Posts by PetrW

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

PetrW

@Cofty

I don't want to psychologize the problem. But it's clear why I'm talking about trust. Because many people treat the statement "I believe in God" with disdain, especially when their own belief - often due to the guilt of others - has resulted in unbelief.

But if we look at just what modern human science knows about trust, then we can discover just that common, human basis. The basis for someone to have faith in God is that they have, as other people do, trust. (The disturbances in brain activity in e.g. paranoid anxiety suggest that these people suffer from just non-trust, and it suggests how important trust is...).

The principle of trust (its static description) is quite primitive: trust is the cognitive ability to consider something as real/certain without having direct sensory input about it (seeing, hearing, touching, etc. - see cognitive psychology). So trust is related to e.g. imagination or learning (repeated experience), but also to emotions...

This trivial description, we can apply to any small thing in our lives. You, for example, here https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5635621699715072/evolution-fact-15-robinson-crusoe

you're describing some scientific observations in the Galapagos Islands. I assume that you, and I certainly, have not been to the Galapagos. I have no direct, immediate cognitive perception regarding the Galapagos. Only vicariously - internet, library or school atlas. Or I can go to a lecture by people who have been there, etc., etc. And to take the Galapagos as fact, as real, then I use the principle of trust: although I have NO DIRECT cognitive perception of the Galapagos, I am able to CONCLUDE the subject of the Galapagos as fact, based on several different verified sources. I use the principle of confidence, and label the cognitive result as a certainty.

I believe, or am certain to that degree, and so my constructed awareness of the existence of the Galapagos, does not prevent me from accepting the additional - successive - claim that there are some monsters living in the Galapagos, whose existence proves or denies something...

I am deliberately writing this using a trivial "school" example. But anyone can put anything else after "Galapagos", or deal with multiple "Galapagos", or even compare "Galapagos 1" with "Galapagos 2", etc. etc. And that's how trust works. It is a very influential instrument that affects our construction of the world. But it is not alone! Such emotions can do even more!:-)

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

PetrW

@ TonusOH

We do trust in others to some extent (often to a great extent) when it comes to what we know or understand about our world or universe. The level of that trust is dependent on a number of factors.

Some factors are unreliable. We may trust in something if enough people tell us it is so. Other factors are much more reliable. We will trust in knowledge whose application confirms what we are being told. The latter is even more useful if there is a way for others to confirm it as well.

Science is the latter...

*

I totally agree with you. But speaking of validity tests: try applying your above statements to the arguments of the opponents/supporters of the Covid-19 vaccines! Just touch lightly on the subject of vaccines to see who was scientifically correct...!

(I do think there would be such a battle of opinion, not unlike whether evolution or Creation, that you'd better not do it...it was just a rhetorical allusion to the fact that the inter-scientific disputes closer to us, are not as clearly fought as one might suppose...).

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

PetrW

@Cofty

You may not like it, you may even disagree with it, but that's about all you do with it. Trust me!😎😊😇

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

PetrW

@Cofty

The debate about whether the Earth is flat or round is more about the (successful) results of science. Everything you described was so different in 1210, in the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system of science, almost everything was different than today. The Arab-Jewish world, or China at that time, might have been better off...?

But about trust: we can imagine trust as "black" or "white": trust in God, in a winning football team or in a winning ticket. But trust is often made up of individual smaller "trusts" that - because they have been repeatedly confirmed, so based on repeated experience, we rightly assume the same will occur in the future, even though we could not control it with our senses (sight, hearing, etc.).

I didn't fly around the earth. But movies or photographs prove the roundness of the Earth. But what if it's fake? Aren't other, more important things being faked? In deciding whether the Earth is flat, I trust science more because it has more arguments - although(!!!), I myself, have no way to verify the roundness of the Earth except by visual inspection of a photo or film. I do go to the seaside, but there is a cove with little view and I am short-sighted😊

