Jehova's witness and the contradictions of modern science question mark!

by libraryofalexandria 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • libraryofalexandria

    I grew up as a Jehova's witness but drew apart in my early teens. I'm in my late 20's now and I am wondering if any of you more experienced Jehova's witnesses or ex-Jehova's witnesses can say anything about the organizations belief or where they may contradict in relations to modern astrophysics and/or physics. is it simply a game where the more science is discovered the more jehova's witness's beliefs bends to fit the mold? As far as Darwins discovery on evolution please don't bother, ,I'v had enough of that tirade. You can look at the evidence and do you'r best to dismiss it and attempt to convince others to do the same or you can accept it for what it i. the truth is truth weather you choose to believe it or not. thanks in advance

  • cantleave

    Welcome to the board.

    If you search this site, everything is archived. There is a minefield of info. Here's one example

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Welcome to the board Libraryofalexandria...I'll leave this discussion to others...just wanted to say hi

  • Medina

    Do you think that Evolution is ''the Truth''?

    Somehow I find that to be abit washy washy.

  • bohm

    I am wondering if any of you more experienced Jehova's witnesses or ex-Jehova's witnesses can say anything about the organizations belief or where they may contradict in relations to modern astrophysics and/or physics. is it simply a game where the more science is discovered the more jehova's witness's beliefs bends to fit the mold?

    Not a XJW but i have some experience with WTS and some general knowledge of physics.

    The WTS has choosen very wisely to have as little an oppinion about physics as possible. Allmost nothing is ever published about the subject, and the little there is very rarely even at high-school level. In other words, to my knowledge the WTS has never tried any of the more technical arguments for God (Kalams cosmological argument, etc.) ala W.L. Craig.

    In fairness few discoveries in astronomy and modern high-energy physics disprove the WTS world-view outright. The only example I can think of in the past 20 years of a really problematic discovery is properly the discovery the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

    But then again, the eventual death of the sun has been known for at least 150 years, and the same objection --"jehovah will fix it"-- work just as well today.

    This is ofcourse problematic when one want to argue Big Bang is evidence of creation (which is done by the WTS in the pre-high-school manner mentioned above), but this is a technical point which i have written extensively about it in the past and i wont repeat it here.

    Where it gets very problematic indeed is with the softer of the hard sciences, biology (evolutionary theory in particular), geology, glaciology, etc. Again the WTS has desided for all subjects save evolution NOT to have an oppinion, even when it is very problematic.

    Take for instance the subject of ice cores. There are obvious problems on how to make ice cores fit in the noah-ark story, and to my knowledge the WTS beliefs on the subject is they have no belief aside the polar ice caps "got here" at some point (before or after the ark).

    Or take the geological history of the planet: When was the mountain ranges pushed up? Which (if any) of the 40+ dating methods used in geology can be trusted at all? When did the dinosauers live? For how long has there been carnivores on this planet?

    The WTS does to the best of my knowledge not subscribe to any particular view, except adam lived in the garden of eden 6000 years ago and you should not worry about the rest.

    The WTS try to give the impression they are not entirely clueless ofcourse. For instance, a superficial reading of the new brouchures on evolution give the impression they have at least an oppinion or an alternative view on geology and paleotology (this is also quite explicitly written in the foreword). But this is not the case.

    Take for instance the cambrian explosion which is heralded as a problem for evolution (why this is the case is entirely unclear, but then again, making coherent arguments is not the WTS forte), but if you read the brouchure carefully it is entirely unclear if the author believe the cambrian periode even existed, when it was, how long it lasted and what life on earth was during the cambrian explosion: Some scientists say there was this thing called "the cambrian explosion" and ... ehm ... you see ... explosion ... life diversified ... ehh ... evolution is wrong!

    In conclusion, the WTS simply ignore science as much as it can, and try to get pass by giving extremely shallow arguments often very clearly based on very simple research and which ignore even the most basic objections.

    The true believers buy this as a mode of discurse and often form their own ideas about evolution which is a mix of more or less discarded ideas and half-statements the WTS has made during the years and stuff they have picked up from various creationist resources.

    When these arguments fail, or does not feel persuasive, they tend to blame themselve and generally believe the topic is unimportant since, well, the WTS treat the subject as entirely unimportant. Very rarely are direct errors made simply because the ideas presented are so vague its impossible to make direct error, but they are still there, for instance one of the new brochures contain a very clear misquotation.

    The sad thing is that this work very well.

  • Larsinger58

    In a sense, the Bible acknowledges the strength of Satan's propaganda through science. As a defense to that, which can't be defended on a practical level right now, unless you go study science and get a degree in some specialized field and offer a counter opinion, Jehovah appears more directly to the elect. He either appears to them directly, as in my case, or Christ has appeared to them, or they witness miracles like the holy spirit or the "sign of the son of man" that convinces them that God is alive and does exist, that is, the god of the Bible. So when some scientist claims to present some irrefutable evidence, it is not proof the Bible is false or that God is not real. It's just a contradiction that needs to be further studied. By making direct appearances to the elect, God overcomes any worries they have about his existence or that science contradicts reality.

    Thus we know something is probably being misinterpreted by the scientists or they are missing something they cannot see or know about since the Bible is true and cannot be contradicted. But it takes a lot of faith just to believe the Bible with all this counter-intelligence which the Bible describes as being like a river disgorged from the mouth of Satan to drown the elect, who are represented by the woman who dwells in secret in the wilderness. But the earth swallows up the river so she is not drowned. When you have direct proof of God via direct interaction, it swallows up the claims of science where it contradicts the Bible. They may not have the scientific response to those claims, but it doesn't matter because they know for a fact that God is real and the Bible is true. So they just chalk it up to a mystery that will be explained later.


  • bohm

    Larsinger: I am the elect of the flying spaghetti monster. if you think science in any way offer evidence against the flying spaghetti monster, SHUT THE F#CK UP and listen to me for i am the elect of the flying spaghetti monster.

    there.. thats the way to figure out the TRUTH!

Share this