There is an ancient artist?s saying that states, "If you do not know your materials, all you do is express your inability to express yourself." An artist must know his materials and the ideal of a true artist is to know those materials so well that using them is as natural as breathing.
In the two companion articles, "Rightly Value Your Gift Of Life" and "Be Guided By The Living God," the June 15th, 2004 issue of The Watchtower proves beyond any doubt that its writers have attained that ideal with their chosen medium. They truly know their materials and using them apparently really is as easy for them as breathing. Unfortunately for the rank and file member, those materials happen to be logical fallacies, deceit and inconsistency.
These two articles have to do with blood, specifically, the Watchtower view thereof. What makes them unique is a slightly different approach to the subject. Gone is the familiar and timeworn invocation of the incomplete predicate, "Abstain from blood" outside of the context that completes it. The cornerstone for the current artistic exercise is cast on the second page of the first article:
"The Creator chose to view blood as having an elevated significance, reserving it for one special use that could save many lives. It was to play a vital role in covering sins (atonement). So under the Law, the only God-authorized use of blood was on the altar to make atonement for the lives of he Israelites, who were seeking Jehovah?s forgiveness" (Page 15)
Any use of blood other than this is understood to be forbidden. Therefore although Christians are no longer under the Law, it can be seen from the above quote that argumentum ex silentio from the Law nevertheless becomes the yardstick by which respect for Jesus? sacrifice is measured. This is the basis for The Watchtower?s newest objection to transfusion medicine.
Technically a form of generalization, the argument from silence is not always an outright logical fallacy. However it is not usually a conclusive argument either, as it is often only suggestive of a range of possibilities. This fact Jehovah?s Witnesses certainly recognize, rejecting the argument from silence even in legitimate forms. For example, the argument from silence is an important tool in the hands of literary source critics, including critics of the Bible itself. When higher critics look at the Bible, one of the things they notice is that there are places where the canonical epistles literally cry out for additional detail on many important aspects of Jesus? birth, life and death. Therefore it is inferred that at least portions of the gospel accounts are fictitious. Paul for example, makes no mention of the virgin birth. Could he have been ignorant of this event? Does this suggest that the virgin birth was a later addition to the Jesus story?
As true blue, dyed in the wool biblical inerrantists, Jehovah?s Witnesses soundly reject this hypothesis. To them, Paul?s silence is certainly suggestive of other things besides ignorance. Equally possible and far more plausible to Jehovah?s Witnesses is that Paul made no mention of the virgin birth in his written correspondence because he simply didn?t feel it important or relevant to his reasoning.
Therefore even when the argument from silence is legitimately constructed, it is apparent that Jehovah?s Witnesses recognize its inconclusive nature. When plausible alternative explanations for the silence exist, they must each be examined and eliminated in turn. However since the writers of The Watchtower are not only unwilling, but unable to examine and eliminate alternative explanations for God?s silence when it comes to uses of blood, the reader can already see a hint of the inherent deceit in their reasoning.
This however, is but only the beginning. The June 15, 2004 Watchtower does not actually incorporate a legitimate form of the argument from silence. Watchtower writers have instead employed a form of the argument rampant in the hermeneutics of conservative fundamentalism. This is the assertion that, "Whatsoever is not sanctioned in the Bible is forbidden." Some have argued for example, that a cappella is the only singing appropriate for Christians today because the Bible is silent about instrumental music in Christian worship. Others have argued that there should be no tax-supported schools because the Law did not authorize civil rulers to educate children. Still others have argued that there should be no prisons, because ancient Israel had none.
In this form, the argument from silence serves as the springboard for the fallacy of sweeping generalization because even when there is something that may legitimately be inferred from the Bible?s silence, it doesn?t automatically follow that this inference may be applied in contexts other than that in which the silence occurred.
A good example to illustrate this fact is the field of modern medicine. Since it is self apparent that the Bible cannot directly comment on procedures alien to its historical and cultural context, attaching an exclusionary significance to this silence would prohibit medical procedures alien to the Bible?s context on no other basis save the fact that they are in fact alien to that context. This is of course, completely unreasonable because there is absolutely nothing remarkable in so obvious a tautology.
Anyone framing such a ridiculous argument would know in advance that they were setting an unattainable standard for the acceptance of whatever medical procedure is in question that has absolutely nothing to do with its respective morality. In effect then, the issue would have been prejudged and the argument itself would be little more than an ad hoc means of supporting that advance judgment.
