Posts by Disillusioned JW

24

'In Search of Christian Freedom'

by riblah in

i cross-posted this on reddit:.

i would love to have a hard copy of this book.

does anyone know about how to go about persuading the person who has the rights to print a batch?.

Disillusioned JW

Thanks Beth Sarim for clarifying. I obtained a copy of the Finished Mystery about 15 years ago and from eBay auctions I obtained copies of two different editions the Harp of God. After I analyzed them I decided I had no further need for them. I thus later sold them on eBay at a profit. I do however still have a copy of the book called Deliverance.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

How can people see numerous fossils (including of skulls) of multiple species of Australopithecus and numerous fossils (especially of skulls) of more than one species of Homo and not see definite proof of evolution of Homo sapiens from a prior species of humans and from earlier non-human hominids? I can understand how people might not conclude such proof back in the year 1980 when the fossil collection of such was much smaller than now, but now the collection is very large and diverse. We now have a range of hominid skulls which show transitional features. The skulls of Homo ergaster and Homo erectus have features intermediate between early Australopithecines and of Homo sapiens. Likewise, some skulls have features which are intermediate between that of early Australopithecines and that of both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

I notice that Sea Breeze said the following. "I think a lot of folks are opposed to science that disproves evolution based upon principle, not the evidence. They then segregate their thinking according to their a priori commitment to atheism. I think that is what you are doing." I am astonished that Sea Breeze would think that about me (and about so many others who are convinced of evolution). Becoming convinced of evolution due to the scientific evidence for it is what has convinced a great many Christians to become atheists. For a great many people their atheism did not come before the conviction of evolution. Furthermore, a great many liberal Christians are convinced of evolution (believing that God played a role in it, such as in starting the process).

In a number of posts I mentioned that even before I became baptized as a JW (I got baptized while I was a teenager) there were points in time when I thought that evolution might be true. I even sometimes thought such before I was a teenager as a result of scientific literature about evolution which I read, and likewise even years later while I was ministerial servant. It was also because I knew that most scientists (including Christian ones) were convinced of evolution. Shortly before I got baptized I began a subscription to the magazine called "Science 80" (of which the magazine in subsequent years was called "Science 81", "Science 82", etc.). Reading some of the articles (including ones about punctuated equilibrium and about the fossil called "Lucy") in those issues made me think that biological evolution might be true. Those articles made me think there was a strong possibility evolution was true. Likewise there was an article in the Science 80 magazine about chemical evolution, including about life evolving from non-life. That article made me think that life might have evolved from non-living chemicals. For years I saved my copy of those articles. But sadly, the WT's young biosphere creationist literature led me astray from becoming convinced of evolution (and even from seeking out books about evolution) until much later in life.

While I was an independent minded Christian (after I "faded" from being a JW) I learned about the idea of theistic evolution and I learned more about evolution (from science shows on PBS television and from news articles on the internet about evolution). One of the shows I watched (after I stopped regular attendance at JW meetings in the Kingdom Hall) was a documentary miniseries called "Evolution" which first aired in the year 2001 [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(TV_series) ]. I thus concluded that maybe Jehovah God used evolution to create various kinds of life. years later while I was still a Christian (but no longer a believing JW) who believed in the Bible and Jehovah God and Jesus Christ I learned some information about geology which convinced me that the Genesis chapter one creation account is false. That then convinced me that the creation account is thus uninspired of Jehovah God, since I learned that geology very clearly reveals (without any doubt) that the earliest birds came after the earliest land animals (even if birds did not evolve from non-avian dinosaurs) - the opposite as Genesis says. After I learned that and that geology shows that the account in Genesis account of the flood of 'Noah's day' (whether viewed as a global flood or a local flood) is false, I thus stopped believing in Jehovah and then I no longer had any reason to reject evolution. Notice that it was the learning of scientific evidence which caused me to stop believing in Jehovah God (and also Jesus Christ, for that matter) and the Bible as inspired by God. Beginning a few years later (and lasting for several years) I began looking up a great number of quotes (and their contexts) which the WT made of scientists pertaining to evolution. I also now own books by scientists which which both prove evolution and also disprove the claims of so-called "scientific creationists"! I also read books by scientists (including Christian ones) who disproved conclusively the claims of intelligent design. I now own some of those books as well. As a result of that great amount of research I saw enormous evidence of proof of biological evolution and I thus concluded that there is no way at all that non-evolutionary creationism could be true.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

What secular forms of philosophy of how to live one's life are the best? Is one of the various forms of humanism the best? Atheists, is secular humanism too liberal in some respects? By what principles, including ethical principles, should we atheists and agnostics live our lives? By what means can we atheists and agnostics determine which possible actions are moral or immoral, just of unjust, wise or foolish? What do you think about what Friedrich Nietzsche said about morality?

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Physics-of-Climate-Change/Lawrence-M-Krauss/9781642938166 has rave reviews of Krauss' Climate Change book. it says in part the following.

'The first book to briefly and clearly present the science of climate change in a way that is accessible to laypeople, providing the perspective needed to understand and assess the foundations and predictions of climate change.

“Brilliant and fundamental, this is the necessary book about our prime global emergency. Here you’ll find the facts, the processes, the physics of our complex and changing climate, but delivered with eloquence and urgency. Lawrence Krauss writes with a clarity that transcends mere politics. Prose and poetry were never better bedfellows.” —Ian McEwan, Booker Prize-winning author of Solar and Machines Like Me

...“The distinguished scientist Lawrence Krauss turns his penetrating gaze on the most pressing existential threat facing our world: climate change. It is brimming with information lucidly analysed. Such hope as there is lies in science, and a physicist of Dr. Krauss’s imaginative versatility is unusually qualified to offer it.” —Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and Science in the Soul

“Lucid and gripping, this study of the most severe challenge humans have ever faced leads the reader from the basic physics of climate change to recognition of the damage that humans have already caused and on to the prospects that lie ahead if we do not change course soon.” —Noam Chomsky, Laureate Professor, University of Arizona, author of Internationalism or Extinction?

... “Lawrence Krauss is a fine physicist, a talented writer, and a scientist deeply engaged with public affairs. His book deserves wide readership. The book’s eloquent exposition of the science and the threats should enlighten all readers and motivate them to an urgent concern about our planet’s future.” —Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, former president of the Royal Society, author of On the Future: Prospects for Humanity'

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

The same day I purchased Krauss' science book I also purchased a classic vintage book by George Gaylord Simpson called The Meaning of Evolution: Revised Edition. Page 315 of my paperback copy of that book says the following [I have added boldface for emphasis].

"It is a social requirement that there be specialists in each field whose profession it is to examine and to test such truths as pertain to it. ... the moral duty of the nonspecialist is to choose the judgments of that authority whose qualifications are greatest in the pertinent field and whose submitted evidence is the best." Page 316 of the same book says the following. "The important point is responsibility for using the right method of choice. The right method is evaluation of evidence and avoidance of pure intuition and of authoritarian dogma. Recourse to authority, in this context, demands judgement that the accepted opinion is based on rational consideration of known evidence."

Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is one such expert in the scientific fields of theoretical physics and cosmology. As a result his science book is worth reading (despite Krauss' apparent actions of sexual harassment) if one wishes to learn more about the science of cosmology and of its implications. As Wikipedia states he is also an anti-theist who "seeks to reduce the influence of what he regards as superstition and religious dogma in popular culture." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss#cite_note-6 also says the following. "As a result of his appearance in 2002 before the state school board of Ohio, his opposition to intelligent design has gained national prominence.[15] ... A Universe from Nothing—with an afterword by Richard Dawkins—was released in January 2012, and became a New York Times bestseller within a week. ...

With the publication of his newest book, The Physics of Climate Change (2021), Krauss is urging the use of science, and not politics, ideology, or emotion, to steer the public debate on how to address climate change.[45]"

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze said "There have been tens of thousand of reviews of Dr. Sanfords peer reviewed research on genetic entropy." But where can a person find such a vast quantity of those reviews? I have not found even a minute fraction of such, though I have found some positive online posts made by creationist Christians.

