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

[oldbadger]

Read the OP. It's not that they're reluctant to discuss their faith, it's that they're reluctant to acknowledge or discuss how being a JW influences their views on science-related issues.


I think your mind-reading skills are a bit off today.


Obsessed? LOL....so starting a thread on a subject = being obsessed? Who knew?


You're kinda missing the point. Actually, you're missing the point entirely.

Your title does not align with your OP!
Yes....... I think you're a bit obsessed with what JWs think about science or you would not have started such a thread.

And you're missing my point about science, that so much of it has been the cause of so much destruction. Why don'tr you want to talk about that?
Why do you try to dismiss such a fact?
It could be a kind of denial, think.

 

[Jose Fly]

Google “Richard Sternberg”.

I'm very familiar with his story, both from the creationist talking point perspective and the science side. If you want to discuss further, I suggest starting a thread.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your title does not align with your OP!

Yeah I know.

Yes....... I think you're a bit obsessed with what JWs think about science or you would not have started such a thread.

Okay then....your opinion is that everyone who starts a thread on a subject is automatically obsessed with that subject. So noted.

And you're missing my point about science, that so much of it has been the cause of so much destruction. Why don'tr you want to talk about that?
Why do you try to dismiss such a fact?
It could be a kind of denial, think.

Start a thread if you want to discuss.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure how to read this. Could you elaborate?

Not everyone feels confortable discussing how logical or justified their beliefs are, or how well they relate to their actions and other beliefs.

Making that too personal is rarely if ever to anyone's benefit unless some sort of political decision or something else that is of more general interest is involved.

At the end of the day, people just don't respond well to pressure, and they do decide if they feel pressured.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not everyone feels confortable discussing how logical or justified their beliefs are, or how well they relate to their actions and other beliefs.

Making that too personal is rarely if ever to anyone's benefit unless some sort of political decision or something else that is of more general interest is involved.

At the end of the day, people just don't respond well to pressure, and they do decide if they feel pressured.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

In general I agree with what you're saying, but this is different. Jehovah's Witnesses are notorious for being extremely eager to talk about, share, and discuss their faith. Yet when they start going off about something like evolution and someone asks whether their faith is playing a role in shaping their views on it, suddenly they get extremely defensive and reluctant to talk about their faith. Kinda odd, IMO.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What would you say is the primary basis for your view that there's genuine empirical evidence for "microevolution", but not for "macroevolution"?

Well, see, there’s a discrepancy right there. (That’s why I said “common descent”.) There may be evolution occurring within Family taxa. But even that isn’t support by empirical evidence, by what’s observed and experienced. It’s based on conjecture... informed maybe, but still guesses.

Is it the result of years of in-depth, objective study of evolutionary biology, or is it more the result of how you believe "macroevolution" is contrary to "what the Scriptures

Both... but I’ll say this....even before I became a Witness, I didn’t ‘follow the crowd’ in their esteem of the theory. I was never objective toward it. So, strike one, eh?

 

[Audie]

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

Everything in science is open to change.
Everything. How can you possibly not know that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, see, there’s a discrepancy right there. (That’s why I said “common descent”.) There may be evolution occurring within Family taxa. But even that isn’t support by empirical evidence, by what’s observed and experienced. It’s based on conjecture... informed maybe, but still guesses.



Both... but I’ll say this....even before I became a Witness, I didn’t ‘follow the crowd’ in their esteem of the theory. I was never objective toward it. So, strike one, eh?

Posts like this are why I try to get creationists to learn what is and what is not evidence. They have to deny the obvious which only makes them look foolish.

 

[Audie]

Read the OP. It's not that they're reluctant to discuss their faith, it's that they're reluctant to acknowledge or discuss how being a JW influences their views on science-related issues.


I think your mind-reading skills are a bit off today.


Obsessed? LOL....so starting a thread on a subject = being obsessed? Who knew?


You're kinda missing the point. Actually, you're missing the point entirely.

Every JW rejects ToE. That is a coincidence. I have heard of those.

 

[Jose Fly]

There may be evolution occurring within Family taxa. But even that isn’t support by empirical evidence, by what’s observed and experienced. It’s based on conjecture... informed maybe, but still guesses.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Would you say that what you wrote above is not at all related to you being a Jehovah's Witness?

Both... but I’ll say this....even before I became a Witness, I didn’t ‘follow the crowd’ in their esteem of the theory. I was never objective toward it. So, strike one, eh?

You're bragging about not being objective regarding science? That seems rather odd.

 

[Jose Fly]

Every JW rejects ToE. That is a coincidence. I have heard of those.

Very good point.

How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain the above? Did every JW just happen to study evolutionary biology and reach the same conclusions, even to the point of repeating the same talking points? Or is it better explained by noting how evolution denial is part of JW doctrine and enforced under threat of disfellowship?

