Socrates Meets a Jehovah's Witness

The following dialogue is fictional, yet it is most likely what a dialogue would really be like between a Christian and a Jehovah's Witness. From my many discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and their method of debating, if I had suddenly transformed into Socrates, my conversation with a Jehovah's Witness would more than likely be as follows. The topic is about the nature of the Holy Spirit and about truth.

JW: I was wondering if you've heard of God's Kingdom that is coming soon.

Socrates: God's Kingdom?

JW: Yes, the kingdom of Jehovah-God. I have a few pamphlets, if you'd like to learn more about it.

Socrates: I must say, I am glad you knocked on my door.

JW: Really? Well, that's a relief, considering that many people feel uncomfortable talking to Jehovah's Witnesses, especially people who call themselves "Christians."

Socrates: Oh, do you make them feel uncomfortable?

JW: Not on purpose, but yes, we seem to have that effect on them, especially those who think they know about Jesus Christ, but really have no true understanding of him and his father, Jehovah.

Socrates: I empathize with you. I, too, seem to have that effect on people. I've been told that I ask too many questions. Do you have a problem with people who ask you questions?

JW: No, not at all. I actually welcome all questions.

Socrates: Good, because I have heard that your religion is a bit different from that of other Christian religions, and I am confused as to what the differences really are.

JW: Well, ask me anything you wish.

Socrates: Thank you. I am a bit confused about several of the differences, but the very first one that gripped my mind was the concept of the Holy Spirit. Could you explain to me exactly what your organization teaches about this subject?

JW: Certainly. Well, we have a correct idea about Jehovah's holy spirit, according to the Bible. We even refer to it simply as "holy spirit," without capitalization, while people of Christendom refer to it as "The Holy Spirit," with each word capitalized.

Socrates: I don't understand the difference, or the significance of this minor detail.

JW: It may seem like a minor detail but it is actually a very major point. Christendom capitalizes the words because they incorrectly believe that Jehovah's holy spirit is God. We, on the other hand, know that this holy spirit is not God. Only Jehovah-God is God, and there is no other God.

Socrates: I see. It would seem odd to refer to the Holy Spirit as God if it were not actually God.

JW: Correct.

Socrates: So then, according to your organization, the Watchtower, what exactly is the Holy Spirit?

JW: It is not God, but God's impersonal active force. Nothing more and nothing less.

Socrates: So, if I understand you correctly, this Holy Spirit is merely an energy, right? Impersonal because it is not a "person", active because it is always in action, and a force because it is merely an energy that gets work done. So, God uses this energy to accomplish His will. Am I understanding you correctly?

JW: Yes! You've hit the nail on the head!

Socrates: As a Christian, I understand the Christian perspective about the Holy Spirit, and how it is believed to be one Person of the Holy Trinity. But I would like to better understand your perspective, or rather the perspective of the Watchtower organization on the Holy Spirit. Do you mind if I continue my questions?

JW: Not at all. Ask away.

Socrates: Very well then. To further clarify the Watchtower's stand on the Holy Spirit, this Spirit is merely the energy that God uses to accomplish His will, correct?

JW: Correct.

Socrates: Am I to understand that God accomplishes His Divine Will through this energy?

JW: Yes.

Socrates: Did God create the universe through this energy?

JW: Yes, Jehovah created all things through His impersonal active force, or the energy, as you refer to it.

Socrates: Hmm, so it seems I do understand you so far.

JW: Yes, it does seem so.

Socrates: As I consider this bit of knowledge you just imparted to me, more questions arise in my mind.

JW: Ask away. Ask me anything you want.

Socrates: Thank you for your patience. You may need this patience to put up with me for this short time where I must ask you many more questions, because I've run into a bit of confusion.

JW: I can help clear that up for you. What are you thinking about?

Socrates: Well, let's lay down a few facts which we could both agree on, shall we?

JW: Of course!

Socrates: I believe that things either exist or they do not exist. Do you agree with this statement?

