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

[tas8831]

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

Your beliefs are based on what you have a deeply vested interest in as accepting as the truth.
That is a mental playground for cognitive dissonance.

 

[tas8831]

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

And that sort of statement is why it is so hard to take people like you seriously. You make it stark and clear that you have no intention or desire to even look at, much less consider, any evidence that you believe (or have been warned) might undermine your "truth."
This is why you see no problem dismissing a link I provided to you presenting many example of pre-cambrian fossils in, literally, less than 2 minutes with a pre-determined escape.

 

[oldbadger]

Not sure what 507 is. Christianity is not the Old Testament Judaism. We don't live under
Jewish laws. Jesus gave us just two laws - and certainly, a lot of moral admonition.

That's just not true.
So many Christians on RF quote from cherry-picked OT laws that your proposal is a joke.

It's fashionable to condemn the "hypocrisy" of past generations. What else can we do
when it is THEY who would condemn our drug addled and adulterous generations.

Would? They who would..? They were messed up in their heads, and drugs were freely available back then, and adultery ran deep in society but hidden as best it could be.

One DNA study of family graves from the 1700 and 1800's found little "inter-mingling"
of foreign DNA in samples. Meaning that back then mums and dads were who they
said they were.

Dreadful. There was class-ism, racism, materialism, Yeah..... we know who they were.
But now, at last, sexual individuality and freedom is beginning to get a toe hold, and cities become more cosmopolitan each decade.

It's tough going, but the bigotry and cruelty of ages gone is slowly being eroded.

 

[Jose Fly]

"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.

Is this supposed to be your reply to these questions?

Why, when the question of evolutionary common descent comes up, don't you point out that it conflicts with your religion and leave it at that? Why do you have to take that next step and start arguing the science?

Are you honestly saying that you being a Jehovah's Witness (and thereby believing that evolutionary common descent is the same as "saying my beliefs are trash") has no effect at all on how you view the evidence?​

If so, you're making my point for me. As soon as I start asking questions about your faith influencing your views on science, you start dodging. That's exactly what this thread is about, and we're now back to my original question....why are Jehovah's Witnesses so reluctant to even consider the possibility that being a Witness plays a role in how they view science?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Exactly....they face pretty severe social punishment if they deviate from JW doctrine, but then act like that threat isn't a factor in how they approach certain subjects. The question is, why? Are they ashamed or embarrassed?

 

[Jose Fly]

See, now this is the sort of thing that annoys me. I have presented a series of papers on here documenting the establishment of a tested methodology's reliability, and the application of these methods to the question of Primate evolution. All empirical. All easily testable. None falsified. I KNOW you have seen this list, for I have posted it in response to you. And I have posted this list probably 30 times.
Yet here you are, pretending that it is all just 'conjecture.' Because that is what you have been told it is.
Bias is the least of your problems.

So you and others have posted reams of information and the Jehovah's Witnesses here have generally ignored it. That's to be expected, right? We all know that they can't consider that info fairly and openly, lest they risk social and emotional punishment from their church. IMO, if they knowingly volunteered to join that faith, that's all fine.

But what I don't get and what's the subject of this thread, is what you touched on towards the end of your post..."Yet here you are, pretending that it is all just 'conjecture.' Because that is what you have been told it is". From what I've seen, the reality is they will never admit that being a Witness has any influence at all in how they approached the material you posted (or in their decision to ignore it).

Again....why? Is being a Witness and following their doctrine something to hide?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Jose Fly , I’ve tried to give you an explanation, of why I question many aspects of evolutionary theory.

Do you include physics in that 'field'?
Do you include ALL science? After all, science, by its nature, is ever-changing as more evidence is built up.

They sure do.... They sure do. Much of it is copy-pasted from other sources. Some of it is just, basically, whining with their fingers in their ears.

Like this joke of an essay:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Careful, your bias is showing.

I will say, the writers should have been more specific, by saying that referring to common descent evolution as a fact, is fraudulent.

But does every scientist agree with Gould? No.