A good example to illustrate this is the field of reproductive medicine. If Watchtower writers wanted to take the same prejudicial approach to this branch of medicine that they do with hematology, it would be very easy, and in a weak, superficial sense, true to say something to the effect that, "The only divinely sanctioned use of the human reproductive system in the Bible was through marital intercourse." On this basis, it could be inferred that all other uses of the human reproductive system were forbidden. Using this as a springboard for generalization, they could then carry this inference forward and apply it in the context of 20th century medicine. The resultant restriction would even prohibit in-vitro fertilization for a married couple unable to conceive by normal means with absolutely no consideration of the morality of this procedure. That would not even be an issue. In-vitro fertilization would be lumped together as a moral equivalent to things that definitely are condemned in the Bible, like adultery.
This is exactly the approach taken on the subject of blood in the June 15th Watchtower. It is so obviously wrong and self-serving that one might therefore wonder if Watchtower writes actually believe their own faulty argument. In other words, are they really as unintelligent as their internet apologists appear to be? This question can be answered by examining how The Watchtower has dealt with other medical questions besides blood. Is the above example regarding in-vitro fertilization one that actually appeared in The Watchtower? Have any other medical questions been answered with the same reasoning?
From even a brief survey of their literature, it is obvious that Watchtower writers don?t take this approach to any field of medicine except hematology. In all other cases, they recognize that modern practices are rendered neither morally acceptable nor morally objectionable simply by virtue of the Bible?s silence. Questions about modern medical practices that would never, ever have arisen in the historical and cultural context of the Bible have often been discussed in their publications. A brief sampling includes:
Artificial Insemination -- Awake! August 8 1974
Organ Transplantation -- The Watchtower March 15, 1980.
In-Vitro fertilization -- The Watchtower June 1, 1981
Bone marrow transplant -- The Watchtower May 15, 1984 .
Autopsy -- The Watchtower April 1, 1987
Autologous transfusion -- The Watchtower March 1, 1989
Post-exposure vaccines and serums -- The Watchtower June 1, 1990
Vaccinations -- The Watchtower October 1, 1994
Not one of the above issues was decided by the Bible?s silence. In discussing the subject of organ transplants for example, notice what the March 15, 1980 issue of The Watchtower stated on page 31:
While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. (Emphasis mine)
Instead of deciding the issue, the Bible?s silence was actually the factor opening the door and granting the rank and file members the freedom to individually apply the moral principles involved. In other words, organ transplantation is a matter of conscience for Jehovah?s Witnesses.
This can be illustrated more specifically to the subject at hand by going back to the issue of reproductive medicine again. Jehovah?s Witnesses believe that the purpose of the human reproductive system was for married couples to use in obedience to God?s command to produce offspring. In-vitro fertilization may be a preternatural implementation of this use, but that in and of itself says nothing about its morality. Its morality is decided by the fact that it is a use of the human reproductive system in accordance with what Witnesses believe its original purpose to be. Therefore it is certainly morally distinguishable from something like adultery and Watchtower writers recognize this distinction. Accordingly, in-vitro fertilization is also a matter of conscience for Jehovah?s Witnesses.
It is apparent therefore that Watchtower writers don?t actually believe their own faulty argument and in that respect, they are not as unintelligent as their internet apologists appear to be. What is apparent is not only their willful deceit in using it, but the assumption that their readers are gullible enough to accept it. Like human reproduction, human blood did have both a purpose and a use long before the fall of man and the need for a Redeemer ever arose. Although it is also a preternatural implementation of this use, transfusion is still a use of blood explicitly for its original design purpose nevertheless. It is not a use of blood as a food, an oral remedy, a gelling agent, a color additive or any other misuses known to the ancient world. It is a use of blood as BLOOD and is therefore morally distinguishable from eating it. Rather than actually discussing the morality of transfusion, Watchtower writers have knowingly and deceitfully attempted to overcome this inconvenient fact with fallacy.
However, it would be a mistake to suppose that this is the only fallacy at work in the June 15th Watchtower. That would be equivalent to an accomplished artist painting with only one brush. Because sacrifices mandated under the Law prefigured the blood of Christ, Watchtower writes have inferred that this must be true of all blood. Without this inference, there is no basis for the idea that the use of human blood shows disrespect for Christ?s sacrifice. However this is simply the fallacy of composition. What is true of a sample has been inferred to be true of an entire class with no external support for this inference.
While there was a connection between the blood of sacrifices made under the Law and the blood of Christ, this was a metaphorical, not a physical connection. With the start of the Christian era, this connection was transferred by Jesus? own command from the blood of sacrifices to the sacraments of Communion. Further, Jehovah?s Witnesses (at least) are shocked by attempts to inject any physical equivalency into the Eucharist, soundly rejecting the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Therefore metaphorical connections are not dependant upon physical equivalency at all. Without that dependency, the idea that all blood somehow symbolizes the blood of Christ dissolves into thin air.