JW: Yes, surely.

Socrates: I also believe that whatever exists is real, and whatever does not exist is not real. Do you agree?

JW: Yes, that makes perfect sense. I don't think there is any other alternative.

Socrates: So existence is reality and reality is existence. Is it not?

JW: Yes, it is.

Socrates: And things that are real exist, while things that are not real do not exist?

JW: Exactly. I agree with you completely so far.

Socrates: We could easily prove this by showing the example of the Unicorn. The Unicorn is not real because it does not exist. On the other hand, the horse is real because it does indeed exist.

JW: Perfectly put.

Socrates: I think we would both agree that God exists, that He has always existed, and will always exist. Right?

JW: Very true.

Socrates: Since God has always existed, could we agree that God is timeless--above and beyond time?

JW: Umm, sure, I guess, if you'd like to put it in those words.

Socrates: I say this because I see time as the rate of change of matter. Matter is created, therefore there was a time when matter did not yet exist. And without matter, there could not have been any change in matter measurable as a rate. Do you agree?

JW: Sounds a bit complicated but yes, it sounds right.

Socrates: Therefore, without matter, there could be no such thing as time. What do you think about that?

JW: Umm, it seems to make sense. I'd agree with that.

Socrates: Could we also agree that Creation--which is a set containing all things which God has created--has not always existed, since there was a moment when God had not yet created it?

JW: You mean like the sets we learned about in high school mathematics class?

Socrates: Yes, do you remember sets?

JW: Sure.

Socrates: Would it be reasonable to assume that there are two things in existence--things that are God and things that are not?

JW: Hmm, I find no fault in that. Yes, it must be true.

Socrates: Could you imagine all reality, all of existence, as divided into two sets--the set of all things that are God, and the set of all things that are not God?

JW: Yes, it's simple yet true. And that second set--of all things not being God--would be everything other than God--which would be all of Creation. Right?

Socrates: Exactly! It's a pleasure to meet someone who has a sharp mind as you!

JW: Thanks!

Socrates: Now, let's assume that the Watchtower organization has taught you Jehovah's Witnesses the truth, and that the Holy Spirit is not God but God's impersonal active force--the energy He uses to accomplish His will--which He also used to bring all of creation into existence. Are you still with me?

JW: Yes, of course, and it is surely true.

Socrates: Here is where my reasoning, or rather the reasoning of the Watchtower runs into a wall, and I can't seem to get around this wall.

JW: What do you mean?

Socrates: Let's go back to our understanding of the two sets in existence. These two sets are the only two sets in existence, the only two real sets of anything in the universe. And all existing things fall into one of the two sets, but not in both. I mean, either a thing is God, or a created thing, but not both, right?

JW: Right. A thing is either God or not God, but not both.

Socrates: Good! So, before God began creating anything, only God existed, correct?

JW: Correct.

Socrates: Is God perfect?

JW: Absolutely.

Socrates: Would it be correct to say that God is perfection?

JW: Absolutely.

Socrates: Is there any imperfection in perfection?

JW: No, otherwise it would not be perfection.

Socrates: Is man perfect?

JW: No, man is imperfect.

Socrates: Would it be correct to say that man is imperfection?

JW: Yes, it would be correct.

Socrates: Is there perfection in imperfection?

JW: No, because if something is perfect, it can't be imperfect. And I'm sure you'd agree also that if something is imperfect, it can't be perfect.

Socrates: Excellent statement. I couldn't agree with you more!

JW: Perfection and imperfection are opposites, so one can't be the other.

Socrates: Would it be correct to say that creation in general is imperfect?

JW: Yes, that's true.

Socrates: Would it be correct to say that creation is imperfection?

JW: I believe so, yes.

Socrates: Answer me this question, my friend: Is any part of a human God, or is man completely human?

JW: Man is not divine, he is human, 100% human and no part of him is God, because man is a soul and has no immortal spirit.

