Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses
The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin!
Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics.
Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morality comes from God as written in the bible. I ask why the bible has authority, and I suggest it was made up, and that people 2,3,4 thosand years ago did not have direction from God, and were indeed more ignorant than we are today. I baldly say that the Bible was made up. They don't really have an answer.
JW seem to be creationists. There seems to be a strong resistance to evolution, claiming that all animals and plants were placed here by God. I disagree. I think it's better to be blunt and tell someone when you think they are mistaken, since it moves the argument along. I also suggested that they were a closed community, who are merely talking to each other rather than finding out the facts about evolution. Also I say that all scientists believe in evolution, and that there is ample evidence, for example fossils and DNA. They claim there are unexplainable gaps in the fossil record.
They seem busy and want to move on. I conclude by trying to explain the meaning of scientific certainty, by arguing that although scientists don't have an absolute faith, the certainty of evolution is as certain that the earth is round, or that the earth revolves the sun, and that when scientists argue about evolution, they are only discussing its minor details, not the theory as a whole. They ask that life-on-earth nature programs always refer to the "theory" of evolution, I answer that theory does not imply wrong, and indeed David Attenburgh is a strong supporter of evolution. Her partner corrects her: indeed he is.
Finally to conclude, they say they believe God is coming, and that he will intervene to stop humanity from destroying the world. They also say he has intervened in the past. I say that he has not, nor will he. We shake hands and they leave.
I don't know what lasting impression I gave. They were probably a little perturbed that I had a well thought out world-view that did not include their god, and that I understood their position perfectly. They felt a little outmanoevered on science, however they probably put that down to their lack of reading, but that some scientific books produced by Watchtower would cover it. I declined. But I never felt that they could really argue a point: when we disagreed, it was always answered by some kind of anecdote, usually based on wrong facts. They are seriously misrepresenting science. I feel it a little dangerous to assume that God will stop us from destroying the planet, this is a seriously worrying development since it means it's ok continue to destroy with impunity.
I felt a bit cheated, since all they really told me in 20 minutes was that: (a) God is his title not his name, (b) morality comes from God, (c) God is a person (d), all life was placed here, there was no evolution, (e) God is coming. I don't see any reason to believe that, and the argument jumped around and did not run very deep. I think it is unfortunate that evolution is often prefixed with "theory". We also say the big bang theory, often it is just called "the big bang". I would instead urge people to not say "Christianity", but the "Theory of Christianty", and not "God", but the "Theory of God". I think that would be the perfect reposte to anybody who insists that evolution is just a theory. Even then, putting them on a quasi-equal footing is wrong.
It's pretty important to challenge people who come to your door, even if it's just for 20 minutes. The JWs left feeling uneasy, since they couldn't really counter my objections.
The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin!
Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics.
Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morality comes from God as written in the bible. I ask why the bible has authority, and I suggest it was made up, and that people 2,3,4 thosand years ago did not have direction from God, and were indeed more ignorant than we are today. I baldly say that the Bible was made up. They don't really have an answer.
JW seem to be creationists. There seems to be a strong resistance to evolution, claiming that all animals and plants were placed here by God. I disagree. I think it's better to be blunt and tell someone when you think they are mistaken, since it moves the argument along. I also suggested that they were a closed community, who are merely talking to each other rather than finding out the facts about evolution. Also I say that all scientists believe in evolution, and that there is ample evidence, for example fossils and DNA. They claim there are unexplainable gaps in the fossil record.
They seem busy and want to move on. I conclude by trying to explain the meaning of scientific certainty, by arguing that although scientists don't have an absolute faith, the certainty of evolution is as certain that the earth is round, or that the earth revolves the sun, and that when scientists argue about evolution, they are only discussing its minor details, not the theory as a whole. They ask that life-on-earth nature programs always refer to the "theory" of evolution, I answer that theory does not imply wrong, and indeed David Attenburgh is a strong supporter of evolution. Her partner corrects her: indeed he is.
Finally to conclude, they say they believe God is coming, and that he will intervene to stop humanity from destroying the world. They also say he has intervened in the past. I say that he has not, nor will he. We shake hands and they leave.
I don't know what lasting impression I gave. They were probably a little perturbed that I had a well thought out world-view that did not include their god, and that I understood their position perfectly. They felt a little outmanoevered on science, however they probably put that down to their lack of reading, but that some scientific books produced by Watchtower would cover it. I declined. But I never felt that they could really argue a point: when we disagreed, it was always answered by some kind of anecdote, usually based on wrong facts. They are seriously misrepresenting science. I feel it a little dangerous to assume that God will stop us from destroying the planet, this is a seriously worrying development since it means it's ok continue to destroy with impunity.
I felt a bit cheated, since all they really told me in 20 minutes was that: (a) God is his title not his name, (b) morality comes from God, (c) God is a person (d), all life was placed here, there was no evolution, (e) God is coming. I don't see any reason to believe that, and the argument jumped around and did not run very deep. I think it is unfortunate that evolution is often prefixed with "theory". We also say the big bang theory, often it is just called "the big bang". I would instead urge people to not say "Christianity", but the "Theory of Christianty", and not "God", but the "Theory of God". I think that would be the perfect reposte to anybody who insists that evolution is just a theory. Even then, putting them on a quasi-equal footing is wrong.
It's pretty important to challenge people who come to your door, even if it's just for 20 minutes. The JWs left feeling uneasy, since they couldn't really counter my objections.
Comments