Folks, notice that when Sea Breeze quoted my words of "he has received high honors in regards to his intellect. His intellect is what is relevant" he left out the key words of "regarding what his science book (called A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing) teaches." Sea Breeze then misrepresented my comment. The point of my comment (in what I quote above) was that I am interested in the scientific ideas presented in Krauss' science book and thus Krauss' intellect in intellectual matters (especially in scientific matters) is relevant in that subject, but allegations (even if true) about Krauss' morality are not relevant to determining the accuracy of what Krauss says in his science book. A person's sexual morality is important, but it has no bearing on the value of what the person has written on scientific matters. A person can be immoral in various ways and yet still be excellent in doing science, in making scientific discoveries, and in being a scientific expert. Probably most of the people I know are immoral in some way and yet are doing excellent work in their careers. Furthermore, according to the Bible every human (no matter how pious) alive is a sinner anyway. It should also be be noted that Krauss has never been jailed, nor apparently even arrested.

However, I now think that Krauss did sexually harass multiple women and that is disturbing. But, it still does not prevent me from reading what Krauss wrote on science, since I wish to learn about science from an expert in science, and I wish to learn learn the implications of it in regards to atheism and scientific naturalism. Today I browsed Krauss' book and I noticed that many of his scientific claims in the book are ones I had read by other scientists about cosmology. As a result, thus far his book seems very reliable to me. Krauss' book includes an "Afterword" by Richard Dawkins which endorses what Krauss says in Krauss's science book. In it Dawkins says the following [I added the boldface for emphasis.].

'But some of what we do know, we know not just approximately (the universe is not mere thousands but billions of years old): we know it with confidence and with stupefying accuracy. I've already mentioned that the age of the universe is measured to four significant figures. That's impressive enough, but it is nothing compared to the accuracy of some of the predictions with which Lawrence Krauss and his colleagues can amaze us.

... Do the laws and constants of physics look like a finely tuned put-up job, designed to bring us into existence? Do you think some agent must have caused everything to start? Read Victor Stenger if you can't see what's wrong with arguments like that. Read Steven Weinburg, Peter Atkins, Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking. And now we can read Lawrence Krauss for what looks to me like the knockout blow. Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was biology's deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe from Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.'

I thus think I made a wise decision to buy Krauss's book for its scientific content and to choose to study it.

Regarding the quote of Krauss saying he did not feel tarnished in any way by his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and that Krauss felt raised by it, perhaps Krauss was saying that Jeffry Epstein's intellectual clout uplifted the clout of Krauss, and to a greater degree (at the time) than allegations about Epstein weakened the prestige of Krauss. Alternatively, by "raised by it" maybe Krauss meant he received financial funding for his scientific work from Epstein (who was a financier of multiple people). Note that those words by Krauss of "raised by it" were made in the year 2011, which was after Epstein had been released early from prison (with an extensive work release]) and several years before Epstein was arrested again in 2019.

Furthermore, Krauss might have been sincere in saying he never saw any underage females (or at least none which Krauss thought were underage) around Epstein. [But regarding what Krauss is quoted as saying in 2011 (a year before Krauss' science book was copyrighted) and of what he was quoted as saying in 2015, maybe that means Krauss made a lie in that matter.] Regarding if Krauss was sincere in saying he never saw underage females around Epstein https://skepchick.org/2011/04/lawrence-krauss-defends-a-sex-offender-embarrasses-scientists-everywhere/ mentions the following information. Note I include the quotes of Krauss' words along with some of the preceding negative comments of the website which are about Krauss, for the purpose of context.

"Krauss’ statement is extremely disturbing and makes scientists look like ignorant, biased fools who will twist data to suit their own needs. It’s great that a billionaire thought enough of scientific research to fund some of our best and brightest scientists, but that doesn’t mean he’s perfect. It doesn’t even mean he’s not a monster. Those scientists should have the rationality needed to separate their personal feelings from what the evidence shows us, and Krauss has publicly failed in that regard, bringing an enormous amount of embarrassment to scientists and critical thinkers everywhere.

