Look closer

Common logical fallacies - Part 01

In my discussions with active Jehovah’s Witnesses, I often hit walls. I presume, they are the same walls everyone hits, who tries to argue with a devout “believer” of any religion. What I found especially interesting, is that there are recurring “argumentation patters”. And many of them are classic logical fallacies. Knowing that they exist, what they are, what they mean, and how they work, might not help us to convince other people, but it certainly helps us to not being shut up, it might help us to not run against walls anymore, identify these fallacies when we face them, and it also helps us to argue more consistently and honestly by avoiding these logical fallacies ourselves. With that having said, let’s start this little series with “A” as in...

“Ad Hominem”

“Ad hominem” is Latin for “to the person” or “against the man”, and is a very commonly used tactic for shooting down discussions by attacking a person instead of addressing the the argument the person made.

“What do you know, anyway?”, “You’re too stupid to understand this complex issue”,  “You’re too young/too inexperienced/not educated enough”, “You’re a woman/a Liberal/an Atheist/a Republican/gay/... Of course you think that way”, “You just do this/say this because you want to do/say XYZ“ etc. etc. etc. Using phrases like these as “arguments” and without even addressing the point that was originally made, is called making “ad hominem arguments” because the argument is directed at the person who made the point rather than the point itself.

The ad hominem is used as if it were evidence against the point the opponent made, while in reality it solely tries to invalidate the opponent’s point by demeaning the opponent. The ad hominem is often based on prejudice.

The “formula” is very simple: “Your argument is invalid because _you_ made it”. The focus is not on the argument but on the person who made the argument. Hence the name “ad hominem” - “to the person” / “against the man”.

Variants

the “abusive ad hominem” - a more or less direct insult by attacking the appearance, intellect, or character of a person - basically: “You’re too dumb/ugly/selfish/... to talk about this”

the “circumstantial ad hominem” or “appeal to motive” - appealing to person’s circumstances - “Of course you think that way, because you’re in this or that specific circumstance/you’re in this or that specific group/you have this or that specific mindset...” - while this might (!) explain why a person made an argument, it says nothing about the argument itself.

“poisoning the well” - appeal to negative emotions - “Eat your lunch. The children in Africa are starving, and you don’t eat up”, “Yes, but science also brought us the h-bomb”, “Scientists were wrong so often before...”, “I won’t listen to him. He’s an alcoholic”, ... 

“guilt by association” -  also an appeal to negative emotions and/or motive. It applies when a person expresses a view similar to someone who is viewed negatively. So this person and their viewpoint will be viewed negatively as well. “Yeah, but he was in prison”, “He is a Communist”, ... 

“ad feminam” - specifically addressing women, or female characteristics - basically: “Because she’s a woman”, or the “classic” "Are you on your period?”

“Tu quoque” - meaning “You also” - often made to point out hypocrisy - “But you/he/she did that too”. While pointing out the possible hypocrisy (”You judge me even though you did it yourself”, “Hey, but John did it too”) might be legit but it still is not an argument against the point made. Just because someone did it “also” can not be an argument. “But you smoke as well” is not an argument against the hazards of smoking someone pointed out. A variant of the “tu quoque” is what is known as “Whataboutism” (”Yeah... but what about XYZ....” to distract from the original topic... “BUT HER EMAILS!”)

the “credentials fallacy” is a bit tricky. It is based on the idea that if a person doesn’t have formal credentials in a certain field, any argument they make about this topic can immediately be dismissed. Which, of course, is dishonest but still this is a rampant logical fallacy in the academics world. 

The thing though is: While - for example - it’s most certainly not a good idea to let someone with no medical credentials and training at all do surgery on you, arguments can be and should be verified. It is a good idea to question people’s motives and also their credentials, and to be even more cautious with people who have no credentials, but the legitimacy of an argument has nothing whatsoever to do with _who_ expressed it.

Like in all other cases before, it has to be about the argument itself and not about people. Just because someone doesn’t have a PhD or holds an academic chair doesn’t make their arguments invalid.

And then I did it: I read the Bible. Without the “help” of literature that “explained” what the texts in the Bible allegedly mean. And then I stopped sneering. And I became an Atheist. 

Do it! It’s a healthy thing. Especially when you’re struggling with your belief. Actually read the Bible! And only the Bible. No “explanations”.

It’s pretty simple: If you don’t understand the Bible without the help of “explanatory literature”, or if you’re appalled by all the violence and atrocity that’s in this book, that “needs” people or literature to “explain” how this is “moral”, then you seriously need to think about the following:

If the Bible is God’s true and inspired word that he gave us humans as a guideline, and it doesn’t make any fucking sense by itself, then this can only mean of three things:

Same as in the last ask: I am terribly sorry that I didn’t see this. Please excuse my delay of answering.

Thank you very much for reaching out. No, you are not alone. Absolutely not. No matter if you believe in the Bible, in (some of) the WT teachings, or not. Know that you are not alone with your struggles.

