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

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

That is the way I have seen it offered. But additional questioning does not indicate that they actually understand what they are parroting.

Not exclusive to J and W brand creationists, but very common for the brand.

It is much the same as someone claiming decades of independent and informal research on evolution and then failing miserably to convey anything meaningful despite the expectation that such an amount of study should have provided that ability.

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.

Pretty much. Orbit around sources that tell you what you want to hear and ignore sources that tell you differently or misrepresent what those sources are saying.

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.

I also agree and have heard that statement from many creationists. It is puzzling why JW's do seem to avoid that admission. I am not sure what to make of it though. Clearly they believe their version of belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.


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.


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.

It is generally difficult to have a rational discussion with those that base their views on believed conditions and events as the cause behind observed reality. There is little to know common ground to find understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.


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.


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.

I have tried to imagine how I would approach a discussion using only my beliefs as the basis for arguing questions of science so that I could have a better understanding of a creationist position, but I just cannot do it.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is the way I have seen it offered. But additional questioning does not indicate that they actually understand what they are parroting.

Not exclusive to J and W brand creationists, but very common for the brand.

It is much the same as someone claiming decades of independent and informal research on evolution and then failing miserably to convey anything meaningful despite the expectation that such an amount of study should have provided that ability.
Pretty much. Orbit around sources that tell you what you want to hear and ignore sources that tell you differently or misrepresent what those sources are saying.

I also agree and have heard that statement from many creationists. It is puzzling why JW's do seem to avoid that admission. I am not sure what to make of it though. Clearly they believe their version of belief.

We are in full agreement. Why can't JWs own up to how their views are influenced by their church? Why do so many of them try and pass themselves off as experts in multiple fields of science instead? I honestly have no idea.

I have tried to imagine how I would approach a discussion using only my beliefs as the basis for arguing questions of science so that I could have a better understanding of a creationist position, but I just cannot do it.

That's because you would do so with honesty and integrity, rather from the "by any means necessary" desperate standpoint of the standard internet creationist. Once you rid yourself of any obligation to behave ethically (as in how freely and often creationists throw around accusations while feeling no moral obligation to back them up), it's easy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

No. Like I said previously, even before I was a Witness, I had reservations concerning the theory: like computer code, complex information always has an intelligent source. Undirected, it doesn’t increase.

If anything, they reinforced my views. And helped me to understand why God has allowed all the confusion, evil, and misdirection we see. (What Epicurus didn’t grasp.)

As Witnesses, following Christ’s command to preach, we want to share what we’ve learned from the Bible: like explaining Jesus Christ’s role in accomplishing Jehovah God’s purpose for the Earth & mankind

But we can’t very well try to persuade all people effectively, if other teachings ‘relegate ours to trash.’
Get it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have tried to imagine how I would approach a discussion using only my beliefs as the basis for arguing questions of science so that I could have a better understanding of a creationist position, but I just cannot do it.

That’s great! Trying to put yourself in the other’s shoes, as they say.
That’s a big step to understanding someone. That insight can keep one from getting real mad, too. Proverbs 19:11

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s great! Trying to put yourself in the other’s shoes, as they say.
That’s a big step to understanding someone. That insight can keep one from getting real mad, too. Proverbs 19:11

While I agree philosophically, what I noted is that I would have to be intellectually and actually dishonest about what I have learned and about facts, so the attempts have been rather limited in value and did not put creationism in a very good light.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Really! I’ve been hoodwinked? Not you and others?