We all, this applies to almost all of us: I get in the car and I know the brakes will work. I don't check the fluid, the brake pads or the brake disc. I assume - I have confidence - that the manufacturers have done all the proper procedures in manufacturing or inspection. They used the right materials and the right temperatures. The manufacturer has then assumed - based on past experience - that the raw materials used to make the brakes will also be of the specifications stated by the supplier. Of course, they checked with some tools/instruments/equipment that someone certified that the values that will be there correspond to those that are generally agreed upon...etc. etc. Very little, or none of it, I can check myself (they should be documented), but since I know the whole process was done in a controlled manner, then I trust it. This description applies to anything: a peer-reviewed article in Nature on amino acids, I take it, I can trust it 99.999% because the journal's editors adhere to high standards of scientific work, that the article has gone through a rigorous, anonymous peer-review process. That the process described there is replicable anywhere in the world... I trust it without putting on a white coat and opening a canister of amino acid...😊
However, because trust is very risky, then people try to discover practices that allow them the "luxury" of not having to trust. Banks and credit are typical examples. The word credit is derived from "trust", but the bank will do anything to not have to trust you😊 They will change the laws so that a credit scam on the bank will not pay off, they will ask for some collateral, guarantors or they will know that if the bank should go bankrupt because of unpaid credits, the taxpayers will pay for it and not the bank management...But even in this case, you only have security in the 1st round. Then you still have to trust that the scenarios you wanted will happen and not others.
So, if, you have certainty(!!!) due to some/any scientific texts, books, your own research, etc., then upon further, careful examination, you must conclude that from a certain point, you are forced to trust those sources that have contributed in a small way to your overall certainty.
You don't have the opportunity to verify everything. But even if you have verified one area perfectly, you probably won't have time to verify other areas. Either way, there will remain many areas where you will have confidence. And since you haven't verified, then it's risky. And failures in these unverified areas can lead to the collapse of the entire assurance system. The circle is closing.

81

My conclusion on the matter

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

after being brought up a jw, going to mts, bethel, pioneer school multiple times, serving in foreign assignments and having been an elder for decades my conclusion is that i am now pima, physically in mentally agnostic.. agnostic means you think it can’t be proven either way creation or evolution.

i do tend to lean towards evolution but creation at the very start because you can’t get life from dead matter.

but i’m open to the possibility of chance theory at the origin of it all.

PetrW

@ExBethelitenowPIMA

This means that all JWs, Muslim, Jews, Buddhists, every other belief system including atheists are all agnostic even though they don’t know it.

*

At this point, they are putting you in the box for you!? Most would disagree with you and some more respect Quran 8:55 "The worst of creatures in God's view are those who disbelieve. They have no faith." Of course, Allah is gracious and merciful, so don't worry too much about it... :-)

No, more seriously, I just want to speak for myself: There have been times in the past when I have vehemently defended my beliefs. The world saw black or white. 1 or 0. Binary. With the passage of time, it has come to pass that I am also able to former "enemies", to admit sincerity, truthfulness or in general, the pursuit of truth. If I were to put, with permission, you, as a symbol of agnostics, and Mr. Cofty, as a symbol of modern, scientific evolution (with all the knowledge, but also the natural degree of doubt inherent in science), and my view (the God of the Bible exists), in the same line, then in effect, I only PRIORITIZE my view, without the other two, having to see you capitulate... I ascribe all possible truth and sincerity to your opinion, or Mr. Cofty's opinion. The difference between your opinion, or Mr. Cofty's opinion, and mine, is minimal. A hair.

The reason is that I think that both you or others, and I as well, use trust as a cognitive means by which we learn about the world around us. Also the past or the future. From a psychological point of view, it makes no difference if someone trusts a text in the Quran, the Bible or Nature. Belief is "trust" with some content. Trust has no positive or negative value in itself. Do criminals trust each other when planning a crime, do politicians trust each other (ugh, why the same thing, am I typing twice in a row?:-) ), but do nuns from a convent trust each other.Trust is not just interpersonal, but we trust things, events or have trust in animals. We trust our own abilities ("hold my beer!").What do I do more than Mr. Cofty or you? I, by that small margin, a hair's breadth, choose to also trust the option that God exists. Everything you believe, I am able to accept as well, but if I have tried to believe something extra, then from that perspective, I revise some things, for myself, from evolution or agnosticism. I don't have to agree 100% with their views. But I don't have to vehemently deny them either. I don't have to create enemies out of the people around me, just because of some verbal phrase or chemical formula of some acid.
If you honestly and consistently question what you trust, you will discover how fragile and unstable the world around us is. However, trust does reduce the complexity of the social world, but it is also highly risky. But even without trust completely, it can't. We are all trapped in trust.

