Posted by AF [AF] on November 24, 1999 at 07:15:37 {BlpRHB6gpcDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ****For Friend posted by CPiolo on November 23, 1999 at 16:17:55:
: If anyone else has followed this dialogue, I would welcome comments as to the coherency of my thoughts. Am I so obtuse that my reasoning is impossible to follow?
Your reasoning is clear enough to me. Friend is being his usual obtuse self, for reasons I don’t understand. The issue is very simple to me but Friend complicates it by refusing to acknowledge the obvious. He argues that the Society is much more open to outside influences than anyone else has experienced.
The Society wants JWs to think for themselves in certain ways but not in others. By “think” I mean not just engaging in the mental process of reasoning, but of coming to conclusions and, most important, accepting certain conclusions. The Society wants JWs to think independently and as individuals in coming to conclusions that are the same as the Society’s conclusions, but wants them to abandon this independent and individual thinking if their conclusions differ from the Society’s. It is in the latter sense that the Society discourages “independent thinking”.
In other words, when a JW comes to the same conclusion as the Society does, the Society likes to claim that the JW arrived at his conclusion on his own (obviously taking information from all possible sources into account). But if a JW comes to a conclusion that differs from the Society’s, he is instructed to accept the Society’s conclusion instead, and to conclude that his own reasoning is too poor to go on. Then both the person and the Society can claim that the person arrived at his final conclusion on his own. The problem with this is that the person often arrives at a “conclusion” based not so much on the facts strictly related to the issue at hand, but on the consequences of inwardly believing something different from the Society’s teaching. In other words, conclusions he finally accepts/acts upon can be different from those he would have reached without the Society’s “political” influence, because of the Society’s tendency to punish those who reach and act upon differing conclusions.
Friend is confusing the two senses of “independent thinking”; that’s why his exposition seems contradictory. He’s not considering what the Society really means by “independent thinking”. Note what he said to you in his response to your post here:
I think you have trouble understanding a basic point. Here, tell me if these sentences say the same thing or not:Do not decide without consulting with your teacher.
Do not decide independent of your teachers counsel.Are those two sentences saying the same thing or not? Yes or No?
Is the student prohibited from deciding an issue for themselves just because they consult with they teacher? Yes or No?
This is a “false dilemma” type argument, where two possibilities are presented as the only alternatives when others exist. In this case, the correct alternative is “Do not decide different from your teacher’s decisions”.
What this means to the average JW is that truly independent thinking is not a part of his religion. He may exercise what appears to be independent thinking only insofar as it does not lead him to make conclusions different from the Society’s conclusions. Holding differing opinions may or may not be tolerated, largely depending on the personalities of local elders. Acting upon differing opinions is usually punished by censure ranging from imposing mild restrictions to outright disfellowshiping.
AF