“A recently released Congressional report accuses senior officials at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) of having harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against research associate and journal editor Richard Sternberg for allowing publication of a scientific paper supporting intelligent design (ID) in 2004.According to the report, NMNH officials sought to discredit Sternberg and force him out of his unpaid RA position after he allowed an article by Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, to be published in the August 2004 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal of which he was managing editor at the time. While legally separate from the NMNH, Proceedings is governed by a council that includes NMNH scientists and receives public funds from the museum.Meyer's article, which used information theory to support the argument for intelligent design in biological complexity, sparked controversy. It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.The Congressional report, uprepared by the staff of Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources and released Dec. 11, supports Sternberg's claims that NMNH supervisors investigated his political and religious beliefs, sought to discredit him, and aimed to force his removal as an RA by creating a "hostile work environment" after the article was published. The report suggests legislation is needed to protect the free speech of scientists at the Smithsonian and other federally funded institutions. "While the majority of scientists embrace Darwinian theory, it is important that neither Federal funds nor Federal power be used to punish or retaliate against otherwise qualified scientists merely because they dissent from the majority view," the report states. Sternberg, who is also a staff taxonomist at NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, said he is "thinking hard" about whether to file a discrimination lawsuit. "I do not think any Federal government employee should be discriminated against on the basis of their outside activities or their intellectual views, concerning theories of evolution or any other subject," Sternberg told The Scientist in an email. The report says NMNH officials and scientists discussed among themselves in emails whether Sternberg "was a Republican," "was a fundamentalist" or "was a conservative."It also references an Aug. 26, 2004, email from Hans Sues, NMNH associate director for research and collections, to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) seeking help in trying to determine whether Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, as opposed to an RA, because doing so would have constituted grounds for his dismissal. NCSE spokesman Nicholas Matzke said his group was not part of an effort to dismiss Sternberg. "A lot of people at the Smithsonian were mad because their journal was dragged into a political issue. We wanted them to focus on the science and not persecute or discriminate against Sternberg on religious grounds," Matzke told The Scientist. "We advised them not to fire Sternberg," he said, "and they eventually followed our advice." NMNH public affairs director Randall Kremer denied that Sternberg had been harassed or discriminated against. Smithsonian and NMNH officials investigated Sternberg's allegations and found "no basis for his complaints," Kremer told The Scientist. "Sternberg still has an office here, and he has full access to the research facility," Kremer said. "If he feels people are hostile to him, it's his feeling. It's all in the eye of the beholder." Sternberg's appointment as an RA expires in January 2007. NMNH officials had previously offered to renew the position, but have since changed the post to that of research collaborator, which is a role for someone "less academically qualified," Sternberg said. "If this is a mistake on their part and they want to renew my former position as research associate, I will accept. Otherwise I will not."Sternberg filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel(OSC), the federal agency that investigates and prosecutes prohibited personnel practices, in late 2004. OSC staff attorney James McVay reported in an 11-page letter having found evidence to corroborate complaints of religious and political-affiliation discrimination and retaliation. "It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Sternberg] out," McVay wrote. However, because Sternberg was an unpaid RA and not a Smithsonian employee, the OSC lacked jurisdiction and did not pursue the matter. In August 2005, the subcommittee staff initiated its own investigation, resulting in the current report, which largely corroborates the OSC findings. In an email to The Scientist, NCSE's Matzke asserted that both investigations were politically motivated, with Souder being "the leading ID supporter in Congress" and OSC chief Scott Bloch having been "widely criticized for using the OSC office for right-wing culture wars."Ted Agres [email protected]Links within this article:"Intolerance and the Politicization of Science and the Smithsonian," Staff Report, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedir...hePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf “

Source:
Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist

And @Jose Fly wants to know why I’m reluctant to bring up religion in debates science! Lol!

I rarely do....I post evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We are in full agreement. Why can't JWs own up to how their views are influenced by their church? Why do so many of them try and pass themselves off as experts in multiple fields of science instead? I honestly have no idea.

I have no idea why either. Could it be that they feel that acknowledging that it is doctrine and not an understanding of science would disqualify them in offering objection to science? Could it be a deeper recognition that what they claim is a valid interpretation of evidence is not?

That's because you would do so with honesty and integrity, rather from the "by any means necessary" desperate standpoint of the standard internet creationist. Once you rid yourself of any obligation to behave ethically (as in how freely and often creationists throw around accusations while feeling no moral obligation to back them up), it's easy.

That was the biggest part of the problem. I would have to ignore vast amounts of evidence and do so without a reasonable explanation. Then there are the multitudes of questions that arise from accepting something that has no evidence. I would have to answer those and it becomes increasingly clear that further appeals to magic are required that have no basis in fact. There is no way to rationally merge honesty and acceptance of something based on belief and then translate that to a scientific explanation.

 

[Jose Fly]

No.

Why not? Even now, when you're presented with information that contradicts JW teachings on evolution, the fact that you would potentially face emotional and social consequences for going against those teachings plays absolutely no role in how you view that information?

In your last flood thread you made a blanket accusation against geologists, asserting that one of the reasons they don't accept the Biblical flood is because of the professional consequences they'd face if they deviated from standard geology. Yet here, even in light of descriptions from fellow Witnesses as to what social and emotional consequences you'd face if you deviated from JW doctrine on evolution, you deny that it's a factor at all!

How do you reconcile those two seemingly contradictory positions?

Like I said previously, even before I was a Witness, I had reservations concerning the theory: like computer code, complex information always has an intelligent source. Undirected, it doesn’t increase.

Whenever I see a creationist say that, I wonder....if what you say is true, doesn't that mean the "complex information" that allows pathogens to infect and cause disease were created by God? If evolution can't generate the "complex information" for the biochemical pathways that the plasmodium parasite uses to cause malaria, where did they come from?

