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

[Hockeycowboy]

"Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales"? I see no truth in that, only guesses.

I search for truth in everything, that fits what I see worldwide, encompassing all fields of knowledge.

I see disunity and confusion everywhere, which fits what I believe concerning who is behind these things, even getting most people to believe in immediate life after death. (Remember our conversation about ghosts and about many on this forum who speak w/ their spirit guides? You basically just laughed it off!)

It's not for nothing, that several times Jesus called the Devil, the "ruler of this world". (John 12:31; 14:30) His influences would therefore be everywhere: in politics, in religion, even in science.

(No wonder the Bible warns, "whoever wants to be a friend of the world, is making himself an enemy of God." James 4:4)

It explains a lot of what we see. Fortunately, the current state of affairs is only temporary.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You can even do it online if “association” is a problem.

And I know many JW's who do. Now that the Internet technology is here.

 

[SomeRandom]

And I know many JW's who do. Now that the Internet technology is here.

Cool,

 

[SomeRandom]

That's a fair point. I also tend to be rather blunt, especially in written communications.

Well bluntness tends to put people's guard up. Especially English speakers, since the language is flowery by default.

In my (limited) in-person experiences, the JWs basically just leave when I bring up things they can't address.

Perhaps. But that's a small sample size. I've had varying experiences. I think my favorite was an older lady with a "Southern" accent. Only saw her once. I was about 19 ish, literally just got home. Must have looked a mess when I answered the door.
She looked me up and down and said something to the effect of
"Oh honey, I hope you woke up next to something tall, dark and handsome." Caught me completely off guard haha
The poor girl with her, considerably younger, looked like she was going to die of embarrassment.
I really wish that particular witness returned. She would have been interesting to talk to lol

But you're not wrong. There are some I've encountered who can't answer questions like a "normal" person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow!You really don't get it? It's what the truth is...that's what my beliefs are based on!

There is a huge problem with your beliefs. Calling them "the truth" means that your version of God lies. How does one trust a lying God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Pakicetus is the forerunner of whales"? I see no truth in that, only guesses.

I search for truth in everything, that fits what I see worldwide, encompassing all fields of knowledge.

I see disunity and confusion everywhere, which fits what I believe concerning who is behind these things, even getting most people to believe in immediate life after death. (Remember our conversation about ghosts and about many on this forum who speak w/ their spirit guides? You basically just laughed it off!)

It's not for nothing, that several times Jesus called the Devil, the "ruler of this world". (John 12:31; 14:30) His influences would therefore be everywhere: in politics, in religion, even in science.

(No wonder the Bible warns, "whoever wants to be a friend of the world, is making himself an enemy of God." James 4:4)

It explains a lot of what we see. Fortunately, the current state of affairs is only temporary.

That is only because you are willfully ignorant. Why are you afraid to afraid even the basics of science? That.lack of knowledge makes all of your attempts at scientific arguments child's play to refute.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is only because you are willfully ignorant. Why are you afraid to afraid even the basics of science? That.lack of knowledge makes all of your attempts at scientific arguments child's play to refute.

This is from a person who calls Christ’s sacrifice, “bad theology”.

Wish you the best, my cousin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is from a person who calls Christ’s sacrifice, “bad theology”.

Wish you the best, my cousin.

Literalists tend to have the poorest understanding of their book of myths.

The main problem with the Bible is that it is self refuting.

 

[Milton Platt]

Specifically, I'm wondering why Jehovah's Witnesses seem so hesitant to even consider, let alone talk about, how being a JW plays a role in shaping their views on science.

Over the last couple of years I've discussed and debated various science-related issues with JWs (mostly evolutionary biology), and for the most part it goes like any other stereotypical interaction with creationists. However, as soon as I even mention the possibility that maybe being a JW, and facing all the social and emotional consequences that would ensue should they waver from JW doctrine on the subject, plays a role in how they view the science (the data, analyses, and conclusions), the conversation usually shuts down very quickly. In one case here at RF, the JW immediately, and rather angrily, put me on ignore.

Why is that? Many creationists from other denominations I've discussed this with don't seem to have a problem acknowledging how their belief in scripture influences their views on science. In fact, they usually seem quite proud of it.

But not Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems to me as soon as someone says something like "Well of course you reject that, you're a Jehovah's Witness...you have to", the JWs tend to get quite upset. It's almost like they're ashamed of their own religion's doctrine or something.

Any thoughts on why that might be?

I have had them knock on my door now and then. I am always cordial and kind....no need to be a jerk. But when they ask if they can speak to me about their god, I always tell them that I am an atheist, but an agnostic one. If they have empirical evidence which shows their god exists that can be tested and verified, come on in and show me. If not, they are welcome to come back when they have the evidence. They never come in.

 

[PruePhillip]

Huh? Examples, please.

