Posts by cognisonance

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

Bats, thanks for finding that 1971 Watchtower question, "Can it be stated flatly that only baptized witnesses of Jehovah will survive Armageddon?" Summarizing and commenting on the answer:

Instances where non-baptised JWs might get saved:

Cases involving minor children living with baptised JWs who aren't old/mature enough to be responsible to Jehovah
Mentally disabled who don't have the cognative capacity to learn, may survive based on family merit (what happens if they don't have JW family members?)

Otherwsise, a person risks getting killed if they don't get dedicated and baptised. (While they do use scriptures to show the importance of baptism, ultimately when all else fails, they use the logic fallacy of appeal to fear 1 (i.e. you risk getting killed if you don't get baptised, be safe instead of sorry))

Then they say they are aware of hypothetical (as if the caveats they provide aren't hypothetical) "What if..." cases that involve extenuating circumstances (metally disabled people, that sounds extenuating to me). They say that considering these has little point and would amount to just speculation. This means they have just acknowledged that they are speculating as well.

Nevertheless, ultimately Jesus will decide won't he, they reason. They also liken such "what if..." thinking to a person just looking for loopholes so that they don't have to get baptised. The overall context of the article does appear to be geared to a person asking this question that has been around JWs (raised in the truth but not baptised, studied but not baptised, etc).

It really doesn't seem to be answering the question from the perspective of if a person wants to know if ~99% of the world's population will be destroyed at Armageddon (i.e. all people who aren't baptised JWs, or minor childern of JWs, or MRDD people with JW family). Nonetheless, this article does imply such mass killing is to happen. One very telling word they use to show why this is the case is their use of the word "extenuating." This conveys the idea of a small number of exceptions.

In essence the answer they give is the following: Only baptised JWs, and perhaps those with extenuating circumstances, will survive armageddon. Nonetheless if they don't become baptised JWs, the vast majority of humans (man, woman, and child) risk being killed by God.

To me this is still different than saying: We don't believe only JWs will get saved. We don't really know what will happen. It's up to God to read the heart and judge.

1 Bennet, Bo. "Appeal to Fear", Logically Fallacious. 21 Sept. 2012. <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/32-appeal-to-fear>. I like his example, "If you don’t accept X as true, something terrible will happen to you. Therefore X must be true." Let's substitute with the JW stance, "If you don't accept the need to be a baptised JW, then you risk dying at Armageddon. Therefore the need to be a baptised JW must be ture."

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

Sounds like the sqeaky well gets the oil, as the point of my thread has seemed to be derailed. Perhaps my anaylsis was too structured, analytical, mathmatical (I agree things don't add up!).

Joking aside, I'm seriously trying to understand the reasoning behind what JWs believe, and if this specific subject is more so what the members are saying (even hi ranking ones elders, COs etc), but not what is officially written. And to repeat, if it is officially written that people can be saved outside of the JW group when Armageddon comes (despite not having the symbolic mark of baptism, despite somehow failing to respond to Jehovah drawing them, despite not responding to the good news or knowing about God), then this is a direct contradiction of what they write in other current-light articles. If both types of views are considered current-light, then this is a contradiction of epic proportions.

But alas, I don't think the leaders ever had written the contrary view directly, only JW members seem to express it. I'll keep digging to see if I come up with any new details.

By the way, I am aware of the FAQ on jw.org. This is a very carfully crafted piece of writing! First, the question is phrased such, that the first half of the answer is a red herring, when considering who will survive armagedon (so I've edited it to work for our discussion at hand). Besides most people asking that question are interested in themselves, not people already dead (though I could seem the wondering about that too, but that's not likely what they are really asking when wanting to know if JWs are the only people who will be saved).

Do You Feel That You Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved [When Armageddon Comes]?
No[Yes, but it's not our call]. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “"there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, Many now living may yet begin to serve God [become part of Jehovah's Organization], and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27.

So here is written proof that they are saying they think only JWs are the ones to survive Armageddon, but allow for the escape hatch, the special pleading. Even then, this isn't the same as them saying, "it's possible people outside our group can get saved when the end comes." All they say is it's Jesus' job to judge not them. Of course elsewhere they say Jesus will judge based on how people respond to the preaching work. Why leave that out? (I know this is a PR/marketing response). This answer is evasive. It's not an outright lie, but it does omit certain facts, and thus is a half truth. The very thing they say apostates do.