Let me be straightforward: Since you’re PIMI, please know that I will not - in no way - try to convince or persuade you of anything. I am aware that it must have been hard for you to even get in contact with an “Apostate” like I am one. And that you even might feel scared and afraid. So, again: I will not try to drag you to the “dark side” ;) - even though we have cookies ;PJoking aside: All I can do and all I want to do, is to encourage you to look at counter-arguments. If something is true and “the truth” then it will withstand scrutiny. It is as simple as that. So, there is no need to be afraid to look at counter-arguments. And - even more importantly - to ask questions.

I know that many of us POMOs are often very direct and in some cases even come across as “aggressive”.My dad once made a pretty good analogy: If you take a metal spring and squeeze it together really hard and then suddenly release it, what will happen?All the tension and pressure that you put on it will immediately “explode”. And that is what happened to many of us.All the tension and pressure - not only put on us by the WT doctrines - but especially through the way we tried to “squeeze” ourselves into the whole structure of the organization to fit it, all the fears and the feelings of inadequacy… all that is suddenly gone. And some of us became angry (I certainly did) when we saw what exactly the Watchtower did and does. So… please be a bit patient with us ;) And don’t be afraid.

It totally feel you about enjoying the congregation. I miss some of the “brothers” and “sisters”. There was this one “brother” who was sort of my “uncle”. He was a really pleasant person. There are others that I don’t miss that much. Because I never “connected”.So… the unity that was there… that’s really something great. But it is not as unique and special as I was told. You can find groups of people with the same interests everywhere. Clubs, societies, interest groups. I have friends all over the world. And they are friends with me. And _not_ friends with my religious opinions. And I personally feel that this is much more valuable.I have friends - real friends, people who care for me as a person - who are polar opposites to my personal opinions. 

For example: I am liberal, leftist agnostic atheist. One of my best friends is an ultra-conservative gnostic Christian. Of course we “fight” over these issues. But we totally care for each other. And we help each other as good as ever possible.

When I moved to a new apartment, I had 18 people helping me. 18! None of them got paid. One of them I never saw before in my life, he was a friend of a friends and just helped carrying heavy furniture because “that’s what we do as human beings - we help each other”… and none of them was in any way interested in my religion.

Some years ago, when I was going through a really dark phase in my life, I had people checking up on me, helping me. Because they like me. They were not interested in my faith. On the other side, while I was still “in” and my mom passed, all I got was a visit by a CO and two elders, who read some Bible passages… Don’t get me wrong: I do not say and I will not say that the “brothers” and “sisters” in your congregation are not serious and are just faking it. Not at all. I am totally convinced that they really mean it. Because they are also human beings. I am sure that those, who are in closer contact with you, that they really like you.The question though is: Will they act upon their affection towards you, will they still like you, help you, support you, you in case you change your opinion on matters concerning your belief? Have you ever asked yourself whether these “brothers” and “sisters” will stop liking you if you do “this” or “that”?

In case they do change and in case you asked yourself this question… Don’t you think it is legit to ask whether this is the “real love” that Jehovah’s Witnesses say they have amidst their “bothers” and “sisters”. Your worth and value to be loved and supported… is it based on what you believe or not believe? Or based on how you treat other people?I know that as long do my best to be a good person, not harm anyone, and act at least a bit decently ;) I will have real friends that go with me through thick and thin. Something that the Watchtower denies is possible outside. Because “real love” is only possible within the Organization. I know otherwise. And I know it from experience. I HAVE that…

Take care, Anon! And please, please, please never let anyone keep you from making your own picture of things. 

WHY DIDN’T I GET A NOTIFICATION? I am so sorry that I didn’t see this. I didn’t post or reblog a lot in the last weeks, but I checked the blog frequently. There was no indication for this ask. I am really sorry.

And thank you so very much! Yes, it’s not easy. Every person has their own struggles. And all are different. But all are valid.I was fortunate that I had (and still have) large parts of my family behind me. I cannot even imagine how terribly hard it must be for those who woke and have to face their family who is still “in”. 

And yes, we can and should help those who struggle. That is - at least as I see it - our duty as human-beings.

It gets easier over time. For me certainly the hardest struggles were those with getting rid of all the guilt and fears.This: “What if that Watchtower is right and I just don’t see it? Or want to see it?” That was the toughest bit. And the only way was to “face the fear” and do research.The thing about research - and that is what I can promise - the more you read, and learn, the clearer it will become what an incredible sham the Watchtower is.

There is literally NOTHING behind it. It’s all smoke and mirrors and make-believe. Held together by statements that are not to be doubted or scrutinized.

If you learn the basics of critical thinking though and apply those, you can easily dismantle all the tricks and the cons that we fell for while they kept us uninformed.

Group of Jehovah's Witnesses believed Great Tribulation had happened

“They thought it was Armageddon and wanted to save their neighbours.

They believed police were monsters. They showed super strength after being pepper sprayed and Tasered.

And all but one of them were naked because, with the end of the world, they didn't have time to get dressed.