I've been giving this some more thought about the position I am taking (as many others) about the JW literature effectively saying those that do not associate with Jehovah's Organization will not survive Armageddon. Some more info about the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent 1,2 has been very helpful. I am interested in logic fallacies because growing up in this religion, I never fully developed my critical thinking skills as good as I could have.
Back to my original example:
Those who respond favorably to the good news can survive Armageddon and live forever in perfection on a paradise earth.
What we have here (as rephrased below) is a conditional statement. It follows the following form: If P, then Q. P is the Antecedent and Q is the Consequent.
- Antecedent: If people respond favorably to the good news,
- Consequent: [then] they can survive Armageddon....
If I am guilty of the logic fallacy I am hoping to avoid (denying the antecedent), I would have to come about my inverse statement using the following logic (I provided some examples to more clearly show the problem of denying the antecedent):
If p then q.(If people respond favorably to the good news, then they can survive Armageddon...)
(If people are officially Jehovah's Witnesses, then they were baptised.)
(If I was the axe murder, then I used an axe)
not p. (People aren't responding favorably to the good news.)
(People aren't officially Jehovah's Witnesses.)
(I am not the axe murder)
So, not q. (So, they cannot surive Armageddon.)
(So, they never were baptised.)
(So, I cannot use an axe)
See the problem? A person can be a Baptist, but that doesn't mean he never got baptised. A person may not be the axe murder, but that doesn't mean he can't use an axe. Just the same, a person could not respond to the good news, but that doesn't mean they will not survive Armageddon.
A correct and valid form of a logical argument is denying the consequent (a.k.a. Modus Tollens):
If p then q.(If people repsond favorably to the good news, then they can survive Armageddon...)
(If people are officially Jehovah's Witnesses, then they were baptised.)
(If I was the axe murder, then I used an axe)
not q. (People cannot survive Armageddon.)
(People were never baptised.)
(It has always been physically impossible for me to use an axe)
So, not p. (So, they aren't responding unfavorably to the good news.)
(So, they are not offically Jehovah's Witnesses.)
(So, I was not the axe murder)
So, it's this latter logical argument were I (and others) assert that JWs say the following:
Those who respond favorably unfavorably to the good news can survive die at Armageddon and live forever never live in perfection on a paradise earth.
...and one of Blondie's quotes with more context:
A third requirement is that we be associated with God’s channel, his organization. God has always used an organization. For example, only those in outside the ark in Noah’s day survived died in the Flood, and only those associated unassociated with the Christian congregation in the first century had God’s favor disapproval. (Acts 4:12) Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive reject everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it mistake that organization and serve God as part of an organization not being used by Jehovah. 3
So again, the argument that such texts imply that billions of people are going to die at armageddon and only those part of Jehovah's Organization will survive is a valid one.So now, I'd like to focus on the logic fallacies used by JW literature to apologeticly respond to the concept of a loving god killing 99% of all humans living on earth when the end comes. I've already declared they are guilty of "Special Pleading." Is this a valid assertion? Are there any others?
1 Robert T. Carroll. "Denying the antecedent." The Skeptics Dictionary. 19 Sept. 2012 < http://www.skepdic.com/denyingtheantecedent.html>.
2 Alex Morgan. "Session 5: Overview." PHIL 201.Introduction to Formal Logic. 19 Sept. 2012 <http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~amorgo/teaching/09s_201/files/lecture_05.pdf>
3 "YouCan Live Forever in Paradise on Earth - But How?" Watchtower. 15 Feb. 1983, 12.