107

Billions of dead, possibly killed by divine radiation, all of whom will need to be buried... Gerrit Losch predicts the future!

by cedars in

i've finally turned my attentions away from anthony morris iii (just for the time being!

) and done a video about another governing body member... gerrit losch.. in this video, taken from a 2008 talk (given in sydney, australia), gerrit gives us his grim predictions for the future.... .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4bl_hzhjzm.

cognisonance

My wife are going to therapy these days, after learning TTATT (directly caused by Gerrit's crazy talk in Norway 2012).

Does anyone have a recording or transcript (or translation into english if in a foreign langauge) of that talk? I see someone said he talked about higher education = shooting one in the foot or being likened to OCD? But this seems to be in the context of talking about a 2007 talk. Any confirmation/sources to back up these statements would be of great interest to me.

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

Blondie, thanks also for the quotes about the baptism as JW = marked for survival at Armageddon. It also explicitly states the inverse as well:

11 We understand that in the fulfillment of this prophecy, the man “clothed in linen” represents the remnant of spirit-anointed Christians. By means of the preaching and disciple-making work, the anointed class puts a symbolic mark on those who become part of Christ’s “other sheep.” (John 10:16) What is the mark? It is the evidence, as if displayed on their uncovered foreheads, that such sheep are dedicated, baptized disciples of Jesus Christ and that they have put on the Christlike new personality. (Eph. 4:20-24) These sheeplike ones become one flock with anointed Christians and assist them in their vital work of marking still others.—Rev. 22:17.

12 Ezekiel’s vision highlights one reason why our ongoing search for people who are “sighing and groaning” is so urgent. It involves lives. Soon, Jehovah’s heavenly executional forces, represented by the six men with weapons, will destroy those who do not have the symbolic mark. Concerning that coming judgment, the apostle Paul wrote that the Lord Jesus, accompanied by “his powerful angels,” will bring “vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thess. 1:7, 8) Notice that people will be judged on the basis of their response to the good news. Hence, the proclamation of God’s message must continue unabated right to the end. (Rev. 14:6, 7) This places a heavy responsibility on all of Jehovah’s dedicated servants.—Read Ezekiel 3:17-19. 1

Again such wording leaves no room for people that aren't responding to the good news, aren't getting baptised (context shows baptism as a JW is what they really mean, not just baptized in some other religon), and aren't putting on the Christlike new personality to be saved when the end comes. Even if some other Watchtower article says something to the contray (and so far, I don't think they have, just the JWs themselves making these appeals), then we simply have a contradiction, and would not the law of contradiction apply as follows?:

A proposition cannot be both true and false or that a thing cannot both have and not have a given property.2

1 "The House-to-House Ministry—Why Important Now?" Watchtower. 15 July 2008: 3-7.

2 "Law of Contradiction" Dictionary.com 20 Sept. 2012 <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law+of+contradiction>

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

Blondie, I don't have access right now to the WL CD to look at the context of your quotes (except the first one). However, none of them appear to be pulling the "only God can read hearts" card with reference to who would survive Armageddon. I am wanting to know if this has ever been done in such a context (i.e. in an article like the one in the KM about "Lives are at Stake!" posted earlier). I see they are refering to human judicical rulings back in the israelite times and in today's modern time with the JW judicial commities or appointment of elders, etc.

Using your first quote with more context, I could see how a JW read the following and then perhaps attempt to apply this "principel" or "concept" to Armageddon:

Our Viewpoint May Be Distorted or Limited
15 The second factor to remember when we are faced with a situation that appears to be unfair is that our viewpoint may be distorted or limited. It can be distorted by imperfection, prejudice, or cultural background. It is also limited by our inability to discern motives and to know what is really in people’s hearts. In contrast, both Jehovah and Jesus have no such limitations.—Prov. 24:12; Matt. 9:4; Luke 5:22.

