Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[Jose Fly]

I believe these things too, but I know that I do not have evidence to say it is a fact or some sort of scientific principle. To me it means that the story in Genesis is allegorical and that declaring it is literal is man and not God. Without going into long-winded detail, I think most of the dissent against the evidence and the explanations is man's ideological conventions and not based on any sort of sound reasoning or valid interpretation of the evidence. It is arguing about gaps and the minor uncertainty that is an ever-present reality of scientific conclusions.

Well specific to this thread, I don't think it's even about gaps or uncertainty. It's about people who see evolution as contrary to their beliefs.

That is very much the same sort of thing going on elsewhere. The scientists are my best friends when they say something that supports my ideology, but I can ignore them when they say something that doesn't. Just cherry picking.

Bingo!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well specific to this thread, I don't think it's even about gaps or uncertainty. It's about people who see evolution as contrary to their beliefs.


Bingo!

I was thinking they use that as a means to rally support of what they believe.

I find it interesting that no believer can provide any objective evidence of what they believe (I can't, but I know that), but will attack science vehemently even though using it one can provide objective evidence and sound reasoning for the explanations and the conclusions offered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well specific to this thread, I don't think it's even about gaps or uncertainty. It's about people who see evolution as contrary to their beliefs.


Bingo!

Since the practice of science does not offer absolutes and even with efforts to reduce uncertainty, it always exists, that very fact is exploited to declare that--insert whatever belief is on the table--is true by default.

I find it amusing that people have to, even rush to, force themselves down a path that they don't have to.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But Behe, Axe and Meyer don't have any real arguments based on evidence. They are just going by belief, so how can there be evidence from them for anyone to go on?

But they do have evidence, based on past, repeated experiments that have unified outcomes, namely, that without guidance, no complexity arises. So novel complexity requires intelligent planning.

Evolution has not debunked those results.
Only wishful thinking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But they do have evidence, based on past, repeated experiments that have unified outcomes, namely, that without guidance, no complexity arises. So novel complexity requires intelligent planning.

Evolution has not debunked those results.
Only wishful thinking.

What evidence? What experiments?

There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports guidance.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was thinking they use that as a means to rally support of what they believe.

Yup, they certainly love the god of the gaps arguments..

I find it interesting that no believer can provide any objective evidence of what they believe (I can't, but I know that), but will attack science vehemently even though using it one can provide objective evidence and sound reasoning for the explanations and the conclusions offered.

Me too. I've been reading a bit on some of it, and it seems (at least to some degree) to involve different ways of thinking.... intuitive and analytical.

Since the practice of science does not offer absolutes and even with efforts to reduce uncertainty, it always exists, that very fact is exploited to declare that--insert whatever belief is on the table--is true by default.

From what I've read, that's another factor....some people have a real need for certainty, so they see the ever tentative nature of science as a weakness or fundamental flaw.

I find it amusing that people have to, even rush to, force themselves down a path that they don't have to.

But something compels them to go there, and IMO it's mostly basic ego defense mechanisms. For some, their religion is vital to their well-being, so they'll do almost anything to maintain it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see the Bible as inspired by God and not the dictation of God. Genesis is allegory for instance. I d not consider that is a criteria supporting or reducing my belief or my Christianity.

You are of course free to believe as you choose, but I don't have to agree with it or fear for my spiritual existence for not believing as you do. No where was it written that I have to be a Jehovah's Witness to be a Christian.

I have given this great thought and prayer.
Many will be resurrected who were not Jehovah's Witnesses and have the opportunity to worship God and HE wills, not as you or I will.
I will, however, discuss more about the first part, i.e., your saying that Genesis is an allegory. As I said, I have given this great thought with prayer. Before I started studying the Bible with the Witnesses, I finally prayed after many years. I would say for years I did not believe in God. He was nowhere to be found, as far as I was concerned despite my looking into and visiting different religions. And finally after many years I prayed because I wanted to have faith. And lo and behold! I finally began to listen to what Jehovah's Witnesses were saying. (Still fought with them for a little while, before I would slam the door on them until then.) Frankly, no matter where I looked before that, I found nothing. By the way, the word 'day' in Genesis obviously means more than a 24-hour period. Aside from reality, the word day in the Bible can mean periods other than 24 hours. Something like, "in Shakespeare's day..."
If I see an event I may describe it slightly differently than another person who sees the same event. The event happened. Description may be slightly different, details added by one that were not included by the other.
Today I saw a picture of many pretty butterflies, different colors and sizes. Well, perhaps we can go into that later.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yup, they certainly love the god of the gaps arguments..


Me too. I've been reading a bit on some of it, and it seems (at least to some degree) to involve different ways of thinking.... intuitive and analytical.


From what I've read, that's another factor....some people have a real need for certainty, so they see the ever tentative nature of science as a weakness or fundamental flaw.


But something compels them to go there, and IMO it's mostly basic ego defense mechanisms. For some, their religion is vital to their well-being, so they'll do almost anything to maintain it.

