There cannot
be a claim bolder than the one made by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Think, for a
moment, of the very nomenclature that embodies the title of this opening
chapter, “The Truth”. Two innocent words which we would use by default to
describe the life-course and belief system of Jehovah’s Witnesses here in the
twenty-first century. We use the phrase, “I am in The Truth”. And we use it without remorse or hesitation, without
any sense of self-consciousness. But most worryingly, we use the phrase without
the license it is owed; without ever asking ourselves if we are justified in
the display of such brazen self-confidence.
Let’s not be
under any illusion; uttering this disyllabic expression
is neither a matter of internal terminology nor of earned status. In other
words, referring to JW doctrine and lifestyle as “The truth” is not just a turn
of phrase, like “The Society”, or “This System of Things”. It is a clear
statement of belief, repeated without thought or question by the millions of
witnesses worldwide each and every day. It is a phrase that we all use without
really thinking, a descriptor that will strike an instant chord with fellow
believers.
So, then, as
users of this phrase, is it not our duty to earn the title? Of course, every
one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is encouraged to “keep proving whether [he] is in
the faith”, but is this honestly done from a non-biased, critical viewpoint? To
rephrase the question, when you ‘prove’ The Truth to yourself, do you start
with the viewpoint that ‘The Truth’ is true, and then find the facts that agree? Or, do you start by gathering all
of the facts, from all different viewpoints, and then come to a logical conclusion? The latter option may seem, for
want of a better adjective, ‘scary’. However it does not need to be so; it is
not about ‘disproving’ the truth, it
is simply about an open and honest evaluation of the facts, followed by the
drawing of a conclusion. Not the other way around. Why not?
Fact or Theory First?
You will likely
be able to sympathise with this scenario; your first reaction is to look down
the side of the sofa, then perhaps beneath it. This is of course my reaction
too. Oddly, I look down the side of the sofa again. And then probably beneath
it again. Over the course of looking for the keys, I will no doubt examine the
same places perhaps half-a-dozen times before I find the keys. Why is this?
It is
because I have approached the situation incorrectly; I have begun with my
opinion- “The keys should be on the right
arm of the sofa”. So that’s where my search naturally begins. And it takes
time for my brain to accept that perhaps they were never left on the sofa; that
perhaps I should start by remembering
the last time I had my keys, and re-trace my steps. Why would I do that?
Because, obviously, if I begin with where I know
I had the keys, I should at some point stumble across where they ended up. In
other words, if I stop going by my
opinion of where I think they should
be, and simply recall the facts, I am switching to logic, and success
is most likely.
The lesson
we learn is that starting with an opinion and working with that as your basis
is, to put it bluntly, a waste of time. One must start by gathering the facts, and only then derive a conclusion based on
all of those facts.
Let’s think
of another, briefer example: a scientist searching for a cure for a disease.
Imagine he were to arrive at the lab thinking, “I think that Sodium is the
cure.” He then goes about his tests and experiments, and immediately is biased
towards any result from samples involving Sodium! This bias is in serious
danger of causing him to miss the real cure. It is irrelevant why he had this bias, perhaps he likes
the smell of Sodium, or perhaps Sodium has been used to cure a similar disease.
The fact is that he was biased towards Sodium, and that caused him to overlook
other evidence.
Now, rewind
the clock. The same scientist arrives at the lab, this time putting his
opinions, hopes, and wishes aside, and simply observes the results.
Unencumbered by his intrinsic biases, he observes that statistically, Calcium
seems to have the best effect on his samples! After repeating the experiment
for verification, he can be confident that he has found the best chemical for
the job. On a side-note; he must also be willing to change his mind on the cure
if a better, simpler method is found later to supersede his own discovery (we
shall visit this concept again later).
Both
examples illustrate the point that in any line of enquiry, one must begin by
honestly gathering and examining all the facts, and then draw a conclusion based upon them. Why? To quote Sherlock
Homes, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one
begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
This truly is a grave danger indeed. For a Jehovah’s Witness, that danger could
include a bias toward archaeological evidence which agrees with their beliefs,
rather than an honest evaluation of what really
happened in history. We will visit this point again later.
But, for
now, we shall make a pact- a mutual promise between you (the reader) and we
(the authors). We shall present to you unfettered, unedited facts from every appropriate
viewpoint when discussing the facets of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Said facts will be
fully referenced wherever possible, and in line with current thinking- both scientific and spiritual. In turn you shall,
to the best of your ability, divorce yourself from your opinions (as entrenched
as they may be) and consider the facts honestly. Not dismissing them because
they don’t agree with your view, say, of when the Flood must have happened, or
of the legitimacy of some of the other claims of the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment