by Oubliette 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I'm so dumb. lol. Never even heard of fallacies and logical fallacies. It all sounds so devious and corrupt, the kind of stuff politicians and false people do.
So i have learned, very basic.
A logical fallacy - is a flaw in reasoning. Like tricks or illusions of thought, often sneakily used to fool people.
Everything seems so complicated these days.
1 - In a footnote to paragraph four, the article defines “Apostasy” as “a standing away from true worship, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment.” This of course begs the question of whether or not WT/JW teachings really are “true worship.” That, in turn, concerns the very core issues which alleged “apostates” doubt, question, disagree with or have dissenting views.
The fallacy here is that the WTS is under the delusion that they have the "truth"; but in fact, since they don't, they are the actual "apostates", not those who object or question their teachings. The recent teachings connected with the Memorial is a perfect example. We all know the story of the Exodus! The very night the passover meal was eaten is the very same night the Israelites left Egypt, which is clearly dated on Nisan 15th. A national annual holiday celebrating this "night" was established and the daytime event, the festival of unfermented cakes is dated on the 15th. Since the Jewish day begins the previous day at sundown, that means passover must be eaten that same sabbath day, in which case, Jesus could not have died that day since there are no impalements on a sabbath day. Or, you can focus on the fact that if the Israelites left Egypt about the same time of night Jesus was getting arrested, then Jesus must have been arrested on Nisan 15th.
The confusion for the WTS and many others is that they presume because the Jewish secular sabbath begins at sundown, that the calendar date also changes at that time. Not the case. When the Israelites first left Egypt, they followed Egyptian tradition of not changing the calendar date until midnight. Thus even though passover is eaten after sundown on a sabbath day that became the 15th after midnight, passover is still technically eaten on Nisan 14th. When the WTS presumes the date changes at sundown, then they imagine the next 24 hours is still Nisan 14th, which it is not.
Having noted that, this is just an EXAMPLE of a clear-cut false teaching of the WTS which makes them apostate and not those who stick by the detail and truth of God's word.
So the WTS is now the "apostate" based on the false presumption that they have the "truth and the light", when at this point, they clearly don't.
I like the OP too, as learning about logic fallacies helped me learn the TTATT as well. Here are some of the ones I've contributed in other threads:
We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords. Adam and Eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing. What exactly was it? By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. (Genesis 31:26; 34:26; 48:22; Exodus 5:21; 17:13) So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.—2 Timothy 3:16. (“Questions from Readers.” Watchtower 1 Feb. 1994: 31)
We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.
By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.
Affirming the Consequent, a form of Circular reasoning. The bible is accurate (unstated premise). The bible says that God used a flaming sword. Thus, the description can be considered accurate because God had it included in the Bible.
It's also a distinction without a difference fallacy. One on had the author is saying it would have been unloving for God to create the sword, a weapon. I ask why this would be unloving. To which I can only think of the negative implications associated with him being the inventor of the sword. Next the author says that while God didn’t technically create the first sword, what he did have placed at the entrance of the Garden of Eden could be visualized to a degree of accuracy as being a sword. So wouldn’t the first statement about it being unloving for God to create the sword still be an issue? How is this any different? He didn’t create the sword per se, just something that resembled it.
It doesn't matter if 'Sword' is the correct word for the spinning 'Thing' or not. If the spinning 'Thing' was lethal by design, then it was a weapon by default. And there's no moral difference between the assertion that God introduced humans to weapons vs. God introduced humans to swords.
Opps realized my original and reproduced analysis has the wrong fallacy. Instead of Affirming the Consequent, it should be Begging the Question. Additionally, it should be noted that the last paragraph came from forum member TD, who pointed out the distinction without a difference fallacy.
marked
A false analogy (also called a weak analogy) takes the following form:
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.) 1
The key point here is that the analogy between A and B has to be sufficently weak for it to be fallacious. All analogies, even the strongest ones, aren't perfect and do break down at some point (i.e. become weak). For example here is one in the bible (the strength or weakness of this analogy is more in how it is used):
"For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (ESV, Hebrews 3:4)
Sometimes this analogy is used with regards to the earth, to support the view it was created by God. There are many similarities. A house provides us shelter and safety (from storms and cold), so does the earth (from solar storms and the cold of space). We enjoy a clean house; so do we enjoy a clean earth. There any many more. But even this analogy has weak points (that don't automatically make it fallacious per se). For example, the earth rotates around an axis and moves through space around the sun. A typical house is stationary and does not rotate and move. So this is one area where the analogy breaks down. (I want to point out that all human-made houses are indeed made by humans (what of caves used as a home, though?), but that doesn't neccessarily mean that the earth was created by a builder too. Simply using an analogy does not make it true. There needs to be more to one's argument here than just this.)
Now if we use this "every house is built by someone" analogy and apply it to "but the builder of life is God." Well what are the similarities here? Both have the appearance of design. Okay, in some ways life also has the appearance of an intelligent designer. Are there any other similarities? I can't think of any others (i.e. this is used just as a different way to state the watchmaker analogy). What of the differences? Is a living thing our home (it might be to those that believe in the soul-body speration, but not for JWs)? Is a house alive? Does a house have offspring? Is a house susceptible to mutations? It's quite easy to show that this analogy is weak.
1 Curtis, Gary. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 25 Setp. 2012. <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.
I think you would enjoy this poster.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/
Good post ...thanks it keeps my mind sharper.
SW
Okay, this one is probably not an example I would have chosen to discuss logical fallacies, the quote in the original post, I mean. But then I'm just a doormat, so it's a moot point.
Anyway, they use an illustration about a physical disease, then relate it incongruously to 'apostates' who are said to be mentally diseased. False analogy, then, as a mental disease is not contagious in the same manner as a physical disease, at least not in the context of this discussion. Unless we're talking a sort of spiritual mad cow disease? I don't know. I guess you could argue that apostates are "mentally diseased" in the sense that they have an 'unhealthy fixation' on things like facts and truth. I generally like to know if Watchtower writers are maybe not being honest about the organization's history, teaching things that aren't Biblically supported, reading and quoting from apostate literature, sending people to their deaths. You know. So if that's my disease, don't cure me by any means.
The "disloyal teachings" of apostates should be easily dispatched with the "sword of the spirit", the Bible. Presumably, true Christians should have the cure to any such 'mental disease' that someone would threaten to spread if they really understand the Bible. Except that the Society is probably putting itself in the position of doctor here and insisting that its patients remain (1) ignorant of basic medicine and (2) dependent on the so-called doctor's expertise. No diplomas offered as credentials save invisible ones. And most definitely, never, ever, EVER try to get a second opinion.
Note that the Society refers to these "teachings" as disloyal. In the earlier paragraphs I'm sure they made their share of statements that such teachings are false, but using the word disloyal here brings a question to mind. Disloyal to who? To the writers of this article, of course! Because loyalty to them and loyalty to God are seen as one and the same.
Suppose a doctor told you that people you might come in contact with have a contagious disease. But he tells you also to never talk to anyone but him about this disease, never to get a second opinion from any other doctor, and never to read any books other than the ones he gives you about the disease. Also, he rarely if ever gives you any serious details about the nature of this disease other than that it's really bad and you should avoid it. And if you ask him too many serious questions about it, he then tells you you're infected with the disease and has you quarantined! That would be a more accurate analogy to use, would it not?
--sd-7
