June 15th Watchtower -- A critque

by TD 17 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  gumby

  "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 blood covered sins to save lives? How many Jews died that were atonened for with blood? Every last bignosed one of them!

  The society is good at making it sound as though proper use of blood saves lives.......such as their booklet....."How blood can save your life." They believe FUTURE life is preserved by obeidience even till death. 'Special use' that could save lives my arse!!!!!!

  Gumblood
• 

  Farkel

  TD,
  

  : "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.

  The Argumentum ex Silentio is also known as the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy, and often has nothing to do with what isn't said in an argument.

  Here's an example of another use of this fallacy.

  "We have no evidence that God doesn't exist. Therefore, God exists."

  The arguer's ignorance in any matter proves nothing. That's why it's a logical fallacy.

  The easiest way to explain this argument (for those who are interested) is to use an example in the Courtroom:

  The defendant is asked a question, and he pleads his fifth amendment right not to testify against himself. Because of that, someone in the jury concludes he has something to hide and therefore must be guilty.

  While the defendant MIGHT be guilty and uses his fifth amendment right to hide that guilt, there is no PROOF he is guilty simply because he uses that right.

  I enjoyed your observations. Thanks for taking the time I know it takes to put together your post.

  Farkel
• 

  rawdata

  Hey TD, great post!

  I love this kind of examination of all kinds of argumentation, especially the JW fluff they put out. But hey, here is a bit of my experience. A while back when I was in Bethel the "Big House" a guy who sat at my lunch table was in the writing department. He liked to boast how great the writing was even though they had only high school educations and that some had not even graduated high school. Also, after conversations with several different people from there, I noticed that quite a few did not have a very good grasp of the English language they speak. Having taken accelerated English classes in high school I thought; "Now that explains a lot." Then it occurred to me that most of them had been immersed that insular society for decades as well. I have noticed a marked improvement, even in the grammar, compared to writing prior to their use of computers. I wonder if spell check had anything to do with that? I have had quite a few conversations along these lines, some including the use of a first year logic (college) text book. I have learned that this kind of examination of JW writing is called nit-picking. Twice I have had Colossians 2:8 quoted to me regarding ?the philosophy and empty deceptions? of men when it came to what I thought was pretty straight forward logic. I came to the conclusion that most JW?s are not really interested in whether their explanations are logical or not. It still is a worthwhile effort for reaching those few who are truly concerned with this type of fundamental. Plus, it is great for helping everyone here on the board to exercise those mental muscles. I rarely have time for such thorough examination of JW stuff anymore, being a stay at home dad with three small children. So, thanks for the effort!

  rawdata
• 

  TD

  I have had quite a few conversations along these lines, some including the use of a first year logic (college) text book. I have learned that this kind of examination of JW writing is called nit-picking.

  I've heard similar comments and not just from JW's. I've tried to get LDS missionaries to explain the Greek influence in the BOM for example. How could words like, "synagogue" or expressions like, amen amen lego hymin have found their way into it? This was "nit-picking" in their opinion.

  Isn't it amazing that a JW can immediately grasp the problem and implication here, but will shrug off as "nit-picking" the fact that his own church tries to hide behind a transparent veil of obvious fallacies when it comes to a life and death issue?
• 

  TD

  Errata:

  Although Argumentum ad Ignorantiam and Argumentum ex Silentio are virtually identical in form, they are actually both specialized cases of other arguments.

  The appeal to ignorance is a special case of the false dilemma having the following forms:

  There is no evidence against X

  Therefore X

  OR:

  There is no evidence for X

  Therefore not-X

  Obviously a claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. That lack of support is irrelevant.

  Instead of drawing a strict true/false conclusion, the argument from silence is a special case of hasty generalization. In this form, the generalization is drawn not just from little evidence, but from no evidence at all. Both liberal and conservative Christians are fond of this argument for obvious reasons:

  God didn?t state approval of X.

  Therefore He disapproves of X.

  OR:

  God didn?t state disapproval of X

  Therefore He approves of X

  Ironically, to embrace either of these two arguments is to reject the other and therefore implicitly acknowledge the basic flaw in the approach.

  Unlike the appeal to ignorance, there are scholarly uses for the argument from silence when it is legitimately constructed. In this form, source critics infer what a writer may have known or not known at the time of his writing. For example, in discussing Luke?s Bethsaida omission, Peaceful Pete and Leolaia, use the argument legitimately.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Tom

  You write:

  Unlike the appeal to ignorance, there are scholarly uses for the argument from silence when it is legitimately constructed. In this form, source critics infer what a writer may have known or not known at the time of his writing.

  Just to add to the educational aspect of your comments, the legitimate use you speak of is always within the bounds of an inductive argument. I wanted to point out this distinction because the samples you presented seem to be offered as deductive argument.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  TD

  You're absolutely right Marvin, Thanks.

  The argument from silence is not always an outright logical fallacy; it depends on whether it has been used inductively or deductively.

  Tom
• 

  laurelin

  Wow! This thread has been very useful to me.

  I've always had a problem with the shifting of the thoughts on the use of blood. But this thread has given me a lot of help.

  Thanks.