I believe that in order to effectively immunize a person against the disease of Watchtowerism, it is necessary to bring them to a full, conscious understanding of their tactics.
I am currently working on a document for my son that shows how the society uses faulty logic to make their points. The document lists several common logical fallacies and then provides examples from the society’s teachings.
It’s pretty long, but I thought some of you might be interested in it, or might possibly be able to use it yourself. I would appreciate hearing any comments or suggestions as to how to make it more effective.
Watchtower Logic
The basic rule of logic, is that if you begin with a correct premise, and apply logic to those premises using correct rules, your conclusions must be correct.
How has the Society fared with regard to the rules of correct logic application? Well, let’s take a look at some common logical fallacies found in their literature.
Straw man logical fallacy
This logical error occurs when a person postulates a weak opposing argument, knocks it down, and then declares victory. The society often uses this form of argumentation. Here is a specific example:
A few years ago at the district convention, the Watchtower article for the week was presented. It dealt with the authenticity of the book of Daniel. The article stated that Daniel was written by the historical figure of Daniel in the 6 th century B.C., while critics place the writing in the 2 nd or 3 rd century B.C.
The article then put forward the straw man. It portrayed the critics argument like this:
- secular records did not mention Belshazzar as a historical figure
- the book of Daniel refers to Belshazzar
- so, the book of Daniel must have been written by someone who was not contemporary with the events.
It then proceeded to knock down the straw man by saying that later archaeological discoveries proved that Belshazzar did indeed exist. So, the critic’s argument fell apart, and the Bible was exonerated, once again proving literally true in every detail.
Well, something seemed wrong to me about this. When we got home, I looked up the chapter in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. What was wrong with the society’s argument?
Well first of all, it misrepresented the critic’s side. It presented only one of many solid critical points, and the one that it used, turned out to be over 150 years old, and is no longer considered valid. As well, although they pointed out that new developments had damaged the critic’s argument, they didn’t point out that it also damaged their argument. The archaeological discovery proved that yes, Belshazzar did exist, but he was not Nebuchadnezzar’s son as the Bible says, He was the son of Nabonidus, who ruled 4 kings after Nubuchadnezzar, and was no relation to him.
The society set up a weak argument, misrepresenting the true nature of the issues, knocked it down using incomplete and misrepresented evidence, and then declared victory. People in the audience never knew the difference, unless they took the time to research it independently.
Why is this so important? Well, the book of Daniel is the source of the Society’s Time of the End chronology and predictions for our time. If the book of Daniel is not a prophetic book, but rather, is a later addition to the Jewish writings, the whole premise of the time of the end in our day is in question. And, of course, 1914 falls apart completely.
As well, it is intellectual dishonesty. They tried to pull a fast one. I now find it hard to trust them.
Cum Hoc ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause of the events.
Premise 1: Birthday celebrations are mentioned only twice in the bible.
Premise 2: In every case, something bad happened.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should not celebrate birthdays.
What is wrong with this logic? Well, the fact that something bad happened at a birthday celebration does not mean that it happened because of the birthday celebration. There is no Biblical command to avoid birthdays, it is simply an inference made by the Society. Consider what happens when you use this logic on other events:
Premise 1: Siestas are mentioned only once in the bible.
Premise 2: In every case, something bad happened.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should not take siestas.
If this logic is applied evenly, it yields some obviously wrong results. It cannot be used as a guiding principle, because the logic is flawed.
Selective Reporting
The society has a tendency to report only events, which are favourable to their cause. This can lead a person to an incomplete and erroneous view of an issue.
For example, one of the signs of the time of the end is pestilence. The Society routinely cites the Spanish flu as an example of a post-1914 pestilence. They cite the numbers of cancer victims, and the increase in heart disease. But they don’t mention that the biggest killer in the history of the world, simple bacterial infection, has been drastically reduced. They don’t mention that the worst epidemic in the history of the world occurred in 1350, long before the time of the end. And, they don’t mention that the reason that cancer and heart disease have become prominent is because people live much longer, and do not fall victim to other diseases, first.