Socrates: Yes, that is also what I learned about your Watchtower's teachings, that man has no immortal soul that lives on after the body dies. But that is another topic for another day. Let's remain focused on the sets, shall we?

JW: Sure, okay. Go on.

Socrates: So we both agree that a human is completely human in all his parts and not God in any of his parts because, as we agreed earlier, a thing is either in the God set or in the creation set, but cannot be a part of both sets, right?

JW: Right.

Socrates: Likewise, is all of God completely God, or is there any part of God that is not God?

JW: Like we said about a human, being completely human, God is completely God because each can be only in one set and not both.

Socrates: So we are in agreement also that all of God is God, and that no part of God can not be God, correct?

JW: Correct!

Socrates: So, since God uses his "holy spirit," this energy to accomplish His will, He must have used it to bring creation into existence, no?

JW: Yes.

Socrates: But the Holy Spirit is not God, right?

JW: Right.

Socrates: And if this Holy Spirit energy is not God, then it must belong to the other set, the creation set, right?

JW: Umm, well...no, it's not created. It belongs to God.

Socrates: Yet it is not God?

JW: Right.

Socrates: But, my friend, how can this energy not be God and not be created either? We agreed that all things in existence fall either into the God category or into the non-God category, but not into both; and since a thing that exists cannot be nonexistent, it cannot be neither in the God category nor in the creation category, right?

JW: Umm...I think so.

Socrates: Come now, my friend, focus! A thing that exists must be in either the God category or in the non-God category, but not in both, right?

JW: Right. Yes, we agreed on that.

Socrates: Likewise, the antithesis must also be true; that an existing thing must exist and not be non-existent; therefore an existing thing could not be excluded from both sets, otherwise it would be non-existent. Right?

JW: Right, I got it now.

Socrates: So, either this energy that God uses to accomplish His will is in the God set, or in the creation set, correct?

JW: Yes, it seems so.

Socrates: So then, which set does this energy fall into?

JW: I'm not sure. You have confused me.

Socrates: My aim is to clear up any confusion, therefore your confusion is all your own, and not of my doing. Focus! It seems obvious by now that either the Holy Spirit is God or a creation. Which of the two sets do you believe it belongs to?

JW: Well, since the holy spirit is not God, it must be a creation.

Socrates: Let's assume you are correct, and follow your reasoning, or rather the Watchtower's reasoning, to its logical conclusion. Let me ask you this: is God's impersonal active force a part of God or separate from Him?

JW: It's a part of God.

Socrates: But we agreed that God is completely God, in all His parts, and that no part of God is not God, didn't we so agree?

JW: Yes, we did.

Socrates, But now, my dear friend, you are contradicting yourself by claiming that this impersonal active force of God is a part of God, yet not God. Are you saying that there is a part of God that is not God?

JW: No, no, I'm not saying that. What I mean is...well, umm...I'm not sure.

Socrates: Let me see if I can help you clarify your reasoning. First you agreed that there is no part of God that is not God. Then you claimed that God's active force is a part of God yet not God, which would mean that there is a part of God that is not God. You must now clarify your reasoning by coming to a logical decision: Is any part of God not God, or is every part of God truly God?

JW: Well, God is God in all His parts, yes, that it correct.

Socrates: So, do you now reject the idea that there is a part of God that is not God?

JW: Yes, I reject that.

Socrates: So, you reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is not God?

JW: No, I don't. Rather, I reject the idea that God's impersonal active force is a part of God.

Socrates: Are you saying, then, that God's active force is not God's?

JW: No, it is God's, just not a part of him.

Socrates: Do you mean that this active force belongs to God, but it is separate from God?

JW: Right, that's what I mean, because that would make my belief true.

Socrates: I doubt it. Since God's active force is not a part of God but separate from God, then it is a creation of God, right? After all, what is not God is a creation of God. Remember our two sets?

JW: Right. There can only be two sets. One set is for all things that are God--which can be only God and no one else, since there is only one God, Jehovah--and the other set which includes all things created by God.

