Is this the magazine that lambasts the Catholic Church for changing its mind about eating fish on a Friday? Talk about straining the gnat and gulping the camel: organ transplants, vaccination, alternative service, generation, blood fractions...
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
19
Awake! Magazine April 22 1970
by pale.emperor inwas doing some research this evening and i think ive found possibly the most damaging awake magazine issue the jw's could have printed.
april 22nd 1970. you can download the entire 1970 volume here: http://da-ip.getmyip.com:8080/pdf/old%20publications/?sort=d.
in this issue, the watchtower calls other religions on their hypocrisy for changing doctrine, upbeat music in their services, the clergy meddling in worldly affairs (un anyone?
-
-
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
Ha! I just noticed that Holden made the mistake of making JWs out to be Young Earth creationists in that quote. He got a number of facts wrong about JWs, including mixing up Raymond and Fred Franz. Oops. Nevertheless he makes a number of good analytical observations. In particular his argument that JWs as a phenomenon represent the longing for certainty for some, in an increasinly uncertain and pluralistic world.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
Ruby is correct, JW rationalism is a dominant aspect of JW ideology that academics have explored. This doesn't mean JWs reject the supernatural as such. But much more than comparable Chrisitan groups, JWs go out of their way to portray God and their religious life in rational terms. Rational arguments lie behind the rejection of hell and the Trinity, for example, as well as omnipresence and foreordination. They are cessationists, and even in Bible stories, they seek naturalistic explanations for "supernatural" events (such as the sun standing still). See for example the chapter "Rational Means to Rational Ends" in Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of A Contemporary Religious Movement by Andrew Holden. And his essay here:
The Witnesses pose a challenge to traditional religion, not least because they undermine the beliefs and rituals of established churches.[ix] Their rational system of beliefs equips them with strategies for recruitment and enables them to prove beyond all doubt that their theology is the word of God. The contrast between this and mystical religion manifests itself in visual imagery and styles of worship. Biblical texts are consulted not only for the substantiation of doctrines but as a blueprint for everyday conduct. Scriptural literalism is a rational means by which the world and its problems can be explained. The Witnesses believe that Jehovah created the world in seven days and intended Adam and Eve to live in a state of eternal happiness. However, it is as though they believe that since the fall, he has gone into semi- retirement until such time that humankind reaches the point of its own destruction. This is perhaps one of the reasons they spend little time in prayer.
-
583
What is the purpose of life?
by slimboyfat inwhile reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
-
-
slimboyfat
Oh quickly on a (barely) related idea...
I saw a news story that a group of young men nearly died climbing Uluru (which I still want to call Ayres Rock even though it never has been in my lifetime) in Australia. The story had a number of interesting ethical dimensions. An emergency responder complained that the men had put themselves at unnecessary risk and considerable resources had been spent saving them. Moreover news reports also dwelt upon the fact that indigenous people now own the land and have asked people not to climb the rock. I feel two divergent and simultaneous gut reactions to this statement. One is that these indigenous people have been treated badly historically and this is just the latest of their rights being trampled on. Another is that nature, the world, and unique places should belong to all humanity, not one person or group. What right have they to say who goes there? Especially since their objection is based on superstition which I don't share. But should their beliefs be belittled as mere superstition just because I don't share it?
These are the kinds of complex ethical issues that hang on all sorts of historical, cultural, religious, social, economic (there's a complex economic dimension too to the stories I didn't even get into) and other factors that are impossibly difficult to reduce into a scientific utilitarianism.
What's Sam Harris's scientific answer to this issue I wonder? Should people be allowed to climb Uluru? Would be interesting to know the "correct" answer.
-
583
What is the purpose of life?
by slimboyfat inwhile reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
-
-
slimboyfat
I got a bit side tracked with the whole Sam Harris thing. I hope to get back on to the topic of the purpose of life soon. I noticed nicolaou early in the thread thought he had the correct answer but didn't elaborate.
Thank you LisaRose for your comments on page 2. I agree with what you say, but I might make the small distinction that the sorts of things your mention are what tend to give life "meaning" in the moment (which is not to be belittled) but they may not yet fully constitute the meaning of life, or purpose as such. I don't know I am still thinking that through. I was searching for a copy of Crichton Smith reading his poem but I couldn't find it. I did find a really good interview though. His poetry may be "deep but narrow" in Edwin Morgan's words, but nevertheless a tremendous and "unpredicted voice of our kind". Both great Scots.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
You keep making the same points. That JWs believe spirit comes from God, life comes from life, soul and spirit are distinct. We know JWs believe these things. It is not in dispute. Yet their literature also allows for the possibility that scientists may create life and they don't see this as a theological problem. You can argue these beliefs are contradictory if you wish. But what isn't good interpretative practice is to use your understanding of one statement to claim that another statement doesn't mean what it says.
