Jehovah's Witnesses Demonstrate Critical Thinking [Opposers Dismythed]
You would likely agree that today it is popular to equate critical thinking with abandoning belief in God and/or religion. Hence some of our opposers claim that Jehovah's Witnesses do not employ critical thinking for the very reason that they are still Jehovah's Witnesses. Obviously, such ones do not understand what critical thinking is. Others claim that we prohibit critical thinking. Is this so?
What Is Critical Thinking?
The fact is, critical thinking has less to do with what conclusion one arrives at and more to do with how one arrives at said conclusions. A person could accept the Trinity because he was told to accept it, or simply because he was raised in that belief system by his parents. He may then justify his belief by seeking support for it. Does justifying one's beliefs make them a "critical thinker"?
Critical thinking is best defined as: "the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgement," as per Wikipedia (August 2022) in accord with Edward M. Glaser. Google says: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment." Basically, it means to perform one's own personal study of a subject in order to come to their own conclusions based on all the factual evidence available to them.
For example, when considering whether evolution is true, a critical thinker does not accept it simply because the majority of scientists claim it is true. Instead, they read papers on evolution, learn the meanings of terms used and ask questions of what they read in order to get at the answers to those questions. Then they ask, "does this point toward evolution, or does it point to something else?" When, after each analysis of a new paper they keep coming to the conclusion that the evolutionist scientists have not proved evolution, they accept, by inference of many samples, that evolution has not proved its case.
As an inverse example, when that same person looks at the evidence for God, they ask similar questions: "Does supreme organization point to a supreme designer?" "Does archaeology support the Bible accounts about acts of God?" "Does the Bible's proven accuracy point to God being a real person?" "Does fulfilled prophecy point to a divine source?" The answer to all these questions is "yes". A critical thinker even thinks about why those things are true.
At times, such conclusions can be very subjective due to conflicting evidence or due to ambiguous, little or non-existent evidence. Jehovah's Witnesses take the words of the Bible as infallible evidence due to its impressive track record. Thus their opinions may at times differ from mainstream archeologists who take the Bible's word only when there is corroborating evidence that they cannot forcefully reinterpret in any other way than what the Bible describes.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not, however, reject archaeological evidence outright, but reject any ancient writing that cannot be corroborated with, or is otherwise incompatible with, the Bible as they understand it.
That is why archaeologists and Jehovah's Witnesses may at times diverge in their opinions. This difference is based solely upon the weight they put on certain ancient documents, one over the other, which occasionally conflict. But this difference is strictly and only subjective.
However, the Bible is one of the few written sources that has never been shown to have faulty information by internal contradiction, contradictory physical archaeology or multiple archaeological documents about the same event agreeing with each other, but disagreeing with the Bible.
By deciding the one source that is true, the two sides' opposing opinions tend to be internally consistent despite disagreement (See the post "Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Point to 607 BCE for When the Jews Began Serving Babylon?" for an example of this), though archaeology frequently updates to fit the evidence, while the view of Biblical history never needs to update because the Bible has never been proved wrong.
What Is Uncritical Thinking?
Failing to critically analyze can be demonstrated in a number of ways, including (but not limited to) giving in to popular opinions without question, accepting the professions of experts without challenging their evidence, adopting a belief system without review, accepting the word of a parent or mentor without reservation, or opposing a belief system just because one is trained to hate the people or organization that adheres to it.
For example, disgruntled former members demonstrate a lack of critical thinking by dedicating their lives to the obsessive pursuit of discrediting Jehovah's Witnesses, accepting any claim made against them without scrutiny while hiding and ignoring facts, no matter what Jehovah's Witnesses do, say, or believe. (There are many examples in the Opposers Dismythed series on this site. For one particular example, see the post, "Organization Vindicated of 'Smash and Grab' Lies".)