The gaps are quite telling, both to scientists and local people, like myself. Oh, so are the fossil evidence. Evidence of something that was alive. Not evidence of -- evolution as exemplified by Darwin and theories similar.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is very much the same sort of thing going on elsewhere. The scientists are my best friends when they say something that supports my ideology, but I can ignore them when they say something that doesn't. Just cherry picking.

Hey, just listening to an old episode of Perry Mason, and the last statement was made endng the episode -- "There's one thing you will always find in a cocoon--a bug!" And which raises the question -- what do you or scientists say came first--the bug or the cocoon?

 

[Jose Fly]

The gaps are quite telling, both to scientists and local people, like myself. Oh, so are the fossil evidence. Evidence of something that was alive. Not evidence of -- evolution as exemplified by Darwin and theories similar.

Dude, no one is going to take things as true just because you say so.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The irony is, Behe agrees with universal common descent and human/primate common ancestry (he just believes a god intervened now and then). But whenever I bring that up to @Hockeycowboy he tends to avoid it.

I ‘avoid it, whenever you bring it up’?Lol. When did you ever mention it? Once, maybe? But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t remember any specifics.

And I don’t agree with everything Behe proposes. (Do I have to?) But neither do you.

He claims, though, that the Bacterial flagellum, and other molecular machinery, required intelligent design.

And your evidence supporting how they arose by undirected natural methods? That must be part of the “explanatory deficits” Gerd Müller discussed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I believe these things too, but I know that I do not have evidence to say it is a fact or some sort of scientific principle. To me it means that the story in Genesis is allegorical and that declaring it is literal is man and not God. Without going into long-winded detail, I think most of the dissent against the evidence and the explanations is man's ideological conventions and not based on any sort of sound reasoning or valid interpretation of the evidence. It is arguing about gaps and the minor uncertainty that is an ever-present reality of scientific conclusions.

If you’re so fervent in your adherence to science, then why do you believe in a god?

Because mainstream science does not allow for an Intelligent Being. Everything — all systems, cycles, life, all the finely-tuned order we observe — arose naturally with no intelligent direction, according to accepted science.

So exactly where does your thinking disagree with science? For you to accept a god, it’s gotta be along some line of thought.
But then, what’s your reasoning or evidence for disputing that area of science?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What evidence? What experiments?

There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports guidance.

I was referring to other fields of science in which Drs. Meyer & Behe have commented on, including archeology & the computer sciences, where experts in those areas, through rigorous and repeated tests, recognize the necessity of design for disseminating information.

And just the opposite response within biology, despite repeated experiments performed on D. melanogaster, E. coli, etc., which reveal an inability of natural selection to effect static design, even under optimal controlled testing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you’re so fervent in your adherence to science, then why do you believe in a god?

What is the relevance of this question to your claims of an intelligent designer and that there is evidence for that designer? The only reason this seems to come up continually when we are engaged is as an irrelevant personal attack and as a diversion. I get the impression that you are hoping this will redirect my responses as I marshal my efforts to defend my religious position while leaving you free of questions to the actual subject that you can't or won't answer.

My personal religious views have nothing to do with supporting your claims. They are not the droids you seek. Continually calling them into questions says a lot about you. Nothing about me.

Because mainstream science does not allow for an Intelligent Being.

This is incorrect. There is no built in denial of possibilities in science. But you cannot make claims using science based on mere belief without evidence, reason or valid explanation. That is what you do.

Everything — all systems, cycles, life, all the finely-tuned order we observe — arose naturally with no intelligent direction, according to accepted science.

According to conclusions within science based on evidence. Since there is no evidence for a designer, one cannot use science to make such claims. It is that simple.

So exactly where does your thinking disagree with science? For you to accept a god, it’s gotta be along some line of thought.

Again, an irrelevant attack as a diversionary tactic to free you from supporting your claims.

But then, what’s your reasoning or evidence for disputing that area of science?

What area of science are you claiming I dispute? Your question doesn't make sense, since I am challenging your claims that never have more than your emotional and ideological support and are not science or about anything established by science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was referring to other fields of science in which Drs. Meyer & Behe have commented on, including archeology & the computer sciences, where experts in those areas, through rigorous and repeated tests, recognize the necessity of design for disseminating information.

Humans design things. Humans have agency in creating things and spreading information. Hardly a revelation. And not the evidence that you were attempting to allude to as supporting your claims.

And just the opposite response within biology, despite repeated experiments performed on D. melanogaster, E. coli, etc., which reveal an inability of natural selection to effect static design, even under optimal controlled testing.

So nothing here but a poor attempt to establish some vague reference as definitive of something that is never revealed or supported in actuality.

The evidence continues to support natural selection as the prominent mechanism for change in living populations. No evidence has been found to support the existence or actions of a designer or to deny them as a scientific fact.