124

JWLITE

by Teddnzo in

jw
friends

even elders can be part of the new jw lite brigade these days.

they don’t need to go on door to door anymore and there is no requirement for anything really.. taking meeting parts is all dead easy you could turn up on the day with zero preparation because it’s all in the meeting workbook.. quarterly elders meetings are just old men having a good old natter just like old men do down the pub.. congregations could be likened to pubs or bars these days just without the drinks, those come at other times.. no need for territory maps, these almost went away with covid letter writing now they are extremely slow getting finished as those who still go door to door only do ten mins.. you could even voice your questions these days about things the gb say and then just say “we can’t be dogmatic we just don’t know”.

i predict they will say this about 1914 soon..

PetrW

@ExBethelitenowPIMA

Could anyone count the times this fraise was used at the AGM “we can’t be dogmatic we just don’t know” by all members of the GB.

This is a significant change and will apply to oll the old doctrine made up by now dead people. This new GB have inherited old doctrine that is long out of date.

I can see this new JWLITE really being appealing with all things slowly becoming “we just don’t know”

***

You are, perhaps, too nice to them😊 But if an elite of a group admits mistakes but continues to hold on to power or maintain the system that allowed them to become elite, then it is untrustworthy. More accurately: it's common, but is it Christian? Given a decades-long system with widespread negative effects on millions of people around the world, is it justifiable?

If I "switch" to "Machiavellianism", where power takes precedence over morality, then GB is doing exactly what is required in terms of maintaining and confirming power to the oligarchy! Personally, I would use the (apparent) debate on freedom of opinion to then remove these "free thinkers": they will out themselves and I don't have to expose them, I will use a faction to destroy them or falsely accuse them of something they (didn't) do, and I will consolidate my power by imposing law and order after removing the doubters, because the doubters will no longer be there! A perfect totalitarian world! (End of satire and evil thinking! 😊 )

However, we will continue to monitor the case. Personally and honestly (aside from the jokes I sometimes make about it), I wish the JWs had handled it well, but I don't give it much of a chance.

P.S.: when you and others discuss evolution, remember that sooner or later, you will be equated with scientific theory/hypothesis and "truth", it's very subtle and often forgotten in discussions. One doesn't have to be a physicist or a molecular biologist, but it certainly doesn't hurt to know a little something about the philosophy of science (the logic of scientific inquiry - Karl Popper gives his regards! 😊 )

124

JWLITE

by Teddnzo in

jw
friends

even elders can be part of the new jw lite brigade these days.

they don’t need to go on door to door anymore and there is no requirement for anything really.. taking meeting parts is all dead easy you could turn up on the day with zero preparation because it’s all in the meeting workbook.. quarterly elders meetings are just old men having a good old natter just like old men do down the pub.. congregations could be likened to pubs or bars these days just without the drinks, those come at other times.. no need for territory maps, these almost went away with covid letter writing now they are extremely slow getting finished as those who still go door to door only do ten mins.. you could even voice your questions these days about things the gb say and then just say “we can’t be dogmatic we just don’t know”.

i predict they will say this about 1914 soon..

PetrW

@ExBethelitenowPIMA

This is the new JWLITE

*

I think you mean well. There could be several scenarios. The best one, in my opinion, would be that GB and all the elders around the world would call all the JWs together on one day and one hour and say, we are calling you here and now on the basis of legitimacy, which we will not have after this meeting is over!

All our legitimacy, whether organizational (official) or theological, derived from predictions concerning 1914 and all directly or secondarily related topics, ceases at the moment of its announcement. We are no more than you are, even because of our guilt - whether direct or indirect, we ask all JWs or ex-JWs, as well as their family members, for deep forgiveness.