Socrates: Which would put this impersonal active force into which set, God or creation?

JW: The creation set.

Socrates: So, do you agree that the Holy Spirit--which you call God's impersonal active force, or the energy which God uses to accomplish His will--is a creation of God?

JW: Yes, I agree with that.

Socrates: Now, since we agreed that God's impersonal active force is a creation and therefore not a part of God, is it not reasonable to assume that God must have created this impersonal active force? After all, it is a creation, right?

JW: That doesn't seem right. God used this active force to create the universe, but He couldn't have created the active force.

Socrates: Why not? You stated that this active force is not God, therefore it is a creation of God. And if it is a creation of God, then God must have created it. And, according to your reasoning, if God used this active force to create all things, then He must have needed to first create the active force in order to have an active force to cause creation.

JW: Umm...I'm not sure. I feel that we're moving around in circles.

Socrates: Then, my friend, we have run into another wall, which we cannot get around. If God needs the active force to accomplish His Will, and if He used this active force to cause creation, and if He then had to create this active force in order to have an active force to cause creation, then there was a moment when God did not have this active force because He had not created it yet.

JW: That sounds crazy!

Socrates: There was a moment when God's impersonal active force did not exist, which would mean what?

JW: I don't know. What?

Socrates: It would mean that there was a moment when God possessed no energy to accomplish His will, no power. This would mean what?

JW: This is absurd!

Socrates: Answer the question.

JW: Well, it would mean that God was powerless. That makes no sense!

Socrates: And, is a God without power a God at all?

JW: No, certainly not. This doesn't make sense.

Socrates: On the contrary, my friend. It makes perfect sense, according to your reasoning, or more correctly--the Watchtower reasoning.

JW: Well this is not true.

Socrates: If this conclusion is false, then one or more of our premises is false. Let's now reason backwards instead of forward, as we have done. Let's now assume that God has always been God, shall we?

JW: Sure, yes. That is true. God has always been God.

Socrates: And every part of God is God and always has been God, yes?

JW: Yes, absolutely!

Socrates: Then God always had power, or energy, or an active force, correct?

JW: Yes, correct! Absolutely correct!

Socrates: This would mean what? That God's power is uncreated or created?

JW: Uncreated.

Socrates: And this would mean that God's impersonal active force belongs to which set?

JW: The God set.

Socrates: And what reason did we agree upon as to why something belongs in the God set?

JW: For the reason that what is God belongs in the God set.

Socrates: Which means what?

JW: That the holy spirit is God.

Socrates: This is completely reasonable and logical.

JW: Oh, my God. Something must be wrong here in our reasoning because this is not what the Watchtower teaches.

Socrates: Yet we stepped through our reasoning one step at a time, did we not? And we came to an agreement at each step before proceeding to the next, did we not?

JW: Yes, we did, but that's not what the Watchtower teaches, and the Watchtower is true about everything because it is the mouthpiece of Jehovah, God's channel of communication, the Prophet.

Socrates: I believe you're right. This really is not what the Watchtower teaches, yet our reasoning was faultless. Your disbelief and your incredulity seem to come from your obstinate adherence to Watchtower teachings in the face of pure reason and logic which revealed the truth. And since we agreed upon our conclusion and that we both seek the truth, we must accept that our conclusion is true and that the Watchtower teaching about the Holy Spirit is not true. Could we agree on this?

JW: Well...yes, we can, but I don't feel right about it.

Socrates: Of course not. There is a discord in your mind now, and it makes you very uncomfortable that what you once were convinced is true really is not.

JW: But the Watchtower can't be wrong!

Socrates: Answer me this one question: which is more important to you, the truth or Watchtower teaching?

JW: Watchtower teaching is the truth.

Socrates: That's not what I asked you.

JW: Well, it is true. The Watchtower is God's channel of communication with man.

Socrates: I am well aware of this belief, which the Watchtower teaches to its followers about itself, but that still doesn't answer the question.

JW: Yes it does.

