My Reply to CCJW Response

August 28, 2009

Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
2821 Route 22
Patterson, NY 12563-2237

Gentlemen:

I wrote to you earlier this year (May 15) with two questions.

My questions were simple:

1) Does the Society believe there are any rules or laws in connection with sound reasoning and valid logic?

This is a question that requires a Yes or No answer. It was not answered.

2) More specifically, what is the Society’s position on the law of identity, the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction, as some call it) and the law of the excluded middle?

In your letter of response to these questions you misstated my what I actually asked as “you ask if Jehovah’s Witnesses use certain laws for logic and reasoning in their ministry.” I did not mention Jehovah’s Witnesses’ ministry. I asked for the Society’s position on whether there exist any laws of logic. Since writing the letter, I have found that the Society has answered that question in an article about propaganda.

“The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.”
Appeared in Awake! June 22, 2000 The Manipulation of Information


This answers my first question (even though your letter did not). If, as your article states, propagandists bend the rules of logic, then some rules must exist. The answer to my first question is “yes”. It would have been nice if you had just said so.

Now that I know that the Society does acknowledge the existence of rules for logic, the obvious question that follows is “What are these rules?” Your letter presents no positive information on this subject.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to emulate the manner of reasoning used by Jesus and the first century Christians, who based their reasoning and their conclusions on God’s Word”


Jesus and the first century Christians used a “manner of reasoning.” They based their reasoning on God’s word. No explanation is given of the rules for reasoning that they obtained from the Bible. Are they the same as the three rules I asked about? You don’t say. Are they different? You don’t say.

Your letter says they “based their reasoning and their conclusions on God’s Word.” Didn’t they rather reason from God’s Word and reach conclusions? Isn’t that exactly what Christ did on numerous occasions with the Pharisees and Sadducees? He demonstrated that they had not drawn what should have been obvious conclusions from the Scriptures they professed to revere.

One such incident is found in Matthew 22:23-33

NWT
23 On that day Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came up to him and asked him: 24 “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If any man dies without having children, his brother must take his wife in marriage and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and deceased, and, not having offspring, he left his wife for his brother. 26 It went the same way also with the second and the third, until through all seven. 27 Last of all the woman died. 28 Consequently, in the resurrection, to which of the seven will she be wife? For they all got her.” 29 In reply Jesus said to them: “YOU are mistaken, because YOU know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God; 30 for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. 31 As regards the resurrection of the dead, did YOU not read what was spoken to YOU by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” 33 On hearing [that], the crowds were astounded at his teaching.

Christ chastised the Sadducees for not drawing the obvious conclusion from Scripture that if marriage ends at death (as the Scripture makes clear), that the woman would not be anyone’s wife in the resurrection. He then chastises them for not deducing the resurrection from the two propositions: 1) God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and 2) God is the God of the living and not the dead. It follows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living.

Your letter tells me that Jesus and the first century Christians “employed a reasoning manner”, however, there is no explanation of what this manner was. You assert that Paul and the first century Christians did not endeavor to take up the methods of logic and reasoning of such teachers as Aristotle, Socrates and Plato, but you fail to tell me what methods they did use.

I mentioned specifically three rules of logic and you did not address the Society’s position on any of the three.

I thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter, even though you failed to answer my questions. I appreciate that you have limited resources and I do not wish to be a burden; therefore, I won’t request or expect a response.

I would, however, like to point out that vagueness is not a virtue.

Sincerely,
Steven M

Read the original letter:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-to-christian-congregation-of.html

Read the CCJW response:
http://watchingthetower.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-from-society-ccjw.html