Certainty, truth, and the JW's

by Check_Your_Premises 21 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  To know truth is perhaps the most illusive and yet most important things.

  That depends on who you are. Truth is not equally important to all people. It's one reason people with symptoms of a serious illness can avoid going to the doctor, for fear of what the doctor might find, until it's too late. The 'what I don't know can't hurt me' syndrome.

  I guess I meant this in general terms. It is illusive due to our limitations and flaws. It is important because I believe to live in opposition to truth will always lead to long term devastation. True, short term benefits can be derived from certainty. Think of Nazi Germany, or any mass movement. Who can doubt the power of people with a purpose. JW's often claim they must have the truth because they are so successful. I think the only thing more powerful than someone utterly convinced they have the truth is someone living according to actual truth. I probably should have said "most desireable things" instead of "most important things".

  The power of truth and knowledge are unmistakeable.

  In the large-scale picture, I agree. On an individual basis, though... denial is a powerful tool, too.

  I don't know if it is a macro/micro thing so much as maybe a long term/short term thing. I think in the long term, delusion ALWAYS devastates.

  Thanks for the thoughts!

  CYP
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  If the jw or the Christianity aren't "true", would the jw or Christian want to know it? And by admitting that, does that mean they are willing to renounce their faith?

  Does anyone have any thoughts on the second question?

  By admitting this, do they risk their salvation, since it is based on faith in Christ (or the organization for the individual jw)?

  CYP
• 

  M.J.

  Maybe the 2nd question can be addressed by questioning an underlying assumption here, that the acquisition of factual knowlege is the only medium of discovery. When you get to know someone (as opposed to the act of "taking in knowledge" as per the WTS), it involves more than simply gathering data/information about that person...

  As for the real question you're asking. My head is hurting and its friday so I'm gonna pass for now..
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  As for the real question you're asking. My head is hurting and its friday so I'm gonna pass for now

  Ok, it is Monday. I am sure you are looking for some heavy thinking and work to do!!! How about now?
• 

  jgnat

  Hey, C_Y_P! I've been thinking about you. It is obvious, too, that you have been doing some deep thinking.

  One of my favorite quotes:

  We are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.
  - "What is Man?"

  http://www.twainquotes.com/Truth.html

  When my JW hubby speaks of the ideal world to come, I can't help thinking the same thing, too. If a group of people all thought only right thoughts, they would be no more interesting than robots. Their essential humanity would be removed. That is paradise?
• 

  M.J.

  CYP, I think you've encapsulated the central conflict here. Regard for truth vs. loyalty to a conceptual model. What takes precedence? Regarding the model...is it flexible or inflexible--malleable or an "all or nothing" proposition? Chew on that one a bit...while I continue to do the same.

  jgnat, thanks for that quote! It's incredible. I will keep that one handy.
• 

  Narkissos

  OK I'll try:

  Normally language and knowledge are oriented toward the "objective world". They break the continuum of real perception into separate "objects" ("things" which can be named) and analyse their "functioning" ("actions" which can be verbalised). This symbolical activity opens the realm of imagination: we represent, or project, the isolated "elements" of the overwhelming "real" onto an mind "map" which we call "reality" and then tends to work independently from the objective world. This in turn makes technique, i.e. modification of the objective world, possible, through a different reconstruction of the previously analysed and separated elements.

  However, the process of imagination creates, for the sake of "imaginary consistency," a number of "no-things" which have no correspondence in the objective world but are necessary to our mental processes: numbers, laws, principles, values, qualities, causes, ideas... and gods. We can name them and locate them on our mind-map just like the "real things". However, we have nothing external (if not culture and intersubjectivity) to compare them to. We can only partly test them against "experience". Mathematical abstractions can be tested to an extent, moral "values" to a much lesser extent.

  Religion and philosophy are essentially busy with the less "testable" of such "no-things". That doesn't make them useless, since the latter too are an integral part of our mental processes. According to the way they interact with the objective world they can be helpful or burdensome and in need to be modified. But what is the point of discussing their "truth"?

  The problem imo arises when religion misunderstands its "object" as a part of the "objective world". When "history," instead of myth, becomes an essential part of belief. Then religion is wrong, not only for being "against facts," but first of all for erring in the realm of verifiable (or falsifiable) facts.
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Regard for truth vs. loyalty to a conceptual model

  Yeah, that is the trick. Christianity (whether it be "true" or "Mere") requires faith for salvation. The jw requires faith in their group, "Mere Christianity" requires faith in Christ.

  Does faith in Christ require a belief in a factual person and set of events? Yeah, probably. What if evidence is shown that minimizes the likelihood of even his existence? Or what if another explanation for these events is given that seems more simple (Occam's Razor), such as the posts Terry has put up lately explaining the cultural background of the Greco-Romanized Jewish milieu that Christ is said to have inhabited. Nevertheless, these various bits of data aren't the sole source of my faith. I don't believe in the man Jesus because there is some quote from Josephus (that is arguably inauthentic).

  Something I am beginning to realize is that our faith should start from "where we can get on our own steam", as C.S. Lewis put it. If we just start off with the Bible, aren't we just adopting the religion of our family/culture? Of course I am a CHristian! I grew up in America!!!

  So my starting point is an observation of the world I live in and humanity in general. We all have an innate understanding and expectation of the fundamental law; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Universal Laws require a Unverisal law giver, a Designer, a Mind. All mankind, for whatever reason, are detached from that Law Giver, that Creator. We are at conflict with that law. I can see this without cracking a Bible. To me the question of whether the Garden of Eden is myth or fact is irrelevant. Further, I can see the futility of mankind trying to acheive this unity with our Creator by following a list of rules. We are flawed not in our actions, but in the things that we love, our motivations. We don't need a teacher, but rather someone who can change us, make us new. And that is something that can only be given freely by the grace of our Creator. (This is the short, non-comprehensive version of course, and not the point of my post. So athiests, please respect the scope of this post. Pick at the above paragraph on another thread if you must.)

  The above has the ring of truth to me; as something that I just always knew. It is what I love about God, and why I seek him out. That is why I am a Christian. It is an ethos that I love and the reason I have faith. Not because of facts, events, logical constructs, or some rock solid set of apologetics.

  So were I to be shown completely irrefutable evidence that Christ never existed, I would have to adopt that reality into my understanding of the person Jesus. But my understanding of God would remain intact. Were I given a better understanding of a God with a superior ethos, I would adopt that reality into my understanding as well.

  I guess that is the difference. A jw sees loss of faith in the org, as a step down. Were I to reject my concept of God, my Christianity, my faith in Christ, it would only be for something better.

  CYP
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Thanks Narkissos and MJ. I was hoping you guys would pitch in as well.

  CYP
• 

  Narkissos

  Following on CYP's post:

  The concept of "faith" which, in spite of appearances, I have been holding from the time I left JWs (20 years ago now), implies that I really don't know what I will be able to believe next week, next month or next year.

  It is distinct from belief in the sense that it allows me to question (and potentially give up) any particular belief (including "God"). Yet it is not completely something else in the sense that it implies that I act today upon the beliefs I hold today, even if they may change tomorrow.