Elephant.. the point is that most JWs (and remember I am still an active JW like you) believe that God is the only one who can reads hearts and decides who survives or not... but this is NOT what is taught in the Watchtower publications. According to them one HAS to be associated with God's Organisation to survive.
"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?
by cognisonance 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Black Sheep
When a JW denies a doctrine you know they teach, make them promise to show you some articles that back them up and make them agree to a time.
When/if they show you the article look for the trick in it. e.g. Those who respond favorably to the good news can survive Armageddon and live forever in perfection on a paradise earth. then make them read it to you and ask them to explain it to you. Do not let them change the subject. Do not change the subject. Do not answer their questions (Tell them they are there to answer yours).
Every time they answer a question, pause and ask yourself, "Did they really answer the question that I asked?". They usually don't. Repeat the question without rephrasing it.
Make them feel guilty for every bit of dishonesty they indulge in trying to deceive you, and make sure they get the point that you find it offensive that they would try such tricks.
If they don't show up to answer the question, give them a reminder.
If possible, have an audience.
-
breakfast of champions
Hi COG. Don't worry yourself over denying the antecedent and all that. It's what Paul Grice called "implicature" or a meaning derived from outside of the semantics of the utterance. Yes, no matter how you break it down, what they really mean is that if you are not a baptized JW, you will die at Armageddon.
-
cognisonance
I've been giving this some more thought about the position I am taking (as many others) about the JW literature effectively saying those that do not associate with Jehovah's Organization will not survive Armageddon. Some more info about the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent 1,2 has been very helpful. I am interested in logic fallacies because growing up in this religion, I never fully developed my critical thinking skills as good as I could have.
Back to my original example:
Those who respond favorably to the good news can survive Armageddon and live forever in perfection on a paradise earth.
What we have here (as rephrased below) is a conditional statement. It follows the following form: If P, then Q. P is the Antecedent and Q is the Consequent.
- Antecedent: If people respond favorably to the good news,
- Consequent: [then] they can survive Armageddon....
If I am guilty of the logic fallacy I am hoping to avoid (denying the antecedent), I would have to come about my inverse statement using the following logic (I provided some examples to more clearly show the problem of denying the antecedent):
If p then q.(If people respond favorably to the good news, then they can survive Armageddon...)
(If people are officially Jehovah's Witnesses, then they were baptised.)
(If I was the axe murder, then I used an axe)
not p. (People aren't responding favorably to the good news.)
(People aren't officially Jehovah's Witnesses.)
(I am not the axe murder)
So, not q. (So, they cannot surive Armageddon.)
(So, they never were baptised.)
(So, I cannot use an axe)
See the problem? A person can be a Baptist, but that doesn't mean he never got baptised. A person may not be the axe murder, but that doesn't mean he can't use an axe. Just the same, a person could not respond to the good news, but that doesn't mean they will not survive Armageddon.
A correct and valid form of a logical argument is denying the consequent (a.k.a. Modus Tollens):
If p then q.(If people repsond favorably to the good news, then they can survive Armageddon...)
(If people are officially Jehovah's Witnesses, then they were baptised.)
(If I was the axe murder, then I used an axe)
not q. (People cannot survive Armageddon.)
(People were never baptised.)
(It has always been physically impossible for me to use an axe)
So, not p. (So, they aren't responding unfavorably to the good news.)
(So, they are not offically Jehovah's Witnesses.)
(So, I was not the axe murder)
So, it's this latter logical argument were I (and others) assert that JWs say the following:
Those who respond favorably unfavorably to the good news can survive die at Armageddon and live forever never live in perfection on a paradise earth.
...and one of Blondie's quotes with more context:
A third requirement is that we be associated with God’s channel, his organization. God has always used an organization. For example, only those in outside the ark in Noah’s day survived died in the Flood, and only those associated unassociated with the Christian congregation in the first century had God’s favor disapproval. (Acts 4:12) Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive reject everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it mistake that organization and serve God as part of an organization not being used by Jehovah. 3
So again, the argument that such texts imply that billions of people are going to die at armageddon and only those part of Jehovah's Organization will survive is a valid one.So now, I'd like to focus on the logic fallacies used by JW literature to apologeticly respond to the concept of a loving god killing 99% of all humans living on earth when the end comes. I've already declared they are guilty of "Special Pleading." Is this a valid assertion? Are there any others?