Another fallacy at work here in the June 15th Watchtower is that of equivocation. This takes the form of implying an equivalency between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood through the use of terms sufficiently ambiguous to apply to both. Consider for example the following statements:
"God decreed that humans could eat animal meat to sustain life, but they could not take in blood." (Page 16)
"Hence for Christians, shunning blood included not taking it in for "medical" reasons." (Page 21)
Physical similarity is not equality. Drinking a glass of water and drowning in a lake can both loosely be described as "taking in water." Does that make them physical equivalents? Eating human flesh and the transplant of human organs can also both be loosely described as "taking in human flesh." Does that make them moral equivalents? The answer to both of these questions is, "No." Superficial similarity is not the same thing as physical and moral equality. Attempting to imply this through semantics is just another sophomoric fallacy. And the fact that Watchtower writers recognize this distinction in all transplant scenarios save that of blood once again shows that they don?t actually believe their own faulty argument. It again shows a willful deceit in using it coupled with the apparent belief that their readers are gullible enough to accept it.
A fundamental problem with resorting to deceit is consistency. Sooner or later a liar always gets tripped up by his own lies. This is also apparent from a brief survey of the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses. Although the June 15th Watchtower promulgates the notion that all uses of blood outside of sacrifice are wrong, some of the examples listed above did in fact involve the "use" of blood, sometimes explicitly so. To illustrate, the March 1, 1989 issue of The Watchtower described intraoperative autotransfusion explicitly as an "autologous blood use."
"A final example of autologous blood use involves recovering and reusing blood during surgery. Equipment is used to aspirate blood from the wound, pump it out through a filter (to remove clots or debris) or a centrifuge (to eliminate fluids), and then direct it back into the patient. " (Emphasis mine)
The previous two examples of "autologous blood use" in the captioned article were isovolemic hemodilution and predonation. So here we had three autologous uses of blood, two of which were matters of conscience and one of which was not. Clearly some uses of blood are distinguishable from others. This is apparent in other areas as well. The August 8, 1993 issue of Awake! explicitly acknowledges that allogenic blood is used in the production of the hepatitis B vaccine:
"These active immunizations include all the baby shots and the injections that are commonly considered as vaccinations. With one exception (discussed later), these do not involve the use of blood in any step of production?..One other active immunization deserves attention because it is the only active immunization made from blood. It is a hepatitis-B vaccine called Heptavax-B." (Emphasis mine)
The October 1, 1994 issue of The Watchtower amplifies on the subject of "baby shots" by acknowledging that blood products are indeed used in their production:
"Many find this noteworthy, since some vaccines that are not prepared from blood may contain a relatively small amount of plasma albumin that was used or added to stabilize the ingredients in the preparation."
Examples would include MMR II, MUMPSVAX, ATTENUVAX and MURAVAX II by Merck & Co. The growth mediums for these vaccines (e.g. Medium 199, MEM, etc) typically contain both human albumin and fetal bovine serum. Additionally the vaccines themselves contain human albumin as an adjuvant or excipient. Other examples of this include VARIVAX and VAQTA, also by Merck & Co., EOLARIX, INFANRIX, and GLAXO by SmithKline Beecham, PENTACEL by Aventis Pasteur, and Connaught Laboratories IPV just to name a few. The acceptance of some of these vaccines is virtually unavoidable in modern society.
Regardless of whether the Christian Congregation of Jehovah?s Witnesses officially endorses or otherwise approves of any of these uses of blood or not, if they do recognize that some uses of blood can in fact be distinguished from others, then it is clear that their prohibition against blood does not unconditionally include all uses, it conditionally excludes some uses and not others. In other words, it?s not a question about the use of blood, it?s a question about the misuse of blood.
Invoking an unconditional argument in defense of what they themselves tacitly acknowledge to be a conditional prohibition yet again exposes the deceit of Watchtower writers. What purpose does this serve? A conditional prohibition by its very nature requires a set of conditions whereby various uses of blood may be distinguished from each other while an unconditional prohibition does not. And herein is the problem. Despite 60 years of trying, Watchtower writers have never been able to demonstrate that transfusion medicine is either a physical or a moral equivalent to eating blood. That has become a discussion that must be avoided at all costs and this in turn has reduced them to hiding behind the notion that all uses of blood are forbidden when their own literature clearly contradicts this idea. Although this duplicity is certainly bad enough, they have further shown in the June 15th Watchtower that they can?t establish this notion without resorting to the deceitful use of the argument from silence, coupled with the fallacies of sweeping generalization, composition and equivocation.
The "King" therefore appears to be gradually loosing his clothes. The newest defense of the transfusion medicine taboo is probably the weakest to date and sooner or later the rank and file will notice. To put it euphemistically, some of them will not be happy when that day comes. In this respect I feel sorry for the Watchtower writers. No wonder they remain anonymous.