An uncritical thinker is subject to manipulation by means of fallacies and are often accustomed to practicing logical fallacies themselves. A logical fallacy is where a statement made is ambiguous, inflated, invalid, unsound, unwarranted or irrelevant.
There are a number of rules of constructing a proper argument, including properly connecting any number of grounds from which to derive a conclusion. There are many ways logical fallacies can happen. The most common logical fallacies include forcing a predefined conclusion or the conclusion bears little relation to the subject.
For example, in the post, "Is Shunning a Violation of Human Rights?", we give attention to the claim by disgruntled former members that shunning violates Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations.
In that post, putting aside that our beliefs do not depend on any human document, we point out that "Opposers never present that [leaving is their own choice]. Instead, they focus on the possible effects of shunning in an attempt to distract you from the facts and manipulate how others perceive us. They use emotive, non-neutral language such as: 'it breaks up families', 'separates children from parents', and 'causes emotional torture'." None of those claims are true and have nothing to do with article 18.
We, however, identify what it means to break article 18, such as "if a group uses [shunning as an excuse] to inflict financial harm or harassment through isolation, calling their employer, blacklisting them with businesses, spreading false rumors, threatening lawsuits or calling the police on them with anonymous phone calls," you know the way our disgruntled former members and opposers treat us, instead.
So are Jehovah's Witnesses critical or uncritical thinkers? Let's take a look at their history.
Evidence Of Critical Thinking
Jehovah's Witnesses have a rich history of analyzing their beliefs alongside Biblical evidence, looking, not only for what supports their beliefs, but also for where their previous understanding may be incorrect or need adjustment. Even on issues the Bible does not specifically comment on, discernment was instrumental in their thinking, reasoning, and logical conclusions.
This post would fill volumes if it were exhaustive, so we must be content with providing a few notable examples of how Jehovah's Witnesses have exercised and continue to promote critical thinking:
Doctrine
In the late 1800s, C. T. Russell and several others began a systematic analysis of the Bible. For what reason? Because the doctrines they were being obliged to accept did not line up with what they were reading from the Bible. So they embarked on a 5 year Bible study program and arrived at radically different conclusions from what they were previously taught.
Some of these conclusions were that the teachings of hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and the Trinity were false. Questioning those core doctrines was, and still is, tantamount to blasphemy in many nominal "Christian" sects today. In fact, critical thinking has been dissuaded in many sects of Christendom since the fourth century.
But how did those brothers employ critical thinking? By not accepting what they were taught simply because they were told to accept it. They did not blindly follow religious tradition. Thus they questioned those beliefs in light of the Bible. This set the standard for how Jehovah's Witnesses form their beliefs today.
Benefit: Jehovah's Witnesses no longer go through life with unanswered questions of what it is all about. They are not confused by false doctrines and conflicting perceptions of God. They are free from a controlling clergy class. They know who Christ is in relation to God and have a clear view of God's divine plan. Most importantly, most have a very real reciprotive relationship with God.
Political Neutrality
One of the things unique to Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization is the development of their political neutrality and their refusal to participate in patriotic observances and ceremonies, wars, and other conflicts based on their understanding of several scriptures, such as Isaiah 2:4, Matthew 4:8-10, John 6:15, John 17:16, and Acts 5:29. This stance is often misunderstood, resulting in them becoming victims of vicious lies and violent persecution.
Their neutrality has helped shape human rights and religious freedom, and their persistence helped set legal precedents that we all benefit from. For example, in the late 1930s, Witness children were expelled from School without appeal and Witness teachers were fired from their jobs. Why? Because of exercising their conscience to not salute the United States flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They viewed that as an act of unfaithfulness to God and idolatry. (1 John 5:21) In 1940, this issue went before the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the Minersville School District v Gobitas ruling, it was decided children and teachers could be forced to salute the flag and recite the pledge.
However, in the 1943 West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnett case, this decision was overturned. The US Supreme Court ruled that the State could not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, deeming it "wrongly decided".
