Two JWs came to my door today and I dropped a few truths bombs on them. I thought I'd share my account of how the conversation went.
I was in the yard doing some weeding when two gentlemen walked through the gate. From their attire and the briefcases they were carrying was immediately apparent who they were.
We exchanged pleasantries and talked casually about the recent whether and laughed about the never ending nature of keeping a garden tidy.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to engage in any conversation about the Bible or religion but they pulled out a copy of the March, Awake magazine (The Untold story of Creation) and I couldn't resist the opportunity. I have been researching and writing a review of this article for the past few weeks! It was meant to be.
They introduced the magazine by explaining that 'one of the mysteries about creation that scientists don't understand is the length of the creative days. The word used in the Bible to describe the creative days can also mean a long period of time'.
My response: 'That's not entirely true, the Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe the creative days was 'yom', and its primary meaning was a literal 24-hour day. It was used sometimes to describe longer periods of time but this was usually made clear by the context. What context in Genesis leads you to believe 'yom' was not a literal day in the creation account?
JWs: 'Because life is so complex it doesn't make sense that God would have created everything in a few days'
I was surprised by this answer because don't JWs believe that God can do anything? So I asked them:
'God is omnipotent, he can do anything, don't you believe God could create life in a day or a week if he wanted to?
JWs: 'yes, but it doesn't make much sense that he would do that'
Me: 'If God is infinitely powerful then creating the world in one day would be no more difficult for him than creating the world in a week, or a million years. So, it is just your opinion that the creative days were long periods of time, there is nothing in Genesis to suggest this is the case?
JWs: 'no, there is evidence, the word day could mean varying lengths of time'
Me: 'yes but the context in Genesis suggest the primary meaning of the word was intended. The creative days were described as having a morning and evening. The bible uses the word 'yom' about 30 times in conjunction with the words 'morning' and 'evening' and in every instance a literal 24-hour day was being described. The days in the Genesis were also numbered, you know, 'the first day', 'the second day'. Every other time the bible designates a day with a number it is a literal day being referred to. Since it is you claiming 'yohm' should not be interpreted by its primary meaning, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim'
JWs: 'umm, we don't know about that, that's your opinion but to Jehovah a year is a day'
Me: 'a minute ago you said that it didn't make sense that God created everything in a week, now you are saying that a day is like a thousand years to him. So, if time is not an issue for God, and you admit that he could have created the world in a single day if he wanted to, then on what basis do you believe that 'yom' was not a literal day in Genesis? And regarding the definition of 'yom', It's not a matter of opinion. You can look up the meaning in any lexicon'.
JWs: 'so you believe God created everything in a week?'
Me: 'I never said that. I think life has existed for billions of years'
JWs: 'so you believe in science not the Bible'
Me: 'I don't believe in science, it's not a belief system, its a method for discerning truth, its a process'
JWs: 'but when science says that life is billions of years old how do you know it's true?
Me: 'because of the convergence of multiple lines of independent dating methods'
It was quite obvious that neither of them understood what I was talking about so I used an analogy to explain:
'Imagine if you asked someone in the street what time it was and they looked at their watch and replied '12:00pm'. You might accept this but, of course, the person's watch could be broken or maybe the person is lying. How would you know? Well, if you could check the time against another clock or watch and both agreed then you could be reasonably confident that the strangers watch is accurate.
Now, imagine if you asked six different people for the time and they all provided the same answer. You would be almost certain that you have the correct time because the chance of six independent time pieces all being broken but giving the same time would be similar to winning a lottery'
I then explained the concordance between different radiometric dating methods like argon, thorium, potassium and carbon dating etc and how this is very much like different clocks all agreeing on the same time. I then explained that carbon dating for example can also be corroborated with dendrochronology, ice core samples and historical documents describing astronomical events.
I gave a brief explanation of radioactive isotopes and decay rates and both JWs had glazed looks on their faces. One of them laughed and made a joke that this was getting a bit over their heads so I asked:
'If you don't understand scientific dating methods then on what grounds do you doubt its accuracy?'
I didn't allow them time to answer and asked a follow up question:
'how would you view someone who claimed the bible was inaccurate but couldn't explain why and was ignorant about what was actually in the Bible'
I think the parallel I was making was quite obvious to them and their response was that:
'we believe God's word not mans'.