Socrates: I will show you why it does not. Let's put aside your complete obedience to what the Watchtower teaches, for just one moment. Let's look at this logically. How many possibilities are there for the nature of Watchtower teachings?

JW: What do you mean?

Socrates: I mean how many possibilities are there for the truthfulness of Watchtower teachings? In other words--and tell me if this sounds reasonable to you or not--either a Watchtower teaching is true or it is false. Do you agree?

JW: Sure, but the Society's teaching are always true.

Socrates: Regardless, how many possibilities are there about the truthfulness of Watchtower teachings?

JW: Two.

Socrates: Correct, and aren't those two possibilities that a teaching is either true or false?

JW: Yes.

Socrates: And how many possibilities are there for the truthfulness of truth?

JW: That's silly. Truth is truth, no matter what.

Socrates: So, while there are two possibilities for the truthfulness of Watchtower teachings, there is only one possibility for the truthfulness of truth. Since truth can only be truth, but Watchtower teachings could be either true or false, which of the above has a higher probability of always being true, truth or Watchtower teachings?

JW: It seems that truth will always be the ideal.

Socrates: Therefore which of the above will always be the most important of all, truth or Watchtower teachings?

JW: Truth, of course.

Socrates: So are we in agreement that truth always trumps the teachings of the Watchtower or anyone else's teachings?

JW: Yes, to be sure.

Socrates: So, I must ask you once again, which is more important to you, the truth or Watchtower teachings?

JW: My answer is still the same.

Socrates: But your response is not an answer to the question. Let me rephrase it. Since the possibility exists that a Watchtower teaching may be false, as you have agreed, in the case that it is false, would you not seek the truth?

JW: Well, yes, if in fact a Watchtower teaching was false, which none of them are.

Socrates: Then would I be correct to assume that truth is more important to you than anything else? Because, isn't God Truth, and isn't truth therefore the most important thing?

JW: Yes, that makes sense. Yes, truth really is the most important thing to me, which is why I am a Jehovah's Witness and not a member of Christendom.

Socrates: I see. And I am glad that truth is more important to you than anything else, because that is an admirable quality in a person. That is why I am always seeking the truth and therefore asking so many questions. And, as I have learned from our discussion, you remain a member of the Watchtower organization because you believe that its teachings are all true. If you one day discovered that any one or more of its teachings were not true, you would leave. Isn't that so?

JW: Yes, that is true. I mean, if the Watchtower did not teach the truth, there would be no point in my staying with the organization.

Socrates: And you would have to seek out the truth elsewhere, right?

JW: Yes. I would do that.

Socrates: Admirable! Truly admirable! And what about our most reasonable and logical conclusion about the Holy Spirit? You yourself concluded that the Holy Spirit must be God. Yet this truth differs from the teaching of the Watchtower, does it not?

JW: Yes, it seems to be so.

Socrates: Now, while in the beginning you were convinced that none of the Watchtower's teachings are false, since you've discovered that its teaching about the Holy Spirit is wrong, would it be reasonable to assume that it is quite possible that more of the organization's teachings are false?

JW: I don't feel right saying this, but yes, it seems possible to me now.

Socrates: And since we have clearly determined that one of its teachings is wrong, doesn't that increase the probability that more of its teachings could be false?

JW: You are making me very uneasy now, but yes, it is even more probable now. Maybe I've been wrong today, and my elders should speak to you. They know more about God than I do. Would you like to speak to them?

Socrates: No. This conversation is between us only. Besides, what could I ask them that I haven't already asked you, and why would they answer any differently if they too are logical and reasonable and if the truth is of the utmost importance to them as to you?

JW: I don't know. Well, I have to go now.

Socrates: Oh, so soon, my friend?

JW: Yes, I need to go do some things.

Socrates: And rethink your beliefs, I bet.

JW: Yes, well, maybe. I guess. Goodbye.

Socrates: Goodbye to you. Come again soon, we have more to discuss.

(C)2009, Christos Rigakos