Do we see evidence of critical thinking here? Yes, because while everyone else of other religions was unquestioningly saluting the flag and reciting the pledge, we could have simply "followed the crowd", but chose not to. (Exodus 23:2) Instead, we took an unconventional stance that required a thorough investigation of the Bible and reasoning on which Bible principles bear on the subject. (Ephesians 5:10) Following the crowd would have been the easy way out, but it would not have been the way prescribed by Jehovah.
Benefit: The Barnett case was a landmark case in establishing free speech and the freedoms of Jehovah's Witnesses, and everyone in the U.S., not to be told how or what to worship by governments. They have freedom of conscience and worship.
Non-Blood Management
One of the most significant advancements in medicine during the 21st century is that of non-blood management. But long before this became an accepted practice, Jehovah's Witnesses refused blood on religious grounds and as a result, they had to deal with being labeled "fanatical", "mentally ill", "extremists" and other forms of discrimination and persecution as a result.
Where does critical thinking and evaluation come into play here? Jehovah's Witnesses did not take the prohibition on blood at Acts 15:29 lightly. When other groups were treating that verse as if it did not even exist, Jehovah's Witnesses took action.—Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:10, 11; Acts 15:29.
For a time, this decision guided without considering any other factors. But as deeper issues came to light, then it was seen that a more nuanced approach to observing the rule was needed.
Instead of being guided by their emotions and the "either/or" mentality to take a blood transfusion or die, Jehovah's Witnesses allowed their reasoning and discernment on key Bible principles to guide their decision making.
The predominant "black and white" thinking of the world, as regards blood transfusions, impeded the research and development of safer alternative treatments. But they asked themselves: "are there really just two possible choices? Might there be others?" which was very important in this development.
In time they came to realize that there was room for people to exercise their consciences. This led them to consider what constitutes "blood". As a result, careful research revealed that blood has many components that can be found outside the blood circulation. Thus members could choose to take those components, but leave whole blood and blood fractions as non-transfusable. Still many continue to reject any blood-derived products because they do not feel comfortable skirting the rule. Thus room for conscience is provided.
That said, they were instrumental in pioneering bloodless surgery. How? In the 1970s when bloodless surgery was a "radical" procedure, some anemic Jehovah's Witness patients made themselves available essentially as research subjects for Dr. Ron Lapin who was an advocate of bloodless surgery, but who also lacked support from the public and the medical community at large.
After a successful surgery on Dr. Lapin's first Witness patient without using blood, more came to him for their surgical needs. This gave birth to his practice of bloodless surgery. As a result of his successes, he founded several bloodless surgery centers in California, and other hospitals in the United States.
Benefit: Today, bloodless surgery is now the "gold standard" in surgery and has proven more beneficial. Survival rates have increased while recovery times have decreased, enabling patients to leave earlier. It has expanded into open heart surgeries, cancer treatments and hip replacements. This technique has also opened a safer medical option for everyone who requires surgery, thus, advancing medicine. This is a result, in large part, of Jehovah's Witnesses willingly making themselves available for these then rejected techniques as research subjects.
Besides this, landmark cases over treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses have paved the way for general patients' rights to choose whether and what kind of medical treatments they will receive.
Study Before Baptism
Jehovah's Witnesses are known for their advocacy of a rigorous Bible study program that is required for people wanting to get baptized. Why can't potential members get baptized based merely on their positive feelings toward God and Jesus? Because we want you to fully understand what is involved in dedicating yourself to God.
This study program gives you ample opportunity to (1) research our beliefs, (2) to ask questions, (3) get to know Jehovah's Witnesses as a people, and (4) see how Jehovah's organization operates in order to make a well-informed decision. This is what critical thinking is all about—knowing exactly what you are accepting before you officially accept it.
There are many people every year who have had a desire to become Jehovah's Witnesses, but upon going through our study program, decided it was not for them. If Jehovah's Witnesses were not advocates of critical thinking, why are you not able to walk into a kingdom hall and get baptized on a whim?