As Witnesses, following Christ’s command to preach, we want to share what we’ve learned from the Bible: like explaining Jesus Christ’s role in accomplishing Jehovah God’s purpose for the Earth & mankind

But we can’t very well try to persuade all people effectively, if other teachings ‘relegate ours to trash.’
Get it?

Now see that looks to me like exactly what I've been getting at. You're basically saying that one of the main reasons you and other JWs go to places like this and argue against evolution is because you believe evolution relegates your beliefs to "trash".

Yet just above you tried to tell me that being a JW plays no role at all in how you approach evolutionary biology!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

While I agree philosophically, what I noted is that I would have to be intellectually and actually dishonest about what I have learned and about facts, so the attempts have been rather limited in value and did not put creationism in a very good light.

Well, I’ll just have to post more evidence!

 

[Jose Fly]

Really! I’ve been hoodwinked? Not you and others?

“A recently released Congressional report

It wasn't a "Congressional report"; it was a report from one Congressman's office.

Even the very first talking point isn't accurate! Sheesh.

Also, I asked you to start a separate thread on this, so we could keep this thread on topic. Can you do that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really! I’ve been hoodwinked? Not you and others?

“A recently released Congressional report accuses senior officials at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) of having harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against research associate and journal editor Richard Sternberg for allowing publication of a scientific paper supporting intelligent design (ID) in 2004.According to the report, NMNH officials sought to discredit Sternberg and force him out of his unpaid RA position after he allowed an article by Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, to be published in the August 2004 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal of which he was managing editor at the time. While legally separate from the NMNH, Proceedings is governed by a council that includes NMNH scientists and receives public funds from the museum.Meyer's article, which used information theory to support the argument for intelligent design in biological complexity, sparked controversy. It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.The Congressional report, uprepared by the staff of Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources and released Dec. 11, supports Sternberg's claims that NMNH supervisors investigated his political and religious beliefs, sought to discredit him, and aimed to force his removal as an RA by creating a "hostile work environment" after the article was published. The report suggests legislation is needed to protect the free speech of scientists at the Smithsonian and other federally funded institutions. "While the majority of scientists embrace Darwinian theory, it is important that neither Federal funds nor Federal power be used to punish or retaliate against otherwise qualified scientists merely because they dissent from the majority view," the report states. Sternberg, who is also a staff taxonomist at NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, said he is "thinking hard" about whether to file a discrimination lawsuit. "I do not think any Federal government employee should be discriminated against on the basis of their outside activities or their intellectual views, concerning theories of evolution or any other subject," Sternberg told The Scientist in an email. The report says NMNH officials and scientists discussed among themselves in emails whether Sternberg "was a Republican," "was a fundamentalist" or "was a conservative."It also references an Aug. 26, 2004, email from Hans Sues, NMNH associate director for research and collections, to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) seeking help in trying to determine whether Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, as opposed to an RA, because doing so would have constituted grounds for his dismissal. NCSE spokesman Nicholas Matzke said his group was not part of an effort to dismiss Sternberg. "A lot of people at the Smithsonian were mad because their journal was dragged into a political issue. We wanted them to focus on the science and not persecute or discriminate against Sternberg on religious grounds," Matzke told The Scientist. "We advised them not to fire Sternberg," he said, "and they eventually followed our advice." NMNH public affairs director Randall Kremer denied that Sternberg had been harassed or discriminated against. Smithsonian and NMNH officials investigated Sternberg's allegations and found "no basis for his complaints," Kremer told The Scientist. "Sternberg still has an office here, and he has full access to the research facility," Kremer said. "If he feels people are hostile to him, it's his feeling. It's all in the eye of the beholder." Sternberg's appointment as an RA expires in January 2007. NMNH officials had previously offered to renew the position, but have since changed the post to that of research collaborator, which is a role for someone "less academically qualified," Sternberg said. "If this is a mistake on their part and they want to renew my former position as research associate, I will accept. Otherwise I will not."Sternberg filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel(OSC), the federal agency that investigates and prosecutes prohibited personnel practices, in late 2004. OSC staff attorney James McVay reported in an 11-page letter having found evidence to corroborate complaints of religious and political-affiliation discrimination and retaliation. "It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Sternberg] out," McVay wrote. However, because Sternberg was an unpaid RA and not a Smithsonian employee, the OSC lacked jurisdiction and did not pursue the matter. In August 2005, the subcommittee staff initiated its own investigation, resulting in the current report, which largely corroborates the OSC findings. In an email to The Scientist, NCSE's Matzke asserted that both investigations were politically motivated, with Souder being "the leading ID supporter in Congress" and OSC chief Scott Bloch having been "widely criticized for using the OSC office for right-wing culture wars."Ted Agres [email protected]Links within this article:"Intolerance and the Politicization of Science and the Smithsonian," Staff Report, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedir...hePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf “

Source:
Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist

And @Jose Fly wants to know why I’m reluctant to bring up religion in debates science! Lol!