He gave an example. You can say the same thing about blood transfusions, the possibility that
other religions are right, military service, Rutherford and Russel, shunning and the like. The
JW has a set position - they themselves can be shunned if they don't stick to this position.

 

[PruePhillip]

I have had them knock on my door now and then. I am always cordial and kind....no need to be a jerk. But when they ask if they can speak to me about their god, I always tell them that I am an atheist, but an agnostic one. If they have empirical evidence which shows their god exists that can be tested and verified, come on in and show me. If not, they are welcome to come back when they have the evidence. They never come in.

I understand. But religion operates not only on faith, but on the principal that
you need to prove things for yourself. That's a serious issue in the bible - you
must prove it to live it - not a corporate proof but a personal proof.

 

[PruePhillip]

Literalists tend to have the poorest understanding of their book of myths.

The main problem with the Bible is that it is self refuting.

The trick with the bible is figuring out what is literal and what is symbolic language.
And is symbolic language wrong language?
The "seven days" of Genesis 1 is clearly symbolic.
But declaring that life came out of the sea is literal.

And, for a long time people thought King David was symbolic. But now we know
he was literally the King of Israel.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not “science”, in general. But specific fields veer into the field of philosophy, and have to be adjusted when more evidence is discovered.

JW’s have posted a lot on science!
Science — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Just looked up one thing
quote - "spontaneous formation of a protein is so improbable that it is essentially impossible!"

Science does not say that. That's a strawman argument. I didn't read any further. If you want
to be honest and learn something you don't go about shutting down debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The trick with the bible is figuring out what is literal and what is symbolic language.
And is symbolic language wrong language?
The "seven days" of Genesis 1 is clearly symbolic.
But declaring that life came out of the sea is literal.

And, for a long time people thought King David was symbolic. But now we know
he was literally the King of Israel.

Sorry, if you don't count the misses you don't get to count the hits.

 

[Milton Platt]

I understand. But religion operates not only on faith, but on the principal that
you need to prove things for yourself. That's a serious issue in the bible - you
must prove it to live it - not a corporate proof but a personal proof.

What is the difference? does one merely have a lower standard of evidence or something?

Let's use the word evidence instead of proof...Proof applies to mathematics, really.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, if you don't count the misses you don't get to count the hits.

Ah yes, but... what are the "misses" ?
The bible is a theological, legal, historical, poetical and ordinance book.
How can you tease these things apart?
It's common for many atheists to admit there was a Jesus, but his
resurrection was symbolic only - that is He died but He will never
die as He lives on in the hearts of His believers. The claims are so
consistent that one has to take the bible's POV that the claim of
Jesus' resurrection is meant to be literal, not symbolic.
However Jesus Himself spoke often in purely symbolic terms. In
reference to "heaven" and "eternity" His words are pure symbolism.
"if you have seen me you have seen the Father" and "in my Father's
house are many mansions" etc..
Does that make them false?
The bible is not like a modern text book. It's not meant to be.

 

[PruePhillip]

What is the difference? does one merely have a lower standard of evidence or something?

Let's use the word evidence instead of proof...Proof applies to mathematics, really.

Not a lower standard, but a different standard.
Personal conviction can't be said to operate on a lower standard to common beliefs.

 

[Milton Platt]

Not a lower standard, but a different standard.
Personal conviction can't be said to operate on a lower standard to common beliefs.

I am not interested in beliefs....you were talking about proofs....not the same thing.

I don't question that people believe things. Of course they do.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am not interested in beliefs....you were talking about proofs....not the same thing.

I don't question that people believe things. Of course they do.

I understand. This is a philosophical issue.
Can YOU prove something to your own satisfaction when your point
of view is opposed by those who have "proofs" to the contrary?
Watched a documentary yesterday about a man who's son joined the
Hitler Youth. His son certainly had lots of "proofs" for the things he so
eagerly believed in. The father had a more nuanced view of the issues
raised by his nation.
When it comes to science (and I am enthusiastically a science buff
and taught it once) it holds to the view that only science can find the
truth - but it can't prove that.

 

[Milton Platt]

I understand. This is a philosophical issue.
Can YOU prove something to your own satisfaction when your point
of view is opposed by those who have "proofs" to the contrary?
Watched a documentary yesterday about a man who's son joined the
Hitler Youth. His son certainly had lots of "proofs" for the things he so
eagerly believed in. The father had a more nuanced view of the issues
raised by his nation.
When it comes to science (and I am enthusiastically a science buff
and taught it once) it holds to the view that only science can find the
truth - but it can't prove that.

Science is a methodology (or rather a number of methodologies) and doesn't try to provide "truths". It examines the natural world and postulates hypotheses, which then must be tested and modified until they become theories which adequately explain a given phenomenon while taking into account all of the evidence and doing damage to none of it.

How can you have taught science and not known that?