Why is this argument wrong? It lacks perspective. When you consider all diseases combined, the rate of fatal illness today is less than half of what it was in previous centuries.
Selective reporting is a dishonest way of making a point.
Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence is really not evidence at all. The world is a big place, and examples of just about everything exist.
For example, I was raised on the idea that University was a bad idea. Examples were continually cited regarding people who went to university and ended up unemployed, victims of crime, disillusioned, unsatisfied, etc. The one I remember most commonly was the typical story of a person with a PHD who ended up as a janitor or taxi driver.
What is wrong with this evidence? Well, like selective reporting, it lacks perspective. It forgets that if you are not on a university campus, you must be somewhere else, and you could become a victim of crime there, as well. You could also be unemployed without a degree. If you take a step back and examine the entire population of the country, you will find that university graduates have a lower unemployment rate and a higher income than non-graduates. You will also find that the crime rate on campus is lower than in the general population. So, although the anecdotes are true, they really don’t prove anything. In fact, when viewing isolated, one-sided examples, an incorrect conclusion can be drawn.
Another typical example is when an experience is given, showing a person who puts kingdom interests first, and as a result they avoid a mishap or something good happens to them. You’ve certainly heard of the person who quit their job to go the assembly, then when they returned, they got a better job. Or the farmer who left for the assembly during harvest and all his neighbours thought he was crazy. But it turns out that it rained the whole time he was gone, and so he missed nothing. It is implied that their good fortune is due to their religious devotion. The lesson is that if a person puts kingdom interests first, good things will happen to them.
This is nothing more than superstition. If it were true, then what would explain a case where a person dies in a car accident on the way to the assembly? Is there an implied lesson that he should have stayed home?
Anecdotal evidence can be very convincing, because the stories are likely true and can even be verified. If a person wants to be convinced, it works well.
Anecdotes can be a useful teaching tool, because they can serve to illustrate a point. Jesus used illustrations extensively, when he was teaching. But anecdotes are not a form of logic. They prove nothing.
The “No True Scotsman…” Fallacy
This fallacy gets its name from the example commonly used to illustrate it. Imagine that someone asserts that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. A person could refute this by pointing out that they know a Scotsman who likes sugar on his porridge. The first person then replies "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
This is a logical fallacy for two reasons. First of all, an ad hoc change is used to improve an assertion. When the conclusion is shown to be false, the meaning of the words is changed, making it more restrictive. Secondly, what is a “true” Scotsman? Well, it is basically whatever the person says it is, so it really has no concrete meaning.
The Society uses this logical fallacy often. Consider the case of the return of Jesus.
The society claims that Jesus has been present since 1914. But, Jesus said that we should celebrate the memorial “until I return”. If he is present, the memorial should be abolished. Similarly, it can be pointed out that if Jesus is already present, then he has already come. Yet, many of the indications of his second coming have not occurred.
The Society answers this counter argument by redefining the word “coming”. They say that in 1914, he came in the sense that he took kingly power over the earth, and in the future, he will come in the sense that he stands up in kingly power.
This is not what the word “coming” and “presence” means. If you redefine problematic words to have restrictive special meanings, then your conclusions have no meaning at all. Any error can be bypassed simply by redefining the words in it, after the fact.
Now consider the word “truth”. This word has a specific dictionary definition. If you use the word “truth” in a sentence, listeners will understand a specific meaning. Yet, the Society seems to think that they can have the “truth”, then change their minds, and still have the “truth”. They have invented the concept of present truth, which is basically conditional infallibility. They always have the “truth”, even though they are not always right. This is not what the word “truth” means. It is a special redefinition of the word, designed to mislead.
The Extended Analogy
Analogies, like anecdotes, are a very effective form of teaching, but a very weak form of argumentation. It works under the assumption that two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitute a claim that those situations are analogous to each other. This may or may not be the case.
Take, for example, the analogy of a ship tacking into the wind. It is impossible for a sailboat to sail directly into the wind, so it makes use of water resistance to sail across, and slightly into the wind. By taking an indirect route, it eventually reaches its goal.
