Growing up (I wasn’t a Witness, nor did I belong to a church), the friends I associated with were chess players.....these guys were thinkers, and did not “flow with the status quo,” as one of them used to say. So I got accustomed to thinking outside the box.
Not much to take from this. You are using this tale to establish that you are a free thinker and some kind of skeptic. Maybe it means that, but your persistence in forcefully anointing subjective opinion to be objective reality does not support that.
I was raised in churches and among Christians. I have known many Christians as well as people of many different religions. I do not recall one instance where objective evidence was used to support what required only faith to believe.
Then, I began studying the Bible w/ JW’s.
And put yourself in a box.
The brothers asked me great questions. They helped me to realize that there were highly educated academics who did not support Common Descent. The reason? Because of the disputations even within evolutionary fields: there were — and still are — heated disagreements.
If this was about Bible study, why did common descent become a focus of these discussions? What was the
motive of these brothers
?
Are you claiming that your belief hinges on the existence of scientific disputes and the existence of them means your personal, preconceived views are elevated to reality by default?
What about the sisters? Don't they count for something or as equals?
Why these disputes? They’ve all examined the same evidence, haven’t they? So, no consensus, but still evolutionists. I wondered if motive could be a reason. I certainly saw this as probable.
Scientific disputes exist when there are unanswered questions,differential weighting of evidence, incomplete understanding and gaps in our knowledge. It is science, not a religion claiming to have all the answers.
So you are leaning on unconfirmed conspiracy theories and passive aggressive allusion to some sinister intent of scientist. Neither of which do you apply evidence to support. Appeal to yet another unconfirmed mystery. How it is that you cannot think outside your box and see the anti-intellectual intent of this should be remarkable were it not so common.
Instead of providing evidence to support your view or rebut my arguments, you are casting doubt based on what you want to believe is real. You cannot establish probability on that.
What human pursuit doesn't have motive? Is having a motive something sinister as you are alluding? Don't Jehovah's Witnesses have motives? These conversations I and others have with them all seem to have motives on both sides.
(And it agrees with the world’s prevailing attitude.)
Who agreed and what is the World's prevailing attitude that it agreed with? Is this another personal opinion based on what you believe?
This is actually an area that can aid us in deciding which ones to believe. If you consider Darwinists as a whole....which group has a motive/reason to show honesty? The group which thinks that humankind was created by God and exercise self-restraint because they feel accountable to Him, or those who claim they exist solely through natural selection of chance mutations and feel accountable only to themselves?
This is profuse with assumptions that have not been validated.
There you go again, using the ill-defined and practically useless term 'Darwinist' as a pejorative to strike an emotional blow. There are large percentages of Christians that accept the theory of evolution. Your claims fail on that fact. They are just not all among the brothers. They are still Christian.
Accepting science is not denying God, though those that do deny God can accept or reject science as they choose, also. They should do so based on evidence and reason and not because of some institutional doctrine.
(That’s really why the anti-Bible movement in the 1700’s eventually became so prominent: people wanted freedom from moral restraint.) We need to personally examine all the evidence, not just biological but encompassing everything (from the fine-tuned universe and the Earth-supporting cycles of natural mechanisms, to what are really understood as geologic facts (not guesses), to the uniquely human concepts of justice and mercy...even to the “dead are living” events that are in every culture) and see whether evolution or creation — and its supporting text, the Bible — gives us the most reasonable answers to life’s questions.
By all means, examine the evidence. Don't just dismiss it or use it as an excuse to promote preconceived ideas. Creationist have been observed saying this while ignoring the evidence or manufacturing straw man versions of evidence and views of the ebidence. Don't fall into that anti-intellectual trap. Coming to conclusions based on sound principles, reason and evidence can be falsely described as thinking in a box. Don't be fooled by this deceit. Don't keep doctrine alive in a gap when a particular churches doctrine has not been established as the sole or any criteria to be the final say. Ask questions. Even when they challenge the views of a particular groups box. Recognize the limitations of subjectivity and that what may be evidence for one may not be evidence that all can use. Learn to recognize when your thinking is closed and in a box
Doing this is the honest, rational, intellectual approach to understanding. Belief by faith is not wrong and without value, but can easily be locked in a box. It is a different way to view the world and guide us cohesively and peacefully through life, but do not forget that it has limitations. Due to these limitations of believed knowledge, it cannot be used in an objective attempt to learn about and understand in a way that can be demonstrated to others using shared evidence and shared reason. Believed views are very sensitive to abuse and can be turned down a path that leads to a box where reasoned enquiry is squashed. Creationism is such a path, as I have successfully demonstrated here.
