So I've already had a discussion with two elders (one was once a circuit overseer but had to step down because of his age) (two different elders; I didn't mention them in my post). My family and I were supposed to meet up with an elder to ask him a favour. He, however, invited the other elder to come over. He secretly planned to talk to me about why I no longer attend meetings. So we ended up talking about it.
We discussed different topics, and I don't exactly remember everything, but here's some of what we talked about:
1) Lack of evidence for gods/God
2) The 1914 prophecy
3) Science
4) Australian Royal Commission
5) Faith
It's kind of too bad that I didn't have a chance to explain all of my points. The elder "D" who was once an overseer often interrupted me. But we did have a very calm discussion, and they saw that I had a response to everything. That my decision not to attend meetings was well-thought-out.
Now, because I've never been baptized, I was only an unbaptized publisher, I don't find it likely that I'll be shunned. It's a possibility, but not a likely one in my scenario. The elders I talked to today didn't have a single problem. They're going to leave me alone.
Anyway, the most contentious points we discussed were the two last ones. Elder "D" actually knew about the Australian Royal Commission, but I didn't find his objections reasonable. All he did was ask me, "How much do you trust your sources?" I knew where he was headed. He wanted to say that the sources might say false things; therefore, what the ARC concluded is false as well. The point, however, is that according to the evidence, the conclusions are most likely true.
He also disagreed that JWs use the 2-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse. I told him about the letters which specifically mention the 2-witness rule in relation to child sexual abuse, but he wasn't convinced. He said that in his personal experience, he has always called the police whenever there was a case of child sexual abuse (I commended him for doing so.) He was always taught that even if there is only one witness, he should call the police. I suppose things are handed differently in Canada. Anyway, I told him that I can show him the letters, but then he implied that they may not be the true letters but mere forgeries. I didn't find that reasonable. He has doubts about the truthfulness of the ARC based on that. The sources might be false.... therefore.... I have a problem with that thinking. But anyway, I don't see how one can deny that in Australia, there is a problem with the 2-witness rule. There is clear evidence of that. But he just denies it based on his own experience and based on the statement that the sources might be telling inaccurate things. (It took me 15 seconds to find the letter. It was the letter from 1 October, 2012, paragraph 11. It clearly talks about the 2-witness rule.) (I also wanted to talk about the fact that children, even female children, were put in front of the judicial committee full of male elders so that they could talk about the accusation. He, however, often interrupted me when we were discussing the 2-witness rule, so I soon forgot about that.) (I also told him to look up the video recordings from the ARC. He refused to do so. I find it irrational since he asked me how far I trust the ARC. How far does he trust the ARC? Why not if he doesn't trust the ARC at all? If he wants his distrust to be rational, he should look up the video recordings. But he said he won't.)
Another contentious point was faith. We talked about the proposition that life looks designed and therefore there must be a designer. He was quite philosophical about that, too, so that's quite good. He didn't say that there must be God (although he did come to that conclusion based on the Bible), but when it comes to this argument alone, based on that argument he came to the conclusion that there must be some designer.
I tried to point out to him that this is a fallacy in logic called an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't see how life was created doesn't mean there was a designer. He just wasn't convinced that this was a strong enough objection. To me, it is. I try to be as reasonable as I can, so I make it a point not to commit logical fallacies. If someone refuses to recognize a logical fallacy as a reasonable objection, I don't think you can convince the person he/she is wrong.
As we continued to talk about this topic, he pointed out that everyone has faith. We didn't have time to finish the discussion, so I wasn't able to fully explain myself. However, I pointed out that it's not productive to talk about terms; we should talk about concepts. This is because faith is an undefined concept, and everyone uses it to mean different things. I said that when it comes to the faith that one has in God—confidence in spite of lack of evidence—I don't have that type of faith. I don't have faith at all if this is a definition one should use, and this is how I use faith.
I do, however, have confidence proportionate to the evidence. I believe the scientific consensus because of that type of confidence. I have evidence that scientists are reliable, that they use specific methods to try to come to the most reasonable conclusions; therefore, I trust them. I don't call that faith because it's a completely different thing from the faith one has in God. Hence, calling it faith would cause unnecessary confusion. It's best described as confidence proportionate to evidence. But I didn't have time to explain my point fully as we needed to end the discussion.
In the end, nobody convinced anybody of anything. I didn't expect the results to be any different, so everything went as expected (although I didn't expect we would even have that discussion but aside from that...) But anyway, these two elders are fine with my disagreements because I've never been baptized. When it comes to the two other elders, we'll see. One elder said he's going to send me an e-mail, and that he is going to send me a link to an article written by the Watchtower. I'll probably find it highly objectionable (the argumentation in the article, that is.) The other elder wants to meet for a coffee and have an actual discussion. We'll see how it goes. Either way, even if I will be shunned by anyone, even my family, I don't care. This is why I'm doing this. I don't have anything to lose by having those discussions with them. I know my sister won't shun me because she's an unbeliever herself. When it comes to my non-JW family who are sympathizers of JWs, I don't have a relationship with them which would be that close. So I'm not risking anything really.
Edit: Elder "D" even acknowledged that "I have it all figured out." Based on that, he came to the conclusion that further discussions won't be necessary. This is kind of too bad, but I didn't expect anything else. He is convinced he has the truth, so he doesn't see a point in discussing our disagreements. He also sees that my objections are entirely reasonable, so he knows it's beyond his ability to convince me. But whatever. I don't care.
