Posts by StrongHaiku

24

Why I believe in God. Why I don't believe in God.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

hi i am delighted to be apart of the community.. having left the witnesses one of my first challenges was my believe in god.

naturally.. i have concluded that i am alive and conscious.

now my intuition tells me god exists, but my analytical thinking tells me god does not exist.

StrongHaiku

CalebInFlorida - Accepting G-d does not mean rejecting analytical thinking.

I would agree. Accepting God does not mean rejecting analytical thinking completely. However, what it does say is that one can be a strong analytical thinker in one topic (e.g. cosmology, biology, etc.) but not use analytical thinking on pet beliefs. In other words, we can be really smart in some areas and really dumb in others and that does not make us entirely smart or dumb.

CalebInFlorida - Just ask the Roman Catholic priest that developed and introduced the big bang theory, Georges Lemaître. Do you know how many atheists I’ve spoken to who have no idea that a theist developed this now widely embraced theory?

Sure. It is possible to use analytical thinking to develop a demonstrable and testable hypothesis in one area and still be wrong (and illogical) in another area or discipline. The idea of the big bang originated with a theist, but it did not graduate to a scientific theory until we had evidence. There are a number of theists who have developed (and continue develop) very useful hypothesis and theories in various disciplines of science. However, I have yet to see one of them develop a testable hypothesis on the existence of God with the same rigor and analytical thinking (backed with evidence) as they develop other hypothesis and theories.

24

Why I believe in God. Why I don't believe in God.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

hi i am delighted to be apart of the community.. having left the witnesses one of my first challenges was my believe in god.

naturally.. i have concluded that i am alive and conscious.

now my intuition tells me god exists, but my analytical thinking tells me god does not exist.

StrongHaiku

The Rebel - Now my intuition tells me God exists, but my analytical thinking tells me God does not exist. So maybe God is alive in my heart but no longer in my head.

What does your intuition tell you about the Loch Ness Monster? Big Foot? Fairies? The Chupacabra? Zeus? UFOs? etc.

Intuition gets us through life pretty well on a day-to-day basis and so we learn to trust it. The problem is that it does such a good job in most cases that we get overconfident on its value. This is why we have a scientific method to test out the validity of intuitions. If your intuition is that "God is alive in my heart" (or any other belief your intuition tells you to be true), and you want to be a good critical thinker, then the next step is to develop some demonstrable evidence that can help you determine if you are right or wrong.

The Rebel - b) ido you think it wrong to dismiss intuition over analytical thinking? ( or vice versa)

I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Both intuition and analytical thinking can be useful. Intuition can often be the beginning of great ideas. However, beliefs based purely on intuition have been (and continue to be) debunked. For example, the idea that the earth was flat, that the sun and planets orbited around it, that it was only thousands of years old, etc. was built out of intuition. People then began doing actual experiments that contradicted those intuitions.

The problem is that we often rely on our own intuition and take it as fact without doing any homework. Intuition can be useful as a first step in asking question or developing a hypothesis. But if you want to be a good critical thinking (and intellectually honest) you then need to test it agains demonstrable evidence. And, more importantly you have to go where the evidence leads you and not the other way around.

48

Dr Applewhite and Child Abuse

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.

also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!

never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.

StrongHaiku

She was downright uncooperative with the JW lawyer. Near the end, I half expected the JW lawyer to lean over and whisper to Dr. Applewhite "HELP MEEEEEEE... I'M DYING HERE!"

48

Dr Applewhite and Child Abuse

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.

also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!

never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.

StrongHaiku

Xanthippe - ...it is not child or survivor oriented at all.

That was nice summation. And it hits the nail on the head. The only mechanisms the Organization have in place are there to protect the Organization, and not the people.

64

Dr Monica Applewhite!

by username in

i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.

where did the watchtower dig her up from.

her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.

StrongHaiku

I think one of the reasons she starts getting a little tense is that, near the end, it is starting to dawn on her that the Organization will "throw her under bus" too same as they do with the victims.

She made a number of comments that sounded like she was trying to distance herself from the Organization. It's almost like it is not until the end that her sense of self-preservation kicks in.

63

Nine Seconds that says it all. Have these elders any shame?

by Wasanelder Once in

what can i add?

this says it all.. elder on stand is mute till prompted.. .

i guess i could encourage you to watch to the end and a guest commentary, lol..

StrongHaiku

steve2 - A commision of inquiry is NOT similar to a Grand Jury or congressional hearing.

Thanks for bring up the point. Perhaps a better parallel in the US is a "Presidential Commission".

11

Seduction, psychosis and radicalisation

by Half banana in

the jw delusion is a psychosis i.e.

the holding on to a belief irrespective of sound evidence to the contrary.

it has everything to do with the indulgent pleasure of embracing an all encompassing idea which promises to resolve every human frailty and inconvenience.

StrongHaiku

Half Banana - The JW delusion is a psychosis i.e. the holding on to a belief irrespective of sound evidence to the contrary...

Good post. What you described can also be summed up as "faith" - i.e. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on personal revelation rather than good/demonstrable evidence or evidence to the contrary...

Half Banana - The big question is how can JWs or for that matter any other religious person be de-radicalised?

Other posters said it better than I could... The one thing I would add is that we need to improve education and encourage critical thinking to inoculate people who haven't yet surrendered their life to "faith". There are a lot of people living in that bubble (my family included) that may not be salvageable. We should continue to help those still in but also try to proactively inoculate people from going in.

64

Dr Monica Applewhite!

by username in

i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.

where did the watchtower dig her up from.

her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.

StrongHaiku

I believe the US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago to remove immunity for "expert witnesses" against civil lawsuits. Don't know if this applies in this particular case and country, etc. However, if the GB felt she had hurt their case and had misrepresented herself (e.g. malpractice), there are US legal precedents to bring a lawsuit to recover costs and damages. Not saying they can or they will. But there are legal precedents of successful lawsuits against "expert witnesses" for malpractice.

At the same time, the main reason she is doing so badly is that she is defending and indefensible position. It does not matter how moral, educated, prepared, etc. you are. If you are defending the indefensible you look immoral, absurd, and clumsy.

48

Dr Applewhite and Child Abuse

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.

also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!

never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.

StrongHaiku

Let me get this straight...She (a catholic, worldly woman) has had access to the elder's book and other confidential material.

...Let that sink in.

If you are a JW, next time you are at the Kingdom Hall ask the elders for a copy of the elder's book. Hell, have them autograph it for you.

48

Dr Applewhite and Child Abuse

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.

also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!

never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.

StrongHaiku

Marvin Shilmer - This gal was hired by Watchtower to do one thing: make its policy look nicy-nice to the RC.

Good point. And, based on all the testimony I have seen so far by JW elders/representatives and expert witness, I would say that there is a huge disconnect. The Organization's argument seems to be on showing that they can justify their policies and ideas because they are prescribed by the Bible and logically consistent with their own material. The RC's argument is about questioning the efficacy and reasonableness of the JW policies and ideas against secular/humanitarian sensibilities. These are two different things. And, I think you can see it in some of the reactions of the RC members. There is definitely a tone of frustration coming out of the RC at times.