Why did Gould see the need to alter accepted neo-Darwinian mechanisms, by promoting his hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium?
Because the “obvious” precursors weren’t there! Still are not there.

No wonder many scientists are calling for an Extended Synthesis.

“Dr. Müller opened the meeting by discussing several of the fundamental "explanatory deficits" of “the modern synthesis,” that is, textbook neo-Darwinian theory. According to Müller, the as yet unsolved problems include those of explaining:

• Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);

• Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally

• Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types.

As Müller has explained in a 2003 work (“On the Origin of Organismal Form,” with Stuart Newman), although “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose – reflecting precisely the tension between the perceived and actual status of the theory that Meyer described in “Darwin’s Doubt.” “

Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Or don’t you agree?

How come all these scientists can’t reach consensus on aspects within the ToE?

Beyond micro-evolution, it’s a house of cards.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly , I’ve tried to give you an explanation, of why I question many aspects of evolutionary theory.

Yet you can't bring yourself to answer a couple of straightforward questions....

Why, when the question of evolutionary common descent comes up, don't you point out that it conflicts with your religion and leave it at that? Why do you have to take that next step and start arguing the science?

Are you honestly saying that you being a Jehovah's Witness (and thereby believing that evolutionary common descent is the same as "saying my beliefs are trash") has no effect at all on how you view the evidence?​

...thereby illustrating the point of the OP.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you and others have posted reams of information and the Jehovah's Witnesses here have generally ignored it. That's to be expected, right? We all know that they can't consider that info fairly and openly, lest they risk social and emotional punishment from their church. IMO, if they knowingly volunteered to join that faith, that's all fine.

But what I don't get and what's the subject of this thread, is what you touched on towards the end of your post..."Yet here you are, pretending that it is all just 'conjecture.' Because that is what you have been told it is". From what I've seen, the reality is they will never admit that being a Witness has any influence at all in how they approached the material you posted (or in their decision to ignore it).

Again....why? Is being a Witness and following their doctrine something to hide?

You make no sense. If it was “something to hide”, I just wouldn’t comment.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes - and read about how he totally mis-characterized his supposed poor treatment after he took liberties with his editor position and let a creationist essay on the Cambrian 'explosion' get published in a journal whose focus was .systematics and taxonomy.

It’s a shame the government had to get involved, and subsequently investigated and verified his ill-treatment.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why did Gould see the need to alter accepted neo-Darwinian mechanisms, by promoting his hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium?
Because the “obvious” precursors weren’t there! Still are not there.

No, it's very different than that.

When Gould and Eldredge were prominent paleontologists (1960's), paleontologists typically interpreted the fossil record through the lens of Darwinian gradualism and speciation via anagenesis. However, at the same time population geneticists were largely working under different models of speciation, most notably peripatric speciation. So Eldredge and Gould wrote their PE paper to their fellow paleontologists, arguing that they should interpret patterns in the fossil record through the same modes of speciation as population geneticists.

There was no "Gosh, there aren't any transitional fossils so we have to make something up to explain it away" as so many creationists dishonestly portray it.

Now, here's the question for you....are you willing and able to consider this information and adjust your position and talking points accordingly?

 

[Jose Fly]

You make no sense. If it was “something to hide”, I just wouldn’t comment.

Sure you would. In fact, you'd do exactly what you've been doing, i.e., parroting JW talking points but dodging all inquiries into your views being influenced by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, it's very different than that.

When Gould and Eldredge were prominent paleontologists (1960's), paleontologists typically interpreted the fossil record through the lens of Darwinian gradualism and speciation via anagenesis. However, at the same time population geneticists were largely working under different models of speciation, most notably peripatric speciation. So Eldredge and Gould wrote their PE paper to their fellow paleontologists, arguing that they should interpret patterns in the fossil record through the same modes of speciation as population geneticists.

There was no "Gosh, there aren't any transitional fossils so we have to make something up to explain it away" as so many creationists dishonestly portray it.

Now, here's the question for you....are you willing and able to consider this information and adjust your position and talking points accordingly?