Because the chronological speculation for 1914 is flawed in every single point of which it is composed, and because Christ did not follow that date, did not appoint anyone to any administration, did not begin the last days, none of the things we have ever claimed to have happened since the beginning of our interpretations of Revelation or the book of Daniel ever took place, so there have never been any anointed ones among us who were led by Christ, and if there were after all, we do not know for sure. The actual feelings of those who claimed this about themselves are no guarantee to others that they must accept them as such. Worse still, if by their attitudes or even statements, they prevented others from entering into heavenly fellowship with Christ, because they were probably not in any fellowship with Christ themselves.

Therefore, there have been very, very many who, on the basis of our false teachings, have felt that they should not pursue the hope of heaven, even though their exemplary lives and sacrifices have often exceeded our own sacrifices. Many of those who have insultingly referred to others as "other sheep" have never borne the load of those whom we have scornfully excluded because, in harmony with Christ, they have felt that we are false apostles. Our guilt cannot be described well enough as it affects millions of people and their families, even entire countries. For many, because of us, the Bible or Christ has become synonymous with bigotry, hatred and stupidity.

*

End of dream. 😊 Of course, that probably won't happen, and if it does, it will affect individuals rather than entire communities. But who knows...😊 The more likely scenario is that they "cement" their position due to the realization of their fallibility. For most members, even their admission will be the signal that only with the strong and under God's guidance, will they admit their guilt - and maintain their power. Admission of guilt, then, is an instrument for the consolidation of power. We know it so well from politics: trying to "fight" one's sins is here seen as an act of extraordinary moral strength.

15

J.W org and Noah's Flood

by Phizzy in

i remember when i was "in" the org.

had a ridiculous public talk outline defending the genesis flood myth.. do they have a current one doing that ?.

PetrW

@Big Dog

Agreed. You've given me a bit of a pass✌️😎

One of the earliest occurrences of the word "faith" in the NT has almost nothing to do with religious content, as we would expect with the word "faith", since it was a "trust".

In Matt. 8:5-13, the healing of the Roman centurion's servant is described.

The centurion knows from his own experience that if Jesus does heal, he will heal just as much as if he, himself, gives an order and cannot immediately verify the fulfillment, yet he expects the order to be carried out. Jesus refers to the centurion's attitude as trust. But not a word about theological issues. Only in Paul does "trust" take on any theological content, it becomes "faith."

This story actually describes the principle of trust. I then later began to look for definitions of trust in psychology or sociology, methods of testing trust, etc. Later I wrote a thesis on this (of mediocre quality! 😁) , on the topic of trust issues in psychology, sociology and pedagogy.

My main point is that trust, among other things, serves to "construct" our reality, our "world, around us". Trust is* a cognitive process (based on repeated experience, which is nothing more than a short definition of "learning") whereby things or phenomena around us that we cannot perceive are nevertheless considered real, as real as if they were so (even if we cannot see them, hear them, touch them, or feel them, because they either took place in the past or will only occur in the future, or they take place in the present tense, but outside our perceptual abilities...). A radical example of trust is a will. The one who makes a will believes that reality will occur according to the text of the will, has an anticipation of the future without being able to verify it at the time of making it, and even less so when he dies...

The life of an adult human being is then "built" on a whole series of systems, as it were "pyramids" of individual sub-trusts in this and that, where we have acquired repeated, which then allow us to solve the very complex tasks of our life. Trust has a great competitor in us and that is emotion. The verbal opposite of trust, is indeed non-trust, but the real, functional opposite is the emotion of fear. And fear, again, can come from some cognitive process and/or emotion...

More could be written, but that's probably enough for what I want to write: So why do people believe in God or science, and often juxtapose the two?

Just from the above, very limited description of trust, in terms of the bio-psycho-social model of humans, trust in God or trust in science, politics, medicine, economics, law, etc., etc., are no different. The difference is in the content of trust. It suggests to me that it is not necessary then to define what people know (and therefore also: what they trust). Example: if a group of scientists discover, describe and evaluate some skeletal find, some geological phenomena, some archaeometeorological phenomena, etc., etc., and someone else compares it to the accounts of the Bible, then my first reaction is "I don't know". I'm not a biologist, chemist, physicist or archaeologist. I just know that even they shape their world on repeated experience - but even they know that the existence of 10 white swans in a row does not preclude the existence that the next swan may be black.