I've heard this retort from JWs before and I admit it has it always stumped me. How do you penetrate such circular logic? How do you provide a logical response to someone who can dismiss any logic, no matter how sound, as mere imperfect human reasoning? How do you reason with blind faith?
This is the response I gave (and one I've rehearsed a few times in my own head before):
'we have to rely on human reasoning because it is all we have. You claim that you put your trust in God's word not mans but there are many books and religions that claim knowledge about God. It is only human reasoning that enables us to separate those claims into what is true and what is not. If you don't trust human reasoning then how can you trust your own discernment that the God you believe in is the truth? The only way to establish truth is human reasoning because its all we have, no matter how imperfect it might be. Anything else is blind faith'.
The JW just repeated what he said before but in different words:
'well, we don't follow men, we follow God'
Either he didn't understand what I said or he did but he fell back into the comfort of JW talking points. I am not sure which is worse.
I felt the conversation was drifting away from the Awake article so I steered the conversation back to it.
'I see here, the article has a timeline for creation, can we go through it'
(I pretended that this was the first time I had read it).
The timeline omitted many of the details from the Genesis account so I focused on days four and five and Awake's accompanying claim that birds were created before land animals.
I explained to the two JWs that:
'birds appear long after land animals in the fossil record so Genesis, on this point' contradicts science. This is a problem because the introductory paragraph states that science and Genesis are in harmony. Clearly this is not true. Either the authors of this article are ignorant about science or they are lying. In either case, the article's credibility is undermined'.
We went back and forth on this point several times. I left them no wriggle room but they wriggled all the same. Every time they tried to deflect the question or change the subject I would say 'sorry, that doesn't answer my question' and I would repeat the contradictory statements to bring them back to it.
Their main argument to defend the article was that:
'how do you know that science is right, science has been wrong in the past, the Bible has proven to be more reliable than science'
I reminded them that the reliability of science is besides the point. The scientific understanding, whether it is right or wrong, is that land animals came before birds so Awake's claim that Genesis and science are in harmony is untrue no matter how you cut it.
The second argument they raised was essentially that Awake's claim is true because Genesis got some details correct! I am paraphrasing but thiswas honestly what they said. I pointed out that they were cherry picking and ignoring contrary facts. I also point out the other consistencies like the stars being created after the earth and the oceans before the continents.
Their last argument was basically: 'why should believe you, should we just take your word that this is what science says'.
It was at this point they started getting a bit 'defensive' and aggressive. I was trying to remain as matter as fact and dispassionate as I possible but I admit I was starting to become frustrated.
They started asking me more questions about my beliefs and whether I believed in evolution. I think I was raising their 'apostate' suspicions so I remained as non committal and vague as possible. I didn't want them to dismiss everything I said because of some stupid label. I said:
'look, its not like I can show you the fossils. You shouldn't just accept what I say, you should go and investigate for yourselves. If I am wrong or lying then it should be easy to prove. Go and research the subject. If you can find scientific evidence that birds came before land animals then come back and show me. I have no problem admitting when Im wrong and I love learning. Come back and show me Im wrong'.
I did get side tracked by one point they raised. One of them said, without irony or self awareness that:
'you can't trust what science says, science always changes, scientists used to say that the Earth was flat but the Bible said the Earth was round well before scientists discovered it.
I knew where they were going so I said:
'I think you are talking about Isaiah, the phrase was the circle of the earth. The word he used meant circle not sphere'
Both JWs laughed and one said 'so you think they the believed the earth wad a flat circle'
'yes, the Babylonians believed the world was a flat disc that wrested on pillars. They believed that the sky was a solid dome above which existed an ocean. That's where they believed the rain came from. They used the exact same word as Isaiah to describe the circle of the Earth. Were the Babylonians inspired as well? By your logic they must have been. Isaiah's circle of the Earth is exactly consistent with what people in that part of the world believed at the time. Furthermore, it is a myth that all the ancients believed the Earth was flat. The ancient Greeks discovered the Earth in the third century BC'.
They were trying to leave by this point. They left and promised that they would come back with evidence that birds were created before land animals. I am quite certain therefore that I will never see them again.
My wife arrived home as they were walking down the drive way. She asked me 'who were they, they looked miserable and gave me dirty looks'.
I think I got to them :)
(sorry about the weird spacing, I tpyed this on my phone).