Benefit: We are happy that we were given the opportunity to study and ask questions about our beliefs before accepting them. We do this because we are confident that a person's personal critical analysis of the information available to them will vindicate us and give people peace of mind in the choice they make.
Maintaining the Standard
Jehovah's Witnesses have published a comprehensive list of changes and adjustments to their sincerely held beliefs and practices based on an analysis of the Bible. This proves that Jehhovah's Witnesses examine their own beliefs with an open mind and a willingness to change when a Bible teaching is better understood.
We are able to do this because our study of the bible is a pure pursuit of truth, not one of defending dogma, tradition, or religious orthodoxy. Take note of how some adjustments at the above link are as recent as 2016, so we can expect this process to continue down to the end.
This can be compared to how science generally understands information. Scientists also have some willingness to change their viewpoints when information is better understood or discovered. Science is known for having its list of abandoned or superseded theories. So we can say that science itself is largely objective and open to correction.
Jehovah's Witness have also proven, through their many changes and adjustments, that they are also open to correction when information is better understood, but they are criticized for it.
Why the double-standard of our detractors? Because bending to the mainstream is a societal expectation toward religions. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, do not bend to the mainstream. They are absolutely devoted to the pursuit of truth which they believe can only be acquired from God's word through direction from Jesus Christ rather than the whims of any age of men.
Their stand makes Jehovah's Witnesses very unpopular with all areas of society, politically, scientifically, religiously and archaeologically. They seek truth based on factual grounds, not peer pressure. (See the post "Failure of the 'Gay Gene' Claim" for an example where a popular claim is thoroughly debunked citing scientific papers and using logical reasoning.)
Critical vs. Non-Critical Thinking
So why can it be said that Jehovah's Witnesses are critical thinkers? Primarily because their beliefs were formed objectively. That is, they seek truth through their examination of the Bible apart from prevailing mainstream thought, opinion, and theology.
A second reason is because they have the courage necessary to stick to this method, even in the face of unfair criticism. Finally, they want you to get to know their beliefs before deciding to get baptized.
They also do not expect members to accept every word. The post "Are Jehovah's Witnesses Required to Believe Everything the Organization Teaches?" shows that Jehovah's Witnesses simply ask that differences of opinion be shared through private channels with those with the authority to make adjustments rather than publically sowing dissension. This stand has been criticized, but it shows wisdom. An organization divided against itself cannot stand.—Matthew 12:25.
Any group that does not allow its beliefs to be scrutinized, and ignores or vilifies alternative interpretations sent through proper channels, has stigmatized and rejected critical thinking.
Of course, no group is under any obligation to adopt the ideas of any one member. But they are under obligation, if critical thinkers, to consider the idea at some point, but only once if no evidence is added or not given more careful detail.
How have Jehovah's Witnesses Benefited?
The critical thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses has been upheld in over 50 U.S. supreme court decisions, and secured important human rights and religious freedoms worldwide. Many of their members are well-informed and critical thinkers.
Besides Jehovah's Witnesses literature and digital content, this independent blog provides many fine examples of critical thinking applied toward their beliefs and the claims of opposers. A good example of this is the post Look Out for: The Deceivers.
If you have been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses and feel like you have not been permitted to question what you believe, then free yourself, not from the organization, but from the influence of the individuals who have actively dissuaded you from a proper investigation. Then learn critical thinking and do research.
Feel free to ask us any question for which you honestly seek an answer in line with the purpose of this site. (However, please address questions of scripture interpretation with the proper channels in the organization.) We will be glad to provide you with the information you need to be informed and figure out what is true.
Dismythed will continue to provide posts critically analyzing claims about God, the Bible, science and Jehovah's Witnesses by using the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses literature. In the meantime, feel free to read the following links to posts from Dismythed and its sister sites we recommend about critical thinking and research:
Comments