1 Robert T. Carroll. "Denying the antecedent." The Skeptics Dictionary. 19 Sept. 2012 < http://www.skepdic.com/denyingtheantecedent.html>.
2 Alex Morgan. "Session 5: Overview." PHIL 201.Introduction to Formal Logic. 19 Sept. 2012 <http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~amorgo/teaching/09s_201/files/lecture_05.pdf>
3 "YouCan Live Forever in Paradise on Earth - But How?" Watchtower. 15 Feb. 1983, 12.
-
carla
I have a question for those who say, "I never bought that, I never believed that only jw's would survive the Big A. Only God can read hearts....blah, blah..."-- Did you, when you said and believed that, understand that you were actually an apostate at that moment? or did you justify it by claiming it was Biblical and possibly the wt had it slightly wrong? either way, technically you held apostate thought.
-
cognisonance
Found this, which states the inverse explicitly:
Lives Are at Stake!
1 The Bible makes clear Jehovah’s will “that all sorts of men should be saved.” However, it is also true that the life prospects of earth’s billions depend upon their attitude toward Jehovah God and his Kingdom by Jesus Christ. A proper attitude can be based only on “accurate knowledge of truth.” [which we all know they are refering to Jehovah's Organization] (1 Tim. 2:3, 4) While giving notice that soon the earth will be cleansed of all wickedness in order to make way for God’s new world of righteousness, we have also been commissioned to carry on a vital lifesaving work.—Matt. 24:14; 28:19, 20; Rom. 10:13-15.
2 Why So Urgent? Jesus gave warning about a “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning.” (Matt. 24:21) That tribulation will reach its climax at Armageddon. (Rev. 16:16) The masses of people facing annihilation if they fail to respond to the good news include our unbelieving relatives, neighbors, workmates, schoolmates, and acquaintances. But our concern is to reach out to “all sorts of men” in imitation of God, who manifested his love for the entire world of mankind by giving his Son, Jesus Christ, as a ransom for all. (John 3:16) We must zealously endeavor to invite all to flee to God’s place of safety. By fully carrying out the preaching work, we can avoid bloodguilt.—Ezek. 33:1-7; 1 Cor. 9:16. 1
This article makes no "Special Pleading" logic fallacies. It makes no room for "but jehovah can read hearts, we can't be dogmatic about who will or won't get saved." It makes no room for "we don't really know who is going to be saved for sure, we just have to make it there to find out", etc, etc.
1 "Lives Are at Stake!" Our Kingdom Ministry. Sept. 2000: 1.
-
blondie
The WTS says that baptism as a jw is the mark mentioned at Ezekiel 9:4-6. That people who are not will die forever at Armageddon.
Because the mark in Ezekiel 9:4-6 is baptism as one of jws. Only jws will not be destroyed at the end, Armageddon per the WTS.
QUOTES
*** w08 7/15 pp. 5-6 par. 11 The House-to-House Ministry—Why Important Now? ***By means of the preaching and disciple-making work, the anointed class puts a symbolic mark on those who become part of Christ’s “other sheep.” (John 10:16) What is the mark? It is the evidence, as if displayed on their uncovered foreheads, that such sheep are dedicated, baptized disciples of Jesus Christ and that they have put on the Christlike new personality. (Eph. 4:20-24)*** w96 1/15 p. 17 par. 9 Jehovah’s Sheep Need Tender Care ***If they agree that the unbaptized publisher has a reasonable understanding of Bible teachings and qualifies in other ways, they will tell him that he may be baptized. As a result of his dedication and baptism, he becomes ‘marked’ for salvation.—Ezekiel 9:4-6.
*** w88 11/15 p. 17 par. 10 Helping Others to Worship God ***An announcement that he is a new unbaptized publisher can be made to the congregation. He should continue studying the Bible, participating in the meetings, applying what he learns, and sharing it with others. Before long, he will want to take the step of Christian baptism, thus becoming approved by God and ‘marked’ for salvation.—Ezekiel 9:4-6.
*** km 10/87 p. 8 par. 7 Help Others to Dedication and Baptism ***Only those ‘marked’ for salvation will survive into Jehovah’s new system. (Ezek. 9:2-6) How happy those who submit to this ‘marking’ for survival will be because of their dedicated relationship with Jehovah God, as symbolized by water baptism!
----------------
-
cognisonance
And wait theres more:
How We Can Let Jehovah Question Us
What about us? Can we too benefit from the questions recorded in the Bible? Yes, we can! Allowing those questions to make us stop and think can bring us rich spiritual rewards. The penetrating questions in God’s Word contribute to its effectiveness. Indeed, “the word of God . . . exerts power . . . and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12) To benefit most, however, we need to direct those questions to ourselves, as if Jehovah were questioning us personally. (Rom. 15:4) Let us consider some examples.
“Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?” (Gen. 18:25) Abraham posed this rhetorical question to Jehovah at the time of God’s judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham considered it unthinkable that Jehovah could ever act unjustly—putting the righteous to death with the wicked. Abraham’s question reflects his deep faith in Jehovah’s righteousness.
Today, some may be inclined to speculate about matters regarding Jehovah’s future judgments, such as who exactly will survive Armageddon or who will receive a resurrection. Rather than allowing such thoughts to disturb us, we can recall Abraham’s question. Knowing Jehovah as a benevolent heavenly Father and having complete confidence in his justice and mercy, as Abraham did, prevents us from wasting time and energy on unnecessary worry, weakening doubt, and useless debate. 1
So the offical JW reasoning seems to be: Just as the flood in Noah's day, being on the spiritual ark (Jehovah's Organizaiton) is the only means a person can get saved. Rest assured that all honesthearted ones have had an opportunity to respond to the good news, and since Jehovah can read hearts he would have already tried to draw every single right hearted person to his organization. Thus all that will be destoryed will deserve it. Any thought beyond this would just result in doubts, so stop thinking critically about it.
Consider the following to support this:
So although Jehovah does not promise that every individual will receive exactly the same opportunity, he does make sure that an opportunity is held out to all honesthearted ones. He will even make sure that those who have never had the occasion to learn about him will be given an opportunity by means of a resurrection to life in a righteous new world.—Acts 24:15. 2
In very direct terms, Jesus stated: “No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him.” (John 6:44) Ultimately, therefore, Jehovah is responsible for drawing people who are “rightly disposed for everlasting life.” (Acts 13:48) God’s spirit can awaken people to their spiritual need. (Matthew 5:3) A disturbed conscience, a desperate quest for hope, or a gripping crisis may lead some to search for God and thus learn about his purpose for mankind.—Mark 7:26-30; Luke 19:2-10. 3(please read my footnote)
All this said, I wonder where JWs (even the elders on my JC when I was DF'd) come up with "Special Pleading" arguments:
- "If you try to return to Jehovah and we don't approve you for reinstatement, but you are sincerely trying to come back, Jehovah can still save you should the end come before you're reinstated as only he can read hearts, not us."
- "We can't be dogmatic about who will get saved, only Jehovah can read hearts."
- "We never said anyone now associated with Jehovah's Organization will not be survive, ultimately it's in Jehovah's hands."
Were any comments like this ever printed in our publications?
1 "Do You Let Jehovah Question You?" Watchtower. 15 April 2010: 14.
2 "Our Readers Ask... Do All Have an Equal Opportunity to Come to Know God?" Watchtower. 1 Aug. 2010: 22.
3 "Multitudes Embrace Jehovah's Worship." Watchtower. 15 Sept. 2005: 8, 9. When reading this article it is clear that the drawing done by God is to "the earthly part of Jehovah's organization." It also states, "Jehovah is gathering and training a great multinational crowd of true worshippers. This international group has the happy prospect of surviving the approaching end of this wicked system of things and living on into a righteous new world"
-
blondie
However, this law on adultery was given by Jehovah to imperfect judges, who could not read hearts. Despite their limitations, they were enabled by this law to be consistent in their judgments. On the other hand, Jehovah can read hearts. (Gen. 18:25; 1 Chron. 29:17)
*** w08 1/15 p. 14 par. 7***
Jehovah has appointed Jesus as Judge; hence, we do not have the right to judge anybody. That is fitting, since—unlike Jesus—we can judge only by the “mere appearance to [our] eyes” or “the thing heard by [our] ears,” whereas Jesus can read the intimate thoughts and reasonings of the heart.—Isa. 11:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:1.
***w84 11/1 p. 13 par. 19***
Since, unlike Jesus, we cannot read hearts, there is only one way to obtain this information: by asking well-thought-out questions.—Proverbs 18:13; 20:5.
*** g 79 7/8 p. 27 ***
In view of the fact that humans are involved in the appointment of elders, there is a possibility of choosing an unqualified man to serve, for humans are not able to read the heart.
*** w81 7/ p. 21 par. 15 ***
Elders can base their decision only on the apparent repentance, but they are unable to read the heart fully.
*** w 56 3/1 p. 142 par. 14***
Many so-called “psychiatrists” claim to be able to read the mind of individuals, but only Jehovah God and Christ Jesus can thoroughly read the hearts of men.
------------------
Officially the WTS dances mostly on the side of that only God and Jesus can ready hearts "fully" "thoroughly". A speaking out of both sides of the mouth again.
*** w10 10/15 p.11 par.17***
*** w10 10/15 p. 11 par. 17 *** -
cognisonance
Blondie, I don't have access right now to the WL CD to look at the context of your quotes (except the first one). However, none of them appear to be pulling the "only God can read hearts" card with reference to who would survive Armageddon. I am wanting to know if this has ever been done in such a context (i.e. in an article like the one in the KM about "Lives are at Stake!" posted earlier). I see they are refering to human judicical rulings back in the israelite times and in today's modern time with the JW judicial commities or appointment of elders, etc.
Using your first quote with more context, I could see how a JW read the following and then perhaps attempt to apply this "principel" or "concept" to Armageddon:
Our Viewpoint May Be Distorted or Limited
15 The second factor to remember when we are faced with a situation that appears to be unfair is that our viewpoint may be distorted or limited. It can be distorted by imperfection, prejudice, or cultural background. It is also limited by our inability to discern motives and to know what is really in people’s hearts. In contrast, both Jehovah and Jesus have no such limitations.—Prov. 24:12; Matt. 9:4; Luke 5:22.
16 Let us analyze the account of David’s adultery with Bath-sheba. (2 Sam. 11:2-5) According to the Mosaic Law, they deserved to be executed. (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) Although Jehovah punished them, he did not enforce his own law. Was that unfair on Jehovah’s part? Did he show favoritism to David and violate His own righteous standards? Some Bible readers have felt that way.
17 However, this law on adultery was given by Jehovah to imperfect judges, who could not read hearts. Despite their limitations, they were enabled by this law to be consistent in their judgments. On the other hand, Jehovah can read hearts. (Gen. 18:25; 1 Chron. 29:17) So we should not expect that Jehovah would have to be restricted by a law he designed for imperfect judges. If he were, would that not be like forcing someone with perfect vision to wear eyeglasses that are designed to correct the vision of those with defective sight? Jehovah could read the hearts of David and Bath-sheba and see their genuine repentance. Taking such a factor into consideration, he judged them accordingly, in a merciful and loving manner. 1The article talks about David breaking the Mosaic Law in such a way that he deserves death, but God jumps in and pardon's his crime, because David was truly repentant. The point being made is that God was not unjust, or showing favortism to David, for allowing him to keep living. The reason is because only he can read hearts.
So, I can see a JW take this and see, perhaps, an analogy between this situation and Armageddon and reason, "Our literature says that God will draw all those deserving of life to his organization, therefore when the end comes only those associated with the organization will be saved. Yet, I know there are likely good people that aren't JWs who I hope God will have mercy on and save as well. If he can intervene despite the official rules for David, why can't he do the same for people at Armageddon?" However, is such an argument logical?