16 Let us analyze the account of David’s adultery with Bath-sheba. (2 Sam. 11:2-5) According to the Mosaic Law, they deserved to be executed. (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) Although Jehovah punished them, he did not enforce his own law. Was that unfair on Jehovah’s part? Did he show favoritism to David and violate His own righteous standards? Some Bible readers have felt that way.

17 However, this law on adultery was given by Jehovah to imperfect judges, who could not read hearts. Despite their limitations, they were enabled by this law to be consistent in their judgments. On the other hand, Jehovah can read hearts. (Gen. 18:25; 1 Chron. 29:17) So we should not expect that Jehovah would have to be restricted by a law he designed for imperfect judges. If he were, would that not be like forcing someone with perfect vision to wear eyeglasses that are designed to correct the vision of those with defective sight? Jehovah could read the hearts of David and Bath-sheba and see their genuine repentance. Taking such a factor into consideration, he judged them accordingly, in a merciful and loving manner. 1

The article talks about David breaking the Mosaic Law in such a way that he deserves death, but God jumps in and pardon's his crime, because David was truly repentant. The point being made is that God was not unjust, or showing favortism to David, for allowing him to keep living. The reason is because only he can read hearts.

So, I can see a JW take this and see, perhaps, an analogy between this situation and Armageddon and reason, "Our literature says that God will draw all those deserving of life to his organization, therefore when the end comes only those associated with the organization will be saved. Yet, I know there are likely good people that aren't JWs who I hope God will have mercy on and save as well. If he can intervene despite the official rules for David, why can't he do the same for people at Armageddon?" However, is such an argument logical?

Besides this reasoning exibiting Special Pleading 2 as mentioned in my first post, I'm wondering if it also exhibits the following logic fallacies:

Weak Analogy 3, 4. For this fallacy to occur there has to be a sufficent difference between non-JWs getting saved at Armageddon and the analogous one with God intervened for David since he can read hearts. The Armageddon senerio is a primary example of divine judgment, wheras the David one was originally of human judgement (to which God choose to sidestep standard operating procedure to judge for himself). Could there also be a stronger analogy for Armageddon than comparing it to how God dealt with David? Well, low and behold we have one -- The Flood of Noah's day. In fact the Bible compares Armageddon to the Flood. How does the Watchtower answer these questions: How many people were saved outside the ark? Zero! Does this imply that everyone therefore that did not head the warning died, and god was justified for killing them? Yes. Could there have possibly been "good people" that died becuase they simply did not want to adopt Noah's belief system? Yes. Do JWs use this analogy to show why people must be part of God's Organizaition? An emphatic yes! The David anology also seems to possibly be a Begging Analogy becuase it is is Begging the Question?
Begging Analogy5 , a form of Begging the Question 6,7 . Begging the Question, has nothing to do with the common expression, "this begs the question", as in, "this prompts the question." Rather, Begging the Question is a form of fallacious circular reasoning. This logic fallacy, I admit is not the easiest to wrap my head around (please read the references, as I may be making mistakes in application). Anyway, how do we know that God will step in and save people based on their heart condition like he did with David? Well one might point to Davids example and say see, he did it then, so we know he will do it in the future. But the strength of this argument comes from a controversial point that is at issue, that God will save people despite what the WTS has written about Armageddon. It seems to me to be a circular argument, where the conclusion (God will read hearts and save right-hearted ones in Armageddon that aren't JWs) is assumed in the primise (i.e. God read Davids heart and saved him when the law he gave to Moses would have otherwise incacted the death penalty). This is more clear when we look at the loaded langague of the conclusion. The term "right-hearted" is something we also likely would attribute to David. Therefore, the premise and conclusion might as well be: "God read a right-hearted person's heart and saved him in the past, this implies that god will save right hearted people at Armagedon." Such is a valid argument, per se. Not all circular reasoning is fallacious. It becomes a problem when it does not advance our knowledge about a postion. Such advancing of knowledge would be if we start with a premise one believes and ends up with a conclusion that he previously didn't believe. In this case we start with a premise we believe, and end up with the conclusion we also (want to) believe (due to the Special Pleading, or perhaps an Appeal to Consequences of a belief).
Appeal to Consequences of Belief 8,9 . This fallacy is reasoning like follows: "I believe God won't kill good, right-hearted people, even if they aren't JWs at Armageddon, becuase that would mean the God I worship would be unloving." Or perhaps, "I love my spouse, who is not a JW like me, thus God must show mercy to some people at Armageddon and spare them, becuase otherwise that would mean my spouse would die when the end comes."

Well, this took some work to think about and put together. I'd appreciate some feedback here. Am I misapplying any of these fallacies? Certainly it's possible my own arguments might be fallacious, and if so please point this out to me. Trying to spot fallacies in logic (and avoid making them) is not always an easy task. I don't feel that people that make such mistakes are doing something neccessarily wrong, we all get emotion at times and have biases and motived reasonings that aren't always rational or logical. I'm trying to learn to temper the non-rational logic I might have, and to know how to identify it when others are making logic fallacies.

Additionally, I'm not sure what to do with the following thoughts, but they are also on my mind: If God saved David from being killed under the mosaic law becuase of he was sincerely repentant, does that mean that all he didn't save who died for the same "crime" were unrepentant? Did all that die in the Flood, were they all unrepentant? Did all that die in the Flood, did they all not have a right-heart condition? Are humans generally so bad-hearted that God only ends up saving a select few?

1 "Keep On Seeking First 'His Righteousness'." Watchtower. 15 Oct. 2010: 7-11.

2 Bennet, Bo. "Special Pleading." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/164-special-pleading>.

3 Bennet, Bo. "Weak Analogy." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/182-weak-analogy>.

4 Curtis, Gary N. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.

5 Curtis, Gary N. "Begging Analogy." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/qbanalog.html>.

6 Bennet, Bo. "Begging the Quesiton." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/61-begging-the-question>.

7 Curtis, Gary N. "Begging the Quesiton." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html>.

8 Bennet, Bo. "Appeal to Consequences." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/26-appeal-to-consequences>.

9 Curtis, Gary N. "Appeal to Consequences." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html>.

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

And wait theres more:

How We Can Let Jehovah Question Us

What about us? Can we too benefit from the questions recorded in the Bible? Yes, we can! Allowing those questions to make us stop and think can bring us rich spiritual rewards. The penetrating questions in God’s Word contribute to its effectiveness. Indeed, “the word of God . . . exerts power . . . and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12) To benefit most, however, we need to direct those questions to ourselves, as if Jehovah were questioning us personally. (Rom. 15:4) Let us consider some examples.

“Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?” (Gen. 18:25) Abraham posed this rhetorical question to Jehovah at the time of God’s judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham considered it unthinkable that Jehovah could ever act unjustly—putting the righteous to death with the wicked. Abraham’s question reflects his deep faith in Jehovah’s righteousness.

Today, some may be inclined to speculate about matters regarding Jehovah’s future judgments, such as who exactly will survive Armageddon or who will receive a resurrection. Rather than allowing such thoughts to disturb us, we can recall Abraham’s question. Knowing Jehovah as a benevolent heavenly Father and having complete confidence in his justice and mercy, as Abraham did, prevents us from wasting time and energy on unnecessary worry, weakening doubt, and useless debate. 1

So the offical JW reasoning seems to be: Just as the flood in Noah's day, being on the spiritual ark (Jehovah's Organizaiton) is the only means a person can get saved. Rest assured that all honesthearted ones have had an opportunity to respond to the good news, and since Jehovah can read hearts he would have already tried to draw every single right hearted person to his organization. Thus all that will be destoryed will deserve it. Any thought beyond this would just result in doubts, so stop thinking critically about it.

Consider the following to support this:

So although Jehovah does not promise that every individual will receive exactly the same opportunity, he does make sure that an opportunity is held out to all honesthearted ones. He will even make sure that those who have never had the occasion to learn about him will be given an opportunity by means of a resurrection to life in a righteous new world.—Acts 24:15. 2

In very direct terms, Jesus stated: “No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him.” (John 6:44) Ultimately, therefore, Jehovah is responsible for drawing people who are “rightly disposed for everlasting life.” (Acts 13:48) God’s spirit can awaken people to their spiritual need. (Matthew 5:3) A disturbed conscience, a desperate quest for hope, or a gripping crisis may lead some to search for God and thus learn about his purpose for mankind.—Mark 7:26-30; Luke 19:2-10. 3(please read my footnote)

All this said, I wonder where JWs (even the elders on my JC when I was DF'd) come up with "Special Pleading" arguments:

"If you try to return to Jehovah and we don't approve you for reinstatement, but you are sincerely trying to come back, Jehovah can still save you should the end come before you're reinstated as only he can read hearts, not us."
"We can't be dogmatic about who will get saved, only Jehovah can read hearts."
"We never said anyone now associated with Jehovah's Organization will not be survive, ultimately it's in Jehovah's hands."