I rarely do....I post evidence.

I do not believe that was an official report and was self-released by a person sympathetic to the Discovery Institute. I am not sure what your links were supposed to provide. One went to the home page of the Smithsonian with no relative information and the others were broken.

At best you post facts that you claim as evidence. Your evidence for flash-frozen mammoths turned out to be misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and widely incorrect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I’ll just have to post more evidence!

The best I have seen is your use of third hand reports that just boil down to arguments among scientists about the details of evolution. Being skeptical is what scientists do. That they are is not evidence a theory is in peril or has been rejected.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have no idea why either. Could it be that they feel that acknowledging that it is doctrine and not an understanding of science would disqualify them in offering objection to science? Could it be a deeper recognition that what they claim is a valid interpretation of evidence is not?

It could be a subconscious realization that a purely faith-based, religious argument isn't nearly as persuasive as it used to be, and that in today's society a scientific-sounding argument is far more compelling. And that means their approach is a tacit admission that science is far more authoritative than faith.

That was the biggest part of the problem. I would have to ignore vast amounts of evidence and do so without a reasonable explanation. Then there are the multitudes of questions that arise from accepting something that has no evidence. I would have to answer those and it becomes increasingly clear that further appeals to magic are required that have no basis in fact. There is no way to rationally merge honesty and acceptance of something based on belief and then translate that to a scientific explanation.

All I can think of is what my Sunday School teacher told my Mom when I was 8...."He needs to learn what it means to have faith".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It wasn't a "Congressional report"; it was a report from one Congressman's office.

Even the very first talking point isn't accurate! Sheesh.

Also, I asked you to start a separate thread on this, so we could keep this thread on topic. Can you do that?

That may be partly my fault for responding to the false accusations and that they are used to ignore the fact that Sternberg used his position to post pseudoscience in a scientific journal. I will refrain from further comment here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It could be a subconscious realization that a purely faith-based, religious argument isn't nearly as persuasive as it used to be, and that in today's society a scientific-sounding argument is far more compelling. And that means their approach is a tacit admission that science is far more authoritative than faith.

That is an interesting thought. I have seen much evidence in the responses to the many threads on evolution that would support that idea. The intelligent design movement could be seen as a response supporting that idea. Creationists can no longer support their views based on adherence to a literal scripture, so they are forced to turn to the more authoritative position and twist it to support their personal beliefs.

All I can think of is what my Sunday School teacher told my Mom when I was 8...."He needs to learn what it means to have faith".

I learned to keep my mouth shut and ask questions only to those I learned were receptive to such questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I’ll just have to post more evidence!

Do you not think that those of us here have not seen creationist "evidence" a thousand times over?

Here is an example of your evidence. The design ratios of Noah's ark, based on the dimensions published in the Bible are optimal for a ship of that size. This was offered as evidence of a global flood. How is it evidence of a global flood? We do not know the level of knowledge of ship building that one or more of the authors of Genesis may have had. They may not have had any and were simply repeating numbers that they got from a friend who built ships or from an old story. Even if it were divinely gifted to the authors or Noah, the information says nothing about whether a global flood occurred or did not.

Another was about the shape of a Chinese written character. Do you think that this is indicative of a full review and understanding of the evidence or desperate reaching by someone trying to avoid acknowledging that their real objection is doctrinal?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I wonder....if what you say is true, doesn't that mean the "complex information" that allows pathogens to infect and cause disease were created by God?

No, it doesn’t.

I’ll try to explain, but I doubt you’ll understand it.
When A&E chose to rebel, Jehovah removed (most of) His protection from them. That also applied to the Earth. Remember God saying that “thorns and thistles” would affect Adam’s farming?
Jehovah put the systems in place, like the water cycle, etc., to care for the Earth, but these systems get out of hand sometimes. Same w/ living organisms.
Jehovah’s spirit does not ‘permeate this planet’ as it did in the beginning, but it will once again. Isaiah 11:6-9 reveals that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it doesn’t.

I’ll try to explain, but I doubt you’ll understand it.
When A&E chose to rebel, Jehovah removed (most of) His protection from them. That also applied to the Earth. Remember God saying that “thorns and thistles” would affect Adam’s farming?
Jehovah put the systems in place, like the water cycle, etc., to care for the Earth, but these systems get out of hand sometimes. Same w/ living organisms.
Jehovah’s spirit does not ‘permeate this planet’ as it did in the beginning, but it will once again. Isaiah 11:6-9 reveals that.

That is a very interesting belief that you have there. What would happen if you questioned a part of it? Or decided it was allegorical? Would your leadership tolerate that view?