When the Skepchicks received this tip, we wondered if the quote was taken out of context – after all, we all admire Krauss for his books, talks, and public outreach. So, I emailed Krauss to get his thoughts directly. He confirmed that the statement was accurate and sent this statement, which I’m printing as is, in full (see below edit for additional info):

yes it is.. Based on my direct experience with Jeffrey, which is all I can base my assessment on, he is a thoughtful, kind, considerate man who is generous to his friends, and all of the women I have known who have been associated with Jeffrey speak glowingly in the same words..
…
jeffrey apparently paid for massages with sex… I believe him when he told me he had no idea the girls were underage, and I doubt that people normally are asked for or present a driver’s license under such circumstances… Moreover, I also believe that Jeffrey is an easy target for those who want to take advantage of him… Moreover, I can say with great honesty that Jeffrey’s time in prison led him to seriously examine his life in very positive ways and I don’t believe in blanket condemnations of people. He served time for something that was determined was inappropriate. I honestly don’t know who was the victim in this case. probably everyone was a victim, with no happy resolution or consequences of these activities. I fully expect that these masseuses knew what they were doing, and were not swayed to do anything with Jeffrey that they were not already doing. That is not to approve of the whole behavior, but lots of peopleI know and like have behavior I don’t entirely approve of.. I know it is not politically correct to say that, because in general this is a very sensitive issue and all other things being equal one should take the side of the young women. But all things are not equal in this case, from my point of view. It is a judgement call, and I will not turn my back on a good friend so easily.

...

//UPDATE: Krauss has emailed me to point out that I didn’t include a remark he made in an earlier email to me (prior to the statement I published). My apologies, as I assumed his second email was the full statement he wanted published. I’ve updated this post to add his first email, which now appears as the first paragraph of his statement prior to the ellipses.

He also wanted to add the following, which, again, I post as-is and in full:

I have read on the web claims of orgies on Jeffrey’s island during scientific meetings that I organized.. Orgies in which I was supposed to have been involved. This kind of nonsense has made me very skeptical of media reports on Jeffrey’s activities. Moreover, I am naturally skeptical by nature, and have looked in to a number of these supposed events, but am not going to share any details with you because I don’t think these are issues that are relevant to Jeffrey’s support of science, my scientific credentials etc.. or that I should discuss in public in any case… I will say however, that as a skeptic you might ask yourself whether there might be any motivation to potentially sue a billionaire with whom you may have been involved in one way or another… someone who might rather settle out of court for a large fee rather than have to deal with publicity, sleazy journalists etc? no, that never happens does it? Not very skeptical of you to wonder I think..

//UPDATE 2: Krauss is continuing to respond in the comments below under the username lmk2011. He’s confirmed to me that this is actually him.

... 91. lmk2011 says:

April 6, 2011 at 7:39 pm

I will add one remark here, as most people have not read my full set of comments, posted after the post appeared.. I am myself rather disappointed by the lack of skepticality of this community. As I said, I have read numerous reports of orgies on Jeffrey’s island involving me and other scientists during our meetings.. Orgies that never happened, I am VERY skeptical of other claims on his behavior. I am defending Jeffrey for 2 reasons: (1) Based on my knowledge and experience I am skeptical of the claims in the media and of those who have settled claims for money… namely I don’t believe the published details just like I tend to be skeptical of many published details on the internet.. I don’t believe Jeffrey did what has been claimed, and unless I see hard evidence, I will trust my own judgement here, and (2) Jeffrey went to prison, and I happen to believe that having served time, even those who questioned his behavior should be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, again until proved otherwise, that he is working hard to live a good life and do good things. I for one am disgusted that people eat up the salacious nonsense the read on the web and then jump to conclusions about things and people they do not know.. I do not jump to condemn people, especially when it concerns their sexual preferences. I DO NOT CONDONE sex with young girls, or young boys for that matter.. because there are real victims there.. Until I know all the facts however, I do not jump to conclusions, and I am sorry, having seen the media frenzy around Jeffrey, and having seen the shoddy behavior of those who have attacked him, I remain skeptical, and I support a man whose character I believe I know.. If you want to condemn me for that, so be it.

L. Krauss

... 125. lmk2011 says:

April 7, 2011 at 12:45 am

I was not going to comment further, but a dear friend has asked me to make my position even clearer. Each time I do, I find my comments deconstructed, but here goes:

I condemn the acts that have been described in the media, but I don’t believe Jeffrey did them, and I have personally had no compelling evidence to the contrary, and lots of reason to be suspicious of what I have read. Moreover, for those who are confused, there was no trial, no evidence presented at a trial, no jury decision. So I am not pitting myself against a court of law. There was a plea bargain, for a host of reasons that people can speculate about. One could also speculate that the prosecution would not have considered a plea bargain had they had a compelling case, but I am not making that assumption. Now, am I wrong to trust someone I believe I can trust when we have talked at length about this in detail? Perhaps. But I have tried to make an assessment based on my knowledge of the events, the reports, and the man. Since I don’t believe there was rape, child-molestation, or moving minors from one country to another for sexual purposes, I cannot in all good conscience condemn my friend, even if it leads to condemnation of me. I may be wrong or deluded in my conclusions, but I am acting honorably, as I see it, based upon them.

Moreover, as I have tried to say repeatedly, even if you choose to disagree with me, and for some reason think you have better evidence that these events happened than I do, the fact is that Jeffrey went to prison, and I know for a fact came out of prison a more thoughtful responsible man who was intent on doing good. I would hope people would not be so quick to assume that this is not possible, and that if any of you were in this situation that you would hope that people would be willing to allow for this possibility.

It has been a difficult decision to stand by what I believe are the facts of the matter in spite of attacks from people I would like the respect of, but that is the way it is. As some of you know, I just wrote a book about Richard Feynman, and as I thought about the derision on the web, I remember his statement, What do you care what other people think? I think he would have done the same thing I have done if he assessed the situation as I have.

L. Krauss"

Regarding Sea Breeze's comments about Jeffery Epstein I had no recent knowledge of Jeffery Epstein until reading those comments (and of what I read on a Wikpedia page about Krauss) and I didn't know if the accusations about Jeffery Epstein were true or not. It now looks to me that like they were true. I had probably heard some years ago in the TV news about Epstein's arrest and criminal charges against him, but if so I had forgotten about them and of Epstein. When I watch the news I usually have very little interest in knowing about scandals (unless knowing about specific ones can help me to make some good decisions).

Clarification: Regarding my comment (in my prior post) "of Ad hominem attacks" I did not mean that Sea Breeze was doing such in regards to me. Rather I meant I perceived such attacks as being made against Krauss in way to discourage people from reading Krauss's science book and to discourage people from accepting the scientific claims made by Krauss in that book. I now think that perhaps the comments by Sea Breeze might not technically be Ad hominem attacks, since Sea Breeze was not directly debating Krauss' statements on science (though Sea Breeze was criticizing me we for wanting to read Krauss' book).

36

Are YOU saved?

by JW Answers in

sadly today, many churches and religious organisations teach their followers that they are saved based on something the bible does not record.

many people are following a lie, and are heading to a lost eternity and do not know it.. my question here is... are you saved?

it's vitally important to know!.

Disillusioned JW

What about the scripture in which Paul said he hopes to become saved (and I think that he also said it is not until the end that a person will know if one is saved or not)? That scripture and the words attributed to Jesus at Mathew 10:22 and at Matthew 24:13 convinced me (while I was a teenager) that the WT is correct in saying that the Bible says a Christian's salvation isn't assured until the end.

24

'In Search of Christian Freedom'

by riblah in

i cross-posted this on reddit:.

i would love to have a hard copy of this book.

does anyone know about how to go about persuading the person who has the rights to print a batch?.

Disillusioned JW

A Second edition of In Search of Christian Freedom is available for download (in PDF) from https://friendsofraymondfranz.com/christian-freedom-book/ . A Fourth edition of Crisis of Conscience is available for download (in PDF) from https://friendsofraymondfranz.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CC2004-Eng.pdf . See also https://friendsofraymondfranz.com/books-in-english/ .

62

NASA: Humans Back to the Moon

by Gerard in

nasa plans return to moon by 2020

"this vision aims to return humans to the moon, and then to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to mars.

i wonder if jws will be required to canvas those areas too.

Disillusioned JW

On October 6, 2022 (yesterday) NASA posted an update at https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/tag/artemis-i/ , called "Inspections Underway for Rocket, Spacecraft Before Setting Launch Date". The following is something it says which I am very glad to read.

"Work will also include charging the CubeSats that are equipped to be re-charged and have elected to do so. Inside Orion, work will include replenishing the specimens and batteries for the biology investigations riding within the capsule, as well as recharging the batteries associated with the crew seat accelerometers and space radiation experiments."

I am glad NASA is doing those tasks since those experiments and scientific data collection equipment are to me a very important part of the Artemis I mission. However it looks like the batteries of some CubeSats won't be recharged (since apparently some are not equipped for recharging), and it is too bad that no mention is made of those batteries being replaced.