Were any comments like this ever printed in our publications?

1 "Do You Let Jehovah Question You?" Watchtower. 15 April 2010: 14.

2 "Our Readers Ask... Do All Have an Equal Opportunity to Come to Know God?" Watchtower. 1 Aug. 2010: 22.

3 "Multitudes Embrace Jehovah's Worship." Watchtower. 15 Sept. 2005: 8, 9. When reading this article it is clear that the drawing done by God is to "the earthly part of Jehovah's organization." It also states, "Jehovah is gathering and training a great multinational crowd of true worshippers. This international group has the happy prospect of surviving the approaching end of this wicked system of things and living on into a righteous new world"

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

Found this, which states the inverse explicitly:

Lives Are at Stake!

1 The Bible makes clear Jehovah’s will “that all sorts of men should be saved.” However, it is also true that the life prospects of earth’s billions depend upon their attitude toward Jehovah God and his Kingdom by Jesus Christ. A proper attitude can be based only on “accurate knowledge of truth.” [which we all know they are refering to Jehovah's Organization] (1 Tim. 2:3, 4) While giving notice that soon the earth will be cleansed of all wickedness in order to make way for God’s new world of righteousness, we have also been commissioned to carry on a vital lifesaving work.—Matt. 24:14; 28:19, 20; Rom. 10:13-15.

2 Why So Urgent? Jesus gave warning about a “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning.” (Matt. 24:21) That tribulation will reach its climax at Armageddon. (Rev. 16:16) The masses of people facing annihilation if they fail to respond to the good news include our unbelieving relatives, neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and acquaintances. But our concern is to reach out to “all sorts of men” in imitation of God, who manifested his love for the entire world of mankind by giving his Son, Jesus Christ, as a ransom for all. (John 3:16) We must zealously endeavor to invite all to flee to God’s place of safety. By fully carrying out the preaching work, we can avoid bloodguilt.—Ezek. 33:1-7; 1 Cor. 9:16. 1

This article makes no "Special Pleading" logic fallacies. It makes no room for "but jehovah can read hearts, we can't be dogmatic about who will or won't get saved." It makes no room for "we don't really know who is going to be saved for sure, we just have to make it there to find out", etc, etc.

1 "Lives Are at Stake!" Our Kingdom Ministry. Sept. 2000: 1.

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

By the way, the book that defended "quoting out of context", was the infamous creationism book:

The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications by Henry M. Morris, John C. Whitcomb (1970, 6th printing)

That book talked about the water vapor canopy theory, attacks Carbon 14 dating, says human footprints were found alongside dinosaurs, and of course states that the flood layed down all the fossil bearing strata geologically speaking, oh, and that the earth is young, not 4.5 billion years old.

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

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.

51

"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance in

recently i talked to someone i care about who is in the jw group and stated i feel that believing billions of people are going to die when armegedon comes and only a jws will survive would be unloving of a god.

the response is one that i've also noticed others have experienced.

in short the answer is something like the following: "we don't believe that, only jehovah can read hearts.

cognisonance

Recently I talked to someone I care about who is in the JW group and stated I feel that believing billions of people are going to die when Armegedon comes and only a JWs will survive would be unloving of a god. The response is one that I've also noticed others have experienced. In short the answer is something like the following: "We don't believe that, only Jehovah can read hearts." Why do some respond this way? This is what I'm trying to understand and examine.