It reminds me of how JWs approach Joh 20:28. Now JWs "know" that Jesus is not God. To them this is a "fact". So whatever the verse says, and whatever it means, it can't possibly mean that Jesus is God. That is their starting point when trying to understand the verse. So what do they do when Thomas calls Jesus God? They say he must have been looking to heaven at the time. Or he must have got excited and used God's name in vain. Any possible explanation apart from the plain meaning of the words.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
I am talking about what JWs believe. I never said it made sense (generation?). You may be right there is a certain tension between the belief that life comes from life and their allowing for the idea that scientists may be able to create life (the intelligent designer argument notwithstanding). It is what it is.
-
36
Easier to be a JW now?
by Xanthippe inreading konceptual's account of talking to cart 'witnesses' and it reminded me that when we left in '89 we thought the religion would do one of two things.
get more hardline, consequently lose members and eventually come to an end in some way.
or ease up on the members, fewer rules, less fs time, less meetings, just to keep them in.. all the recent apostate stuff, treatment of dfed kids and the hardline attitude to people who leave or try to fade has confused me, made me think they are harder on the r+f., but i don't think this is true.
-
-
slimboyfat
A JW said to me the other week, why don't you come back to the meetings? There's only two meetings a week now, and you can go on the carts instead of door to door. As like a selling point. There's also the implied threat that you are "bad association" if you don't go back to meetings.
I think a few things are happening at once. They are reducing the literature published for cost reasons. They reduced the number of meetings for legal reasons and to reduce pressure on dwindling elder numbers. They are tidying up inconvenient doctrine like generations, types, faithful slave, some more successfully than others. They are also trying to stem the flow out of the organisation by 1) strongly discouraging education and 2) trying to cut ties between active JWs and former or inactive JWs.
-
405
Origin of Life
by cofty inin recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
-
-
slimboyfat
I asked a JW at a Witness cart yesterday if he thought scientists would ever be able to create life. He gave the same answer as the brochure. Which I thought was interesting because I don't know if it's the answer I would have given as a JW. He said it's possible scientists could be able to create life at some point, but that this would only go to show that life comes from life, and intelligent life (the scientist) is required in order to make life. He said scientists might be able to make simple life at some stage but he doubted they would ever be able to make creatures as complex as humans. Which I thought was interesting because I think many conceive of the leap between non-life and life is not as great as the leap to consciousness. -
583
What is the purpose of life?
by slimboyfat inwhile reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
-
-
slimboyfat
So you think it is reasonable to dismiss his ideas about secular morality as "crazy" and "dangerous" without having read what he actually wrote about it.
Well I listened to his talk. And I've read quite a bit of his stuff and watched a number of interviews.
And how come you dismiss social constructionism without first reading an advocate? Ken Gergen is my favourite. When is a bottle not a bottle?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invitation-Social-Construction-Kenneth-Gergen/dp/1446296482/
I bought The Moral Landscape today and I've read a little bit. It's quite easy to read but what I find annoying is the unspoken agenda.
Harris first softens you up by saying we all agree it's wrong for fathers to kill daughters in the name of honour, don't we? Yes we all agree on that. So there are moral absolutes and culture can't excuse bad behaviour. But before you know it he's got us profiling Muslims and banning them from the country, on the basis of "scientific ethics".
Harris seems terribly disturbed by the idea that there might not be a fixed answer to ethical issues. If there is a correct answer to the boiling point of water then why can't there be correct answers to ethical dilemmas?
In a community, ethical questions are best settled by discussion and consensus. This is the sort of model Rortian pragmatism would suggest. The reason Harris can't stand this approach is that, although he starts his argument with examples no one would dispute (serial killers are bad), what he is really interested in finding is a basis on which to claim his own ethical solutions are more scientific than the majority or consensus view.
In other words he is attempting to use "science" as a basis for saying that his own ethical judgements should be preferred even when they run counter to the common sense view or the current consensus. This cuts out the pesky business of having to discuss, reason, and take others' views into account!
But there's just one basic thing I'd like to know. Why should Sam Harris be taken seriously as a moral philosopher? Would you take someone seriously on evolutionary biology who had not written any peer reviewed work on the subject, who didn't engage with the existing literature, and any reviews from experts in the subject were negative? That seems to be the situation with Sam Harris on moral philosophy. If you wouldn't accept is in evolutionary biology, why accept it in moral philosophy?
These are the academic reviews of Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape I could find. The first thing to notice is that the book has been largely igored in the main academic journals on the subject. It is not considered a serious intervention in academic discussion of,moral philosophy. The second thing to notice is that reviews from experts on the subject are negative. If there are positive reviews in philosophy journals I'd be interested to see them.
Earp, B. D. (2016). Science cannot determine human values. Think, 15(43), 17-23.
Blackford, R. (2010). Book Review: Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 21(2), 53-62.
Pigliucci, M. (2013). New Atheism and the scientistic turn in the atheism movement. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 37(1), 142-153.
This one in particular is worth reading.
http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGNAA.pdf
Pigliucci, M. (2015). Scientism and pseudoscience: A philosophical commentary. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 12(4), 569-575.
Kaufman, W. R. (2012). Can Science Determine Moral Values? A Reply to Sam Harris. Neuroethics, 5(1), 55-65.