Besides this reasoning exibiting Special Pleading 2 as mentioned in my first post, I'm wondering if it also exhibits the following logic fallacies:
- Weak Analogy 3, 4. For this fallacy to occur there has to be a sufficent difference between non-JWs getting saved at Armageddon and the analogous one with God intervened for David since he can read hearts. The Armageddon senerio is a primary example of divine judgment, wheras the David one was originally of human judgement (to which God choose to sidestep standard operating procedure to judge for himself). Could there also be a stronger analogy for Armageddon than comparing it to how God dealt with David? Well, low and behold we have one -- The Flood of Noah's day. In fact the Bible compares Armageddon to the Flood. How does the Watchtower answer these questions: How many people were saved outside the ark? Zero! Does this imply that everyone therefore that did not head the warning died, and god was justified for killing them? Yes. Could there have possibly been "good people" that died becuase they simply did not want to adopt Noah's belief system? Yes. Do JWs use this analogy to show why people must be part of God's Organizaition? An emphatic yes! The David anology also seems to possibly be a Begging Analogy becuase it is is Begging the Question?
- Begging Analogy5 , a form of Begging the Question 6,7 . Begging the Question, has nothing to do with the common expression, "this begs the question", as in, "this prompts the question." Rather, Begging the Question is a form of fallacious circular reasoning. This logic fallacy, I admit is not the easiest to wrap my head around (please read the references, as I may be making mistakes in application). Anyway, how do we know that God will step in and save people based on their heart condition like he did with David? Well one might point to Davids example and say see, he did it then, so we know he will do it in the future. But the strength of this argument comes from a controversial point that is at issue, that God will save people despite what the WTS has written about Armageddon. It seems to me to be a circular argument, where the conclusion (God will read hearts and save right-hearted ones in Armageddon that aren't JWs) is assumed in the primise (i.e. God read Davids heart and saved him when the law he gave to Moses would have otherwise incacted the death penalty). This is more clear when we look at the loaded langague of the conclusion. The term "right-hearted" is something we also likely would attribute to David. Therefore, the premise and conclusion might as well be: "God read a right-hearted person's heart and saved him in the past, this implies that god will save right hearted people at Armagedon." Such is a valid argument, per se. Not all circular reasoning is fallacious. It becomes a problem when it does not advance our knowledge about a postion. Such advancing of knowledge would be if we start with a premise one believes and ends up with a conclusion that he previously didn't believe. In this case we start with a premise we believe, and end up with the conclusion we also (want to) believe (due to the Special Pleading, or perhaps an Appeal to Consequences of a belief).
- Appeal to Consequences of Belief 8,9 . This fallacy is reasoning like follows: "I believe God won't kill good, right-hearted people, even if they aren't JWs at Armageddon, becuase that would mean the God I worship would be unloving." Or perhaps, "I love my spouse, who is not a JW like me, thus God must show mercy to some people at Armageddon and spare them, becuase otherwise that would mean my spouse would die when the end comes."
Well, this took some work to think about and put together. I'd appreciate some feedback here. Am I misapplying any of these fallacies? Certainly it's possible my own arguments might be fallacious, and if so please point this out to me. Trying to spot fallacies in logic (and avoid making them) is not always an easy task. I don't feel that people that make such mistakes are doing something neccessarily wrong, we all get emotion at times and have biases and motived reasonings that aren't always rational or logical. I'm trying to learn to temper the non-rational logic I might have, and to know how to identify it when others are making logic fallacies.
Additionally, I'm not sure what to do with the following thoughts, but they are also on my mind: If God saved David from being killed under the mosaic law becuase of he was sincerely repentant, does that mean that all he didn't save who died for the same "crime" were unrepentant? Did all that die in the Flood, were they all unrepentant? Did all that die in the Flood, did they all not have a right-heart condition? Are humans generally so bad-hearted that God only ends up saving a select few?
1 "Keep On Seeking First 'His Righteousness'." Watchtower. 15 Oct. 2010: 7-11.
2 Bennet, Bo. "Special Pleading." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/164-special-pleading>.
3 Bennet, Bo. "Weak Analogy." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/182-weak-analogy>.
4 Curtis, Gary N. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.
5 Curtis, Gary N. "Begging Analogy." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/qbanalog.html>.
6 Bennet, Bo. "Begging the Quesiton." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/61-begging-the-question>.
7 Curtis, Gary N. "Begging the Quesiton." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html>.
8 Bennet, Bo. "Appeal to Consequences." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/26-appeal-to-consequences>.
9 Curtis, Gary N. "Appeal to Consequences." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html>.