My defensive reaction is not based on fear or denial of the truth of science. Healthy skepticism, must be about one's own confidence first, and then everything else. As Descartes rightly said, I can deny everything, I just can't deny myself, because I am the one denying something. I think, therefore I am. This then is precisely the starting point: I can be skeptical, but my skepticism can never be greater than I am. On the other side, there is the (paranoid) attempt to control, the attempt to avoid having to trust. Which is impossible. Trust reduces the complexity of the social world, as one definition of trust says. I believe that humanity (me), oscillates between these polarities, and it is very problematic when one group (believers), denigrates the other (atheists), or vice versa. Both groups use trust to live their lives.

*this is just a static description; trust in fact can be, and very often is, a very dynamic process, which is then harder to describe and thus also harder to verify experimentally

15

J.W org and Noah's Flood

by Phizzy in

i remember when i was "in" the org.

had a ridiculous public talk outline defending the genesis flood myth.. do they have a current one doing that ?.

PetrW

@Big Dog

Doubts about why God did not restore the earth after the flood, I had those too. But only as one of many arguments against Almighty God. I was looking for an answer to the death of Jesus. What parent lets their child be killed in front of their eyes when they have the power or means to prevent it...?

The answer is the criticism of the JWs, and other Christian churches, for not having resolved the theodicy issue. Or they have only resolved it to the level that God allows evil or that evil is to educate us to value good or that Satan is here or that we just don't know. These and other answers do provide some answer for some situation or personal life, but they certainly cannot be generalized (as e.g. JWs do) because it is unethical, without respect for the victims of e.g. the Holocaust, but also natural disasters, etc.

The unresolved role of God and evil in the world is, in my opinion, the strongest argument for atheism/agnosticism ever. If someone has reached this point, and rejects the existence of God, for these reasons, I don't blame them at all...

However, I think that the question of the relationship between God and evil, has an answer, has a solution.

15

J.W org and Noah's Flood

by Phizzy in

i remember when i was "in" the org.

had a ridiculous public talk outline defending the genesis flood myth.. do they have a current one doing that ?.

PetrW

@nicolaou

You are right in one sense that it is a myth. But if it is a myth, then they are not scientifically verifiable claims. Then it's problematic to have an argument with those statements.

On the other hand, if the author(s) of Genesis were working with the idea that Creation or the Flood was God's work, that God Almighty was behind it, then they didn't have to go into the details that we would welcome today. Example: the Hebrew "yom" => "day" appears about 2500 times in the Hebrew Bible. It has a wide semantic range, so "yom" can mean a few hours out of a 24 hour day (the light part of the day), up to an indefinite period of time e.g. in eschatological statements about Yahweh's day...

Creation in 6 days, then, could have lasted 24 hours, or thousands of years, or at the beginning of billions of years, and in the last day, maybe only 12 hours. Similarly, the flood of the world: passages from e.g. Genesis 7 speak of a planet-wide flood, but the text from Gen 2:10-14 suggests that the Euphrates River, for example, was re-identifiable after the flood, that its bed or direction of flow did not change. This raises the question of how big the flood was and what part of the planet it flooded, and what happened on the rest of the planet if it was a regional flood... to one who sees God behind the events, these details are irrelevant: the flood happened as described, and if the flood happened only as a local event, then it does not change the Bible's account. The really tricky part is the question of God's justice (why there was a flood in the first place, and why life went on)...

But of course science cannot consider the influence of God on world events. Especially natural sciences are based on experiment and if such experiment is not possible (astrophysics), then there are theoretical models that are then tested. Scientific theories are then supposed to be open to falsification (and in human terms, verification), so science itself affirms that it is not, does not want to be, and is not meant to be dogmatic. And rightly so.

The conflict between the Bible and science, then, is resolved by believers more or less well, by the person of God.

Personally, I think the arguments against, or more accurately: the arguments that do not affirm Creation, are very rational, indeed most scientists, adhere to the principles of the philosophy of science, theories of truth, etc. The competing model that the Bible describes is only slightly better. The very small, slight difference, is made up precisely because God is behind it. A biblical, religious text, without God, will not stand up to science. It becomes a myth, a legend. But this, on the other hand, says that against such a myth, serious science does not have to define itself. Science does not criticize, for example, the cosmogonic ideas of Hesiod in his Theogonies...