So I start by first looking at wol.jw.org to see what the literature has recently said. Consider the following Watchtower quote:

Jehovah has wisely made sure that the “good news of the kingdom” is proclaimed far and wide, in hundreds of languages. People everywhere are being given the opportunity for survival and salvation. (Matthew 24:14; Psalm 37:34; Philippians 2:12) Those who respond favorably to the good news can survive Armageddon and live forever in perfection on a paradise earth. (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Zephaniah 2:3; Romans 10:13) Is this not what one would expect from a God who is love?—1 John 4:8. 1

Hmm. This statement suggests to me that those that do not respond favorably to the good news that Jehovah's Witnesses preach will not survive Armageddon (the inverse of what they state). Thus, if God destroys them, he is still being loving because he, after all, did warn them.

NOTE: I am aware of the logic fallacy called Denying the Antecedent 2 (or inverse fallacy). However, you will find as you continue reading, that this inverse is indeed what is often taught and believed by Jehovah's Witnesses. If I'm wrong, please correct me and I will happily say my arguemnt here is invalid becuase I then would be Denying the Antecedent. I aim for intellectual honesty!

This has always been problematic for me. I was raised in this religion, but I often thought that had I not been, I probably would never have become one. Why? Likely becuase I would not have taken the religion seriously and probably would not have looked into them. I would likely have not seen them much different than any other non-mainstream religion. In fact, I likely would have been inclined not to gravitate to religion (or spirituality, or metaphysical explanations) at all, favoring scientific explainations for things. I have always wondered, how many people that JWs attempt to preach to feel a similar way (with the not take this religion seriously part, I know many do believe in God). How many really think that not listening means they will die for not responding to the message?

Nonetheless, the article quoted does have the following caveat a few paragraphs earlier:

Only Jehovah is capable of waging a truly just and truly selective war during which righthearted individuals, wherever they may be on earth, will be preserved. (Matthew 24:40, 41; Revelation 7:9, 10, 13, 14) 3

So there is the escape hatch JWs resort to when facing the question: do they believe they are the only ones that will survive Armageddon? I think this is the logic fallacy called Special Pleading 4 . In the link to special pleading it gives the following example:

Yes, I do think that all drunk drivers should go to prison, but your honor, he is my son! He is a good boy who just made a mistake!

Explanation: The mother in this example has applied the rule that all drunk drivers should go to prison. However, due to her emotional attachment to her son, she is fallaciously reasoning that he should be exempt from this rule, because, “he is a good boy who just made a mistake”, which would hardly be considered adequate justification for exclusion from the rule.

Let's change this to use the argument JWs make:

Yes, I do think that all those that respond favorably to the good news will survive Armageddon, it's a loving provision of Jehovah to warn people and give them an oppurtunity to make the steps needed to come to Jehovah's Organization to survive. But wait, I know there must be people out there that truely have a good heart, they just are being mislead, just don't believe what we preach, or have been been turned off to religion and just can't accept any form, etc. Thus, we can't say God won't save these people too as it only makes sense a loving God would.

How does such an emotionally pleading thought have anything to do with the general thought (written or not) of JWs that to survive one must respond favorably to the preaching work of Jehovah's Witnesses (that responding means taking the steps to come to Jehovah's Organization). I've heard it said if someone starts studying and truly is making a conversation when Armageddon/Great Tribulation comes he will survive. I've heard spoken of me (I'm DF'd) that if I repent and turn around and take steps to return but the end comes before I officially get reinstated, that God could still spare me at Armageddon. Basically the thought is one has to be taking steps to come into the organization. This is how one respnods favorably.

If this wasn't a requirement, and a person could get "saved" based on just having being honest-hearted, then why do JWs bother preaching at all? Why view all other religions and those part of them as divinely marked for destruction? Why say lives are at stake? Why say one could be bloodguilty if he doesn't preach? Why do they liken their work to trying to save people out of a burning building? If God could just save people based on his own assement (which the special pleading suggests), why put so much emphasis on the preaching work being the opportunity for survival?

1 "Armageddon—A Happy Beginning?" Watchtower 1 December 2005: 4-7.

2 Bennet, Bo. "Denying the Antecedent." Logically Fallacious. 19 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/75-denying-the-antecedent>.

3 "Armageddon—A Happy Beginning?" Watchtower 1 December 2005: 4-7.

4 Bennet, Bo. "Special Pleading." Logically Fallacious. 19 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/164-special-pleading>.