The society has said that their doctrines can be likened to a ship tacking into the wind. They change them, but are always improving, moving toward the goal of absolute truth.
This makes sense. The problem is that there are numerous differences between a sailboat and religious doctrine. For example, it is impossible to sail directly into the wind, but it is not impossible to teach truth correctly the first time. A tacking sailboat will always make forward progress, but the society has often reverted to previously held ideas, thereby returning to their point of origin. A sailor who is tacking is intentionally moving across the breeze to an intermediate point; does the society intentionally teach partial truths? A sailboat does not claim divine guidance, but the Society does.
Really, a sailboat and a religion have very little in common. This may be an interesting way of looking at things, but it proves nothing.
Here is another one. The society has said that if you examine a diamond under a jeweller’s glass, you may find scratches, but you wouldn’t throw out a valuable diamond just for that. Similarly, their doctrines aren’t perfect, so you shouldn’t scrap their doctrinal system, just because there are a few imperfections.
Again, although this is an interesting comparison, it proves nothing. What if you look under the magnifier and find that the diamond is not just scratched, it is burnt and cracked, or maybe it turns out to not be a diamond at all, just a piece of glass? You would probably throw it out.
Unless, the two comparators are alike in every way (and nothing is), argument by analogy is invalid.
Appeal to authority
This argument quotes an authority to back up a conclusion. It is considered to be a fallacy because a person’s opinion, no matter how authoritative, is not evidence of truth.
Usually, the word of an authority, when he is speaking in his field of specialty, should be taken seriously. Even then, he could still be wrong, but his opinion is worthy of consideration. However, sometimes a person who is an authority in one area, is not knowledgeable in another. And, sometimes, authorities are misquoted to make it look like they support ideas that they do not.
For example, I have heard Albert Einstein quoted as saying, “God does not play dice with the universe.” It has been used to indicate that Einstein believed in God. So, unless you are smarter than Einstein, you should believe in God, too.
There are numerous problems with this argument. First of all, although Einstein was a smart guy, his belief does not settle the issue. Secondly, a little more research shows that Einstein’s idea of God was very different from the mainstream. He did not believe in God as a person, but he believed in Spinoza’s God, which is “the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Do you still want to let Einstein settle the argument?
Constantly, the Society will quote scientists and scholars to support a point. There is nothing wrong with listening to an authority. However, too often these authorities are quoted out of context. The society has twisted many person’s statements to make it look like they support something that they don’t. They are trying to appeal to authority, without even listening to the authority.
The downside of the appeal to authority is that once you establish a fact by appealing to authority, you may have a problem to deal with if that authority disagrees with you. For example, the Society often quotes biologists to support their stand on evolution. These quotes are usually very short and deal with very focused issues. However, the major opinions of these same scientists are ignored. Most of them disagree strongly with the Society’s theories.
Appealing to authority is fine when they agree with you, but you can’t just switch them off when they’re not convenient.
Even when used correctly, the appeal to authority is an invalid form of argumentation. When used incorrectly, as the Society so often does, it is not just invalid, it is dishonest.
Falsifying the Premise
Logic begins with premise(s) that are accepted as true. For most Christians, the words of the Bible are considered to be valid sources for premises.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have developed their own translation of the Bible that is used almost exclusively. This translation favours Witness doctrine.
For example, the Name Jehovah has been inserted into the New Testament, when it does not exist in any early Greek manuscripts.
References that support life after death, the trinity, or hellfire, are invariably translated to favour Witness doctrine.
(examples still to be inserted)
I am not saying that I disagree with their stand on these issues. I am simply saying that they have cheated by tampering with the evidence. Why does the “truth” have to resort to such low tactics?
Conclusion
When correct logic is used on correct premises, the result must always be correct. When logical fallacies are prominent in a person’s argument, it sheds doubt, not only on the quality of their conclusions, but also on their intelligence, and even on their integrity.
The Society has consistently misapplied the rules of logic. What does this say about their conclusions? And, most importantly, what does this say about their claim to be God’s spokesman?