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

Perhaps it depends on how you interact?
I have had discussions with JWs over the years. I tend to be quite blunt, so sometimes they did in fact “shut down.” (Though to be fair, if you’re going to go door knocking, why early mornings on the weekend? As a late teen/20 something, I’m going to be hungover by default.)
They always started out innocently enough. Very eager to discuss their beliefs. Sometimes I’d pose a question. Sometimes they’d answer sometimes they wouldn’t like it. Depends on the JW I guess, I dunno.

There’s a few ex JWs I follow online, because I find their stories kind of fascinating. They are clearly hurt by the shunning practice and their filmed interactions with JWs were....well kind of creepy. I’m not saying that to be critical, just what I observed.
The experiences of these particular ex JWs does paint the WatchTower as a high control group. And these people are from entirely different congregations. Maybe it’s more of an American thing, I dunno. Again, I’m not trying to criticise, just what I gleaned from their content.

That said, the more pertinent question for me is, why is there an (alleged) policy of discouraging higher learning among the JWs?!!!

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps it depends on how you interact?
I have had discussions with JWs over the years. I tend to be quite blunt, so sometimes they did in fact “shut down.”

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

(Though to be fair, if you’re going to go door knocking, why early mornings on the weekend? As a late teen/20 something, I’m going to be hungover by default.)

They always started out innocently enough. Very eager to discuss their beliefs. Sometimes I’d pose a question. Sometimes they’d answer sometimes they wouldn’t like it. Depends on the JW I guess, I dunno.

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

There’s a few ex JWs I follow online, because I find their stories kind of fascinating. They are clearly hurt by the shunning practice and their filmed interactions with JWs were....well kind of creepy. I’m not saying that to be critical, just what I observed.
The experiences of these particular ex JWs does paint the WatchTower as a high control group. And these people are from entirely different congregations. Maybe it’s more of an American thing, I dunno. Again, I’m not trying to criticise, just what I gleaned from their content.

I've gotten the same impression.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Jose Fly , why did Jesus give his life for mankind? The answer is related to Romans 5:12 and following verses.

CD evolution relegates His sacrifice to being valueless, to trash. That's tantamount to saying my beliefs are trash.
Grief! You really can't grasp that?

Is there any doubt that I'd defend it?!

Fortunately, there's a lot of evidence that's available to support my views.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That said, the more pertinent question for me is, why is there an (alleged) policy of discouraging higher learning among the JWs?!!!

It has more to do with association, that's the biggest factor. 1 Corinthians 15:33.

Just like you said...when you were young, you'd be hungover. Youths don't need that kind of influence.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly , why did Jesus give his life for mankind? The answer is related to Romans 5:12 and following verses.

CD evolution relegates His sacrifice to being valueless, to trash. That's tantamount to saying my beliefs are trash.
Grief! You really can't grasp that?

I completely understand that. In fact, that's generally how I've always understood creationists....the root issue is how they see evolutionary common descent as conflicting with their religious beliefs, rather than it being about the science.

Is there any doubt that I'd defend it?!

Not at all. I would expect you to. However, I don't understand why, when the question of evolutionary common descent comes up, you can't just post something like the above and leave it at that? Why do you have to take that next step and start arguing the science?

Fortunately, there's a lot of evidence that's available to support my views.

There....that's what this thread is about. 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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Jose Fly , why did Jesus give his life for mankind? The answer is related to Romans 5:12 and following verses.

CD evolution relegates His sacrifice to being valueless, to trash. That's tantamount to saying my beliefs are trash.
Grief! You really can't grasp that?

Is there any doubt that I'd defend it?!

Fortunately, there's a lot of evidence that's available to support my views.

That really makes no sense at all. Besides the point of Jesus's supposed sacrifice being bad theology, how does the fact of evolution make Jesus's death valueless?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I completely understand that. In fact, that's generally how I've always understood creationists....the root issue is how they see evolutionary common descent as conflicting with their religious beliefs, rather than it being about the science.


Not at all. I would expect you to. However, I don't understand why, when the question of evolutionary common descent comes up, you can't just post something like the above and leave it at that? Why do you have to take that next step and start arguing the science?


There....that's what this thread is about. 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?

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

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow!You really don't get it?

Then help me understand.

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?

 

[SomeRandom]

It has more to do with association, that's the biggest factor. 1 Corinthians 15:33.

Just like you said...when you were young, you'd be hungover. Youths don't need that kind of influence.

Influence? Education is not evil communication, it’s education. You can even do it online if “association” is a problem. Nary a person need be encountered in education these days.
It’s how people get good jobs and feed their family. Being a hungover youth has nothing to do with valuing or indeed not valuing higher education. That’s just part of life.
Besides why would you not want higher education in youth? It allows them to critically think, allows them to properly analyse your scriptures, properly study God’s word, if you like.
If you have the Truth, such things would be embraced, because it shows how unafraid challenges to it are felt by the congregation as a whole.