I understand and accept that you have religious beliefs and have chosen to follow a certain doctrine along with the demands following that doctrine place on you. However, there is no onus on anyone accept your beliefs are the answer to everything without addressing the evidence. I'm fine with that. I won't attack you for that. This is a free country and I would even defend you and your rights to believe as you choose.

But you are here making claims in denial of evidence, logic and reason to assert that we should all stop seeing the world using those tools and just see it as you say so. That is an entirely different thing. It can be challenged and should be. And I don't need diversionary tactics or personal attacks to establish and maintain a reasonable position. The very fact that you cannot rise to the demands placed on you by your own claims is more than sufficient to the task.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have given this great thought and prayer.
Many will be resurrected who were not Jehovah's Witnesses and have the opportunity to worship God and HE wills, not as you or I will.
I will, however, discuss more about the first part, i.e., your saying that Genesis is an allegory. As I said, I have given this great thought with prayer. Before I started studying the Bible with the Witnesses, I finally prayed after many years. I would say for years I did not believe in God. He was nowhere to be found, as far as I was concerned despite my looking into and visiting different religions. And finally after many years I prayed because I wanted to have faith. And lo and behold! I finally began to listen to what Jehovah's Witnesses were saying. (Still fought with them for a little while, before I would slam the door on them until then.) Frankly, no matter where I looked before that, I found nothing. By the way, the word 'day' in Genesis obviously means more than a 24-hour period. Aside from reality, the word day in the Bible can mean periods other than 24 hours. Something like, "in Shakespeare's day..."

Your dispute over the length of a day implies that you do not see Genesis as literal.

If I see an event I may describe it slightly differently than another person who sees the same event. The event happened. Description may be slightly different, details added by one that were not included by the other.
Today I saw a picture of many pretty butterflies, different colors and sizes. Well, perhaps we can go into that later.

But you are not a witness to the events declared in Genesis and neither am I. Genesis is not our assertions and descriptions of anything we have witnessed unless you are much older than evidence would indicate is attainable for a person.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey, just listening to an old episode of Perry Mason, and the last statement was made endng the episode -- "There's one thing you will always find in a cocoon--a bug!" And which raises the question -- what do you or scientists say came first--the bug or the cocoon?

I don't know that it is a question that has ever come up in science.

Not all insects pupate and not all insects that do pupate produce cocoons. So the logical answer based on those observations is that cocoons came later after the evolution of insects.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I ‘avoid it, whenever you bring it up’?Lol. When did you ever mention it? Once, maybe? But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t remember any specifics.

And I don’t agree with everything Behe proposes. (Do I have to?) But neither do you.

He claims, though, that the Bacterial flagellum, and other molecular machinery, required intelligent design.

And your evidence supporting how they arose by undirected natural methods? That must be part of the “explanatory deficits” Gerd Müller discussed.

I find this recent fascination with Gerd Müller and the proposed extended evolutionary synthesis to be very interesting. In it I see the misconception that disputes among scientists are seen as some sort of destructive chink in the armor of reason that allows belief to win by default. Of course, the fact that so many believers of widely and often opposing beliefs see this the same way makes it all rather amusing.

Yes. Behe claims this. So what? Just because someone claims something they cannot demonstrate does not make what they claim into reality or offer anything substantive for those cheering that on to use to that end.

Can you demonstrate the claims of ID and show that your adherence to is not simply desire to a belief or submission to a doctrine?

 

[Jose Fly]

I ‘avoid it, whenever you bring it up’?Lol. When did you ever mention it? Once, maybe? But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t remember any specifics.

And I don’t agree with everything Behe proposes. (Do I have to?) But neither do you.

He claims, though, that the Bacterial flagellum, and other molecular machinery, required intelligent design.

And your evidence supporting how they arose by undirected natural methods? That must be part of the “explanatory deficits” Gerd Müller discussed.

Hold on there cowboy....before we get into any of that we still have an important issue to resolve.

I asked what would happen if you were to announce to your fellow Witnesses that you'd decided that universal common ancestry and human/primate common ancestry were true, and that Noah's flood wasn't really global.

All you've said so far is "first off, they’d laugh. Heartily". Again, is that all that would happen?

 

[nPeace]

You’ve got to be kidding!
I’ve already done much “study and discussion”!

Why do you think I focus, many times, & post on this specific subject of evolution?! For my health?

And I don’t post ‘religious concepts’ as counter arguments on this subject; I use scientific arguments from scientists themselves, (like from Behe, Axe, Meyer, etc.) to try and get you guys to reason on these things! And if not you, there are many others who read these posts, whose thinking faculties might be opened.

Did you really say "to try and get you guys to reason".
You must have a really hard head bro.

What expression did Meyer use... "beating a dead horse".
I doubt any here would even debate Meyer's proposals. They will just stand firm behind their scientism.

Otherwise, you’ll just read stuff that confirms your own bias, accepting it blindly. Without ever a thought if there may be viable, alternate explanations of the evidences.

I don't see them doing any differently to that.