through time corresponds to our time-slice machine moving through the time stack.

Quantum mechanics throws a monkey wrench into the mix, though. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle indicates that physical reality, on the finest scale, is inherently uncertain. In practice this results in the inherent randomness of radioactive decay and many other sub-atomic actions. Therefore, while the universe appears to have statistically certain operations, specific details are often random. The philosophical implication seems to be that free will exists because of this randomness, because if everything that happens was fixed at the instant of creation, then free will cannot exist and is an illusion.

In this scenario, to "reset time to the beginning" would require God to destroy the existing time stack and make a new one. This requires the existing time stack to be fixed, which means that free will does not exist.

The notion of free will seems to be fundamental to the God/Satan bet described in Job. After all, if God knew for certain what Job would do, then the test/bet would have been unnecessary. Thus, human actions are not set in stone, and according to the Bible, free will must exist. All of which shows that slimboyfat's speculation contradicts the Bible. And if one uses the Bible as a basis for one's beliefs, what, then, is the point of unbiblical speculations?

Stephen Jay Gould wrote about a similar speculation with his idea of "rerunning the tape of life". If one could somehow reset conditions back to some beginning, and watch how the evolution of life unfolds, it's unlikely that one would find the same situation as exists today, because all manner of microscopic and macroscopic contingencies would change things. This can involve the "butterfly effect". But according to quantum mechanics, this effect is somehow built into the basic structure of the universe.

Given the above considerations, I think that slimboyfat's speculations are useless. If God can change the history of the universe, then free will does not exist, which contradicts the Bible.

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

Diogenesister said:

<< This is rarther frightening and the more cynical types will see it as evidence that Watchtower leaders know exactly what they are doing. >>

I have no doubt that many of them do know exactly how they're deceiving their followers. But many are largely taken in by their own lies. It's a great example of Orwellian society.

Earnest said:

<< For those who believe in direct creation of each type of animal according to its kind, it is very difficult to argue that a god of love created animals of predation with the means and nature of causing pain and suffering to others. The same goes for parasites of various kinds. >>

Exactly. Alan told me about a recent Scientific American article on the bite force of crocodilians. If you take a Design point of view, it's obvious that these animals -- predators all -- were DESIGNED to be effective predators. The biggest of today's crocodiles can bite with a force equivalent to some 1500 kilograms. The author extrapolated back to the biggest fossil form, some 15 meters long, with about 10,000 kilograms of bite force. Their other characteristics are finely tuned to sneak up on animals at the water's edge and grab them. Is this *really* the product of a Loving Supreme Designer? I think not. If it's Design, it's a Deistic Designer. If not, it's evolution by natural selection producing the illusion of design.

<< To argue that a god of love is responsible for the pain and suffering from natural causes is less clear. If you believe in the OT view that God causes drought as punishment, he brings the rain, he causes the sun to stay in the sky ... he has a direct hand in natural events then the argument is good. Not everyone who believes in a god of love holds to that view. >>

That view is from religion's infancy, and is rooted in the strong tendency of children to give agency to inanimate objects. A child might think that the waving of trees makes the wind blow. A JW might think that God worked events such that a bolt of cloth in a fabric store was left with exactly the right amount of cloth to provide curtains for a Kingdom Hall. It's not far removed from animism.

Most Christians, and the JWs especially, believe that the universe is basically a nice, warm, fuzzy home for humans. But it is far from it. The universe is really an extremely violent place, full of massive explosions that outshine our entire galaxy. Many authors have pointed out how many ways our earth might be wiped out by the impersonal forces loose in the universe. The only way such events could be deflected from the earth is by a hugely powerful god-like entity that had humans' welfare in mind. But if such an entity exists, then judging by his lack of interest in human affairs today, one would not expect him to intervene in a bigger disaster.

Here are a couple of videos I stumbled upon that deal with what we're talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjE-8fm9Uw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqPJ5hEvf1w

It sounds like your own belief, Earnest, is more or less deistic, but not in the classic sense. The semi-famous author of high-school books on evolution, Kenneth Miller, is a practicing Catholic but pretty much a Deist. His God takes no part in any of the universe's affairs, having set things in motion a very long time ago. That view avoids the obvious contradictions with reality of believing in a Loving God, but is anathema to the majority of Christians, who believe in a God who is very active in the universe's affairs.

Rogerson's book is one of the best ever written on the JWs. Another is "A People For His Name: A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and An Evaluation" (Timothy White, 1967), now available only in facsimile. I just love Rogerson's dry, understated British humor.

TD mentioned a few examples of the sort of popular misconceptions and outright nonsense once taught, or still taught, by the JWs. Many of those things are nothing more than the misconceptions popular in Fred Franz's youth. Franz was obviously the driving force behind many of them, and he was extremely good at finding sources equivalent to The Weekly World News and other tabloid material to support his crazy ideas.

I particularly remember the nonsense back around 1971 where the Society portrayed the physical heart as the seat of emotions, the brain as the seat of intellect, and that these two actually carried on conversations that determined a person's conduct. They actually put on a District Convention skit where there was a giant green brain on one side of the stage, and a giant red heart on the other side. They "conversed" and lit up when "speaking". That made me embarrassed to be a JW.

131

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?

by jukief in

by evolution or by creation?

"the bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

jukief

Vidiot said:

<< Oh yeah, they don't even come up with anything really original; they just crib the others. >>

Exactly. Up through about 1960, they borrowed from crackpots like Isaac Newton Vail and George McCready Price. About 1965 they started borrowing from "The Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb. After Henry Morris formed the Institute for Creation Research they borrowed from them. About 1980 they figured out that young-earth creationists were completely whacky and dropped Morris and his young-earth creationist ideas. During the 1980s they seem to have realized that their tradition of 7,000-year creative days was the product of 3,000 years of Pagan-cum-Jewish-cum-Christian tradition and dropped it in favor of avoiding the topic altogether. In the 1990s they started borrowing from the Intelligent Design community, even personally interviewing Michael Behe. After Behe was largely discredited in the 2005 Dover ID trial, they started using ID notions without crediting any ID believers. But they not only borrow or even plagiarize creationists of all stripes, they often quote-mine them, or they don't understand what they read.

One of AlanF's favorite quotes is from a 1969 book by ex-JW Alan Rogerson ("Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses," p. 116, Constable, London):

<< A long acquaintance with the literature of the Witnesses leads one to the conclusion that they live in the intellectual 'twilight zone.' That is, most of their members, even their leaders, are not well educated and not very intelligent. Whenever their literature strays onto the fields of philosophy, academic theology, science or any severe mental discipline their ideas at best mirror popular misconceptions, at worst they are completely nonsensical. >>