More apologetics, maybe?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sure you would. In fact, you'd do exactly what you've been doing, i.e., parroting JW talking points but dodging all inquiries into your views being influenced by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

To be honest, it’s been Drs. Meyer & Axe that have “influenced” me.

Other scientists, too.

 

[Jose Fly]

More apologetics, maybe?

How? And to stay on topic, do you think that maybe a factor in you jumping so quickly to that conclusion is influenced by you being a JW?

 

[Jose Fly]

To be honest, it’s been Drs. Meyer & Axe that have “influenced” me.

Other scientists, too.

Do you feel the Jehovah's Witness organization has influenced your views on evolution as well?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Jose Fly , I’ve tried to give you an explanation, of why I question many aspects of evolutionary theory.

Careful, your bias is showing.

I will say, the writers should have been more specific, by saying that referring to common descent evolution as a fact, is fraudulent.

But does every scientist agree with Gould? No.

Why did Gould see the need to alter accepted neo-Darwinian mechanisms, by promoting his hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium?
Because the “obvious” precursors weren’t there! Still are not there.

No wonder many scientists are calling for an Extended Synthesis.

“Dr. Müller opened the meeting by discussing several of the fundamental "explanatory deficits" of “the modern synthesis,” that is, textbook neo-Darwinian theory. According to Müller, the as yet unsolved problems include those of explaining:

• Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);

• Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally

• Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types.

As Müller has explained in a 2003 work (“On the Origin of Organismal Form,” with Stuart Newman), although “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose – reflecting precisely the tension between the perceived and actual status of the theory that Meyer described in “Darwin’s Doubt.” “

Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Or don’t you agree?

How come all these scientists can’t reach consensus on aspects within the ToE?

Beyond micro-evolution, it’s a house of cards.

How come any group of scientists cannot reach consensus on the details within a theory? How come there is no consensus on a theory of gravity? What are we to do when scientists do their jobs?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you feel the Jehovah's Witness organization has influenced your views on evolution as well?

When the majority of references about science come from a church-sponsored ruling body or a creationist pseudoscience outfit like the Discovery Institute, it is difficult to accept a claim that conclusions about evolution do not come from church doctrine and do come from an understanding of science.

At least the Discovery Institute references the works of actual science. Before they twist it out of meaning, but still they are looking at the works of science. The street-level creationists hasn't even bothered to look.

The only reason I can see to deny a scientific theory as it is being done is on the basis of doctrine and not on the evidence. Avoiding admitting that is not exclusive to JW's, but it is something I have seen them do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s a shame the government had to get involved, and subsequently investigated and verified his ill-treatment.

As far as I am aware, there is no official report by the government that supports any ill treatment. Sternberg is an ID sympathizer at least and most of what has been written in support of him has been Discovery Institute propaganda, that I see you readily swallowed without further review.

 

[Jose Fly]

When the majority of references about science come from a church-sponsored ruling body or a creationist pseudoscience outfit like the Discovery Institute, it is difficult to accept a claim that conclusions about evolution do not come from church doctrine and do come from an understanding of science.

Yet the Jehovah's Witnesses would have us believe that each of them researched evolutionary biology and independently arrived at the exact same conclusions and talking points. That they line up precisely with JW doctrine is just a coincidence.

At least the Discovery Institute references the works of actual science. Before they twist it out of meaning, but still they are looking at the works of science. The street-level creationists hasn't even bothered to look.

As long as those organizations tell the creationists what they want to hear....the Bible is true and evolution is false....that's all most of them will care about. How they came to that conclusion is largely irrelevant.

The only reason I can see to deny a scientific theory as it is being done is on the basis of doctrine and not on the evidence. Avoiding admitting that is not exclusive to JW's, but it is something I have seen them do.

In general I think you're correct. But I also have had a fair number of fundamentalist Christians (non-JWs) acknowledge to me that staying true to scripture and valuing "the word of God over the works of man" is the primary factor in how they approach the issue. Jehovah's Witnesses OTOH? Never.