James 0, Jason 5 (If We’re Talking Return Visits)

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

So, a few weeks ago, I received a brief note in the mail. It was from someone on the Board of Directors at Minnesota Atheists. He wrote on the note “This came in the mail, and I thought you might be interested in responding.” His note was attached to a letter, and that letter had been sent all the way from Massachusetts by a guy named Jason.

It turns out, Jason is a Jehovah’s Witness. And he decided to get several copies of the latest Awake! issue (that’s a Witness periodical; it’s like the Watchtower, but even simpler) and mail copies of them out to various free-thought organizations around the country. Here’s the cover of that magazine:

When I mentioned this to an ex-Witness friend of mine, he said, “Who would do something like that?” Good question. The answer is: Pioneers. I used to be a pioneer, too. It meant I had to get in a ridiculously high number of hours each year (1,000) going door-to-door or standing on the street corner passing out tracts. Since that was really a drudgery, I was always looking for other ways to accumulate hours. One day, for instance, when the Awake! cover story was about animal rights, I wrote out a letter to several local humane societies and zoos telling them that they might like to look at the articles, as they hold out a hope for a better future for animals.

Jason, however, operated differently on three counts: For one thing, he wrote to free thought organizations. Yikes. Bad idea. Second, he didn’t enclose a polite, tactful letter as I did, he wrote a letter that said the magazine “would point out some of the flaws in atheist reasoning.” Again, yikes – that’s a bit confrontational, don’t you think? Maybe it would’ve been better if he’d said, “This magazine will give you some things to think about.” Third, he included his home address, phone number, and email address. And this is why I was given his article – I guess they felt I’d be the best man for the job.

I’m not gonna paste in all the emails that transpired between Jason and me, because this would quickly become the longest post ever. The correspondence included discussions on evolution, the origin of life, Noah’s Flood and the Witnesses basis for saying 1914 is the start of the Last Days. In fact, the emails got so long that Jason decided to splinter our conversation into three separate emails; he’d write me three emails, then I’d respond to all three.

As it turns out, Jason could only point out one ‘flaw’ in atheist reasoning, and when I responded, he admitted that it wasn’t really a flaw after all. Our last couple of emails detailed the question of where did God come from. In his final email, Jason included answers to that question from two of his friends. While I appreciate his efforts to bring in other sources, I think it’s funny that he had to find two friends to help prove the existence of his best friend (would I need help from other people in proving my wife’s existence?).

His final email is copied below. I responded to him but, as of today, it’s been three weeks since then and I don’t think he plans to write back, despite the fact that he already agreed that refusal to answer difficult questions is a sign that a religion is false. Anyway, here’s his email:

Hi again James,
I asked a couple of my friends the question of ‘who created God?’ and here are two of the responses:

RESPONSE ONE:
Richard Dawkins has asked the same question in his published writings. No doubt his followers think that he is on to something. But is he?
As has been pointed out, the question of who or what created the creator leads to an infinite regression and an infinite regression of questions cannot answer anything as it simply raises more questions. Moreover, an infinite number of creators would lead to an actually infinite quantity – which cannot exist. As such, any answer that provides a reasonable stopping point to an infinite regression is far more plausible than positing an absurdity in its place – which is what an actually infinite quantity is. So when an atheist argues that ‘who created the creator’ requires adopting a many creators hypothesis they are, in fact, answering with an absurdity.
Usually, however, the atheist will use the question of ‘who created the creator’ with the intent of showing that because the question leads to absurdities then there must be no creator(s) at all. Since atheism argues for existence by means of non-existence, which is itself illogical, then all one needs to define is a more logical answer to the question of existence. To my mind the Leibnizian argument from contingent existence answers this question nicely. Neither Dawkins nor any of his cronies have adequately grappled with the problems this argument creates for their position.

RESPONSE TWO (from my Spanish friend):
Evidence points to a creator. That’s the subject you’re discussing. Whether that creator has always existed, or whether it was created by a wiser and older and more powerful being is irrelevant. It doesn’t affect at all the question that universe asks for a creator, and any arguments in that sense are only trying to distract attention from the main point.
I don’t care whether God was created by a higher god (well, I’m sure he wasn’t, but anyway 🙂 ), what I know is that evidence points to an intelligence creating the universe.
Don’t you think so?
===========
As for the points you raise in this e-mail, perhaps I’ll write back at another time.  But as I’ve said before it’s best that you speak with a Witness in person to have your questions answered.