So you think you’re smarter than all of us? You’re just so smart that you were able to figure this all out?

Intelligence capacity has very little to do with finding out that what the Watchtower Society teaches is not true. The vast majority of facts and arguments needed to show this are actually quite simple.

Intelligence is highly relative anyway. I know many, many Jehovah’s Witnesses who are much more intelligent than I am, as well as better read, more learned and in some cases university educated. One does need a few things however. Just as a computer needs a program and input in order to get anything done, we must learn how to reason logically (the program) and then make sure we are getting good information (the input). We can’t expect a computer to give us back accurate results if there are bugs in the software or we’re inputting inaccurate information to begin with (see the principle of “garbage in, garbage out”). Being able to use logic actually needs to come first so that we can understand how to vet our sources and acquire facts.

What one does not need to have is any sort of training in ancient languages, astrophysics, biology or theology to sort out the matters in question on this blog. If figuring out what to believe was just a matter of finding earth’s most capable brains to represent every particular group or angle and throwing them into a room together to see who comes out victorious, there would be no reason to consider anything for ourselves. That is not how life works though, nor would such a scheme satisfy even a simple majority of people. We have to put in the work to discover facts for ourselves and be convinced of where they lead us. (If you do want to see a theist and an atheist debate down to the nubs of reality itself however, I highly recommend this debate between Matt Slick, a Reformed Calvinist, and Matt Dillahunty, one of the hosts of The Atheist Experience TV Show.)

What is needed by all persons seeking to learn truth however, is intellectual honesty. Wikipedia defines it this way:

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

  • One’s personal faith does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
  • Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;
  • Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
  • References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

The article also includes this quote:

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”.[1]


In other words, even when a person has the opportunity to use a belief or teaching to obscure the truth or ignore it, they choose not to do so. They allow the data, results, or facts to lead the way despite the consequences and despite their previously held presuppositions. As Matt Dillahunty frequently says: “I want to know as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.” That attitude is really all you need to understand why JW’s don’t have the truth.

5 thoughts on “So you think you’re smarter than all of us? You’re just so smart that you were able to figure this all out?

  1. Good content… but…You need a place to subscribe to your blog. There is nowhere to sign up and get updates on content. Also a youtube channel and twitter account that links to your blog. Subscribe to jwfacts and jwsurvey and have them subscribe to you. When you update send out a tweet.

    1. Thank you for the comment. What is your preferred way to sign up for updates? I would love to hear from you and other readers what would be best for you to update you of new content.

  2. The debate you recommend would be terrific if you replaced Matt Slick with, say, a Golden Retriever. That would give the viewer something beautiful to look at and the intelligence of the debate would not suffer at all.

    1. Haha that’s awesome. Yeah, to me Matt Slick’s only function was to be the catalyst to get Dillahunty down to the base level of logical absolutes so we could hear him really dig into that. The logical absolutes are a fascinating phenomena and I think the fact that Slick just tries to trip D-hunty up over the fact that they might be the only thing that are neither physical nor conceptual is rather weak. Really fun to listen to though.

  3. This FRO is a great addition. It’d be great to see some of these miniaturized into Tweet form, then link back to this page. It’s too valuable to be overlooked!

Comment on this FAQ

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *