Note: This article is primarily about the Witnesses, but many points are applicable when you discuss emotionally charged matters with people other than Witnesses.

If you have ever tried to discuss religious matters with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you may have noticed that conversation is severely impeded. What started as a discussion frequently turns into a fruitless debate. Let's consider some questions:

These questions (and others) will be addressed in this article.

Numbers and surrounded by brackets such as [99] refer to the references given at the end of this article.

To explain the precise sense in which I use certain words here, I have placed a short glossary prior to the references section.

Conversation

Let's say you eat lunch every day with one of Jehovah's Witnesses -- we'll call him Russell. You usually talk about weather, work, and daily events. You've noticed that Russell has a strange 'take' on the news; he always seems to pounce on the bad things that happen, and generally ignores the good. You know that many people have this attitude, but Russell actually seems to relish stories of famine, wars, epidemics and other disasters. You think that this has something to do with his belief that these bad things indicate that the world is coming to an end.

One day, you decide to have a chat with him about his beliefs. You listen carefully, and keep your reservations to yourself. He is not convincing you, but it's interesting to find out how other people think. Occasionally you pose some innocuous questions, but you don't really challenge anything he says. Russell seems pleased that you are taking the time to find out about his religion.

Discussion

The next day, Russell asks you if you've considered what he said. Actually, you haven't given it much thought, but you say you wouldn't mind talking it over for a while. You engage Russell in a deeper discussion. You raise some objections, but he easily answers each one. You are impressed by his knowledge of his subject.

That night, you think long and hard about what Russell said. You can't think of anything wrong with it, but something doesn't feel right. You phone up a friend who used to be a Witness and discuss the situation. She provides you with a list of questions to bring up when you next talk to Russell.

As it happens, Russell is willing to discuss matters with you the very next day. He has a small book which he thinks you should read. "This will explain everything," he assures you. You glance at the book, then say, "I do have a few questions I'd like to ask you now." He seems delighted that your interest has grown so rapidly.

"I have a list of questions a friend gave to me," you say, handing over your notes from the previous night's phone call. Russell scans the list quickly, his smile fading.

"Have you been talking to an apostate?" he asks.

"It's just a woman I know," you respond. "What's an apostate?"

"They are people who spread lies about the Witnesses." He slides the sheet of paper back towards you.

You mull this over. "Well, in that case, the questions should be easy to shoot down!" You hand the paper back to Russell.

"These people twist words. You can't trust them."

"Okay," you reply, "so show me what's wrong with the questions. Let's start with the first one."

Russell looks down at the paper, and reads aloud, "'If Jesus meant to say age, why would he say generation? Did he wink or something, so the apostles would know he meant something else?'" [1] Russell looks at you with raised eyebrows.

You shrug. "That's what she said. I don't even know what she's talking about. Is that what you mean by twisting words?"

"Well, I do know what she's talking about, but she doesn't know what she is talking about. This question is utter nonsense."

"What about the next question?" you suggest.

Russell reads it silently. He shakes his head. He continues reading your notes without comment. Finally, he sighs and remarks, "This lady is going to mislead you with questions like these."

You had never thought of your friend as particularly evil, so you say, "Well, let's try to answer the questions. You can show me what's wrong with them."

"Just read the book I gave you. That's all you need. You don't need questions like these -- they'll just confuse you."

You nod. "Okay, I can read the book. But I know this lady well, and she's a fine person. So I'd really prefer it if we could deal with those questions before I read your book."

Debate

Russell's expression changes to one of grim determination. "All right, I'll answer these questions, and then you can read the book."

Russell's answers do not satisfy you. They seem dismissive and appear to avoid the central point. You decide that you'll have to keep bringing him back to the main issue in order to learn anything.

The debate has begun.

Cherished Beliefs

Every one of us has certain cherished beliefs. Some of these are important to us, and we will not give them up easily. Some beliefs may even be so fundamental to our sense of well-being that we can never talk about them dispassionately. We can't let them not be true.

Take, for example, the matter of racism. A growing number of people believe that racism is wrong and will not even listen to somebody who thinks otherwise. The topic is simply not open to discussion. It is, however, open to debate. If you encounter an ardent racist, you may attempt to 'set him straight', even though there is little hope of achieving any change of attitude. The racist believes in his cause as strongly as you believe in yours. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that people with contrary views aren't holding on to them just to be annoying.

Immovable Objects

Most people have a handful of beliefs that are "cast in stone". Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, have an entire thought-system that is inextricably intertwined with their daily lives. It is set up in such a way that if you remove one brick from the edifice, the entire building may tumble. They are well aware of this danger, and thus they can not allow any of their beliefs to be discussed dispassionately. They have a vested interest in proving to one and all (and especially to themselves) that everything they believe is The Truth (or as close to The Truth as it is humanly possible to know).

Thus, you can never discuss doctrine with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You can either listen, or debate. There is no 'happy medium'.

Honest Appraisal

Jehovah's Witnesses believe themselves to be honest people -- and indeed, they are extremely trustworthy. However, they err in assuming that this honesty extends to all aspects of their lives. Like almost everybody else (though to a greater degree), they seem incapable of objectively weighing the pros and cons of their core beliefs.

You might say, "Surely a devastatingly logical argument could break through to any Witness!" but that is a forlorn hope, as we shall see.

Logical Limits

In theory, intelligent people should be able to sit down and rationally determine whether a particular idea is supported by the evidence, or is at least strongly implied by what we know. However, rationality is not the only component of our psyches, so 'reasonable discussion' is often derailed by human nature.

Have you ever watched members of a controversial political party espousing the 'party line'? You may have noticed that their arguments are not so much presented to uncover truth as to convince listeners. You can learn effective tactics of persuasion from a book, but you probably use many of them already, without realizing it. All our lives, we've seen people 'defending their turf' verbally, and we inevitably pick up some of the methods without even being aware of it.

Our World-View

These methods can be helpful, since we frequently need to demonstrate that what we say is true. However, in our eagerness to convince, we may avoid serious consideration of what is true or sensible. We may end up defending the indefensible.

We find ourselves in this situation if we are not merely arguing a particular point of contention, but defending our world-view. If the matter under scrutiny is linked to our core beliefs, we have a pressing need to get the 'right' answer.

At that point, we are no longer looking for truth itself, but trying to hang on to what we already think.

Jehovah's Witnesses, like everybody else, have the means to protect their world-view. However, there is a difference between Witnesses and most other people: Witnesses bravely carry out their door-to-door preaching work, constantly exposing themselves to threats to their doctrines. Through experience and training, they master a potent collection of verbal and psychological devices to protect what they believe.

Here is a list of devices used by Jehovah's Witnesses (and other groups with a weakened axe to grind). Once you start spotting these techniques in action, you will see how often they are used -- and start noticing others.

Bear in mind that some of these are purely defensive. Other devices can be used in an offensive (i.e. persuasive) manner. Nevertheless, by throwing the other person off-balance, they follow the time-honored principle that "The best defense is a good offense."

Closed Eyes, Ears and Mind

Antiprocess is resistance to the processing of information.

You can observe a simple example of antiprocess at a horror movie. Some members of the audience will shut their eyes when a particularly gruesome scene is shown. The image -- the very concept -- is too upsetting to handle.

This may be likened to the child's belief that "If I don't see it, it can't see me" (or alternatively, "...it isn't there"). Adults find more subtle ways of "closing their eyes"; they know that they can evade suffering by ignoring certain things. When you see a television commercial begging people to send money to help starving children, take note of how many people in the room suddenly become preoccupied with other matters.

By 'spacing out' when presented with disturbing material, we protect our mental balance. What you turn away from depends on what you can handle.

The examples above demonstrate actions taken to avoid processing information that is right in front of us. That is antiprocess.

Invisible Armour

Antiprocessing actions become habitual over time, and eventually become reflex actions. This enhances their protective value, since we are barely conscious of what we do reflexively.

Antiprocess is typically a personal thing: you have the right to choose what you will expose yourself to. However, when you are talking to another person, antiprocess can lead to frustration. The other person may exclaim, "You're deliberately missing the point!" (or "You're blind!"), while you won't understand the reason why no progress is being made. Since antiprocess becomes a reflex, you don't notice that you're doing it.

A worrisome aspect of antiprocess is that it continues to do its work for as long as necessary. Let us say you challenged a Witness with a 'devastatingly logical argument'. You may render him aghast and speechless. Yet the next day he will seem the same as before. What happened was that he managed to annihilate the problem in some way. Perhaps he decided it was 'stupid', 'pointless', or 'overly clever'. Perhaps he simply forced himself to forget about it (a technique Witnesses refer to as "Waiting on Jehovah").

You may find it necessary to reiterate the argument from the beginning. However, you may not be able to do this because the antiprocess, which is still functioning, will recognize the danger. It will invoke additional defensive measures to prevent the information from being processed.

Flight from Danger

Antiprocess could be called active avoidance of cognitive dissonance. You are offering somebody information he does not want, because it is too disturbing. He must get rid of it somehow.

When you are so close to somebody's innermost being that he reacts this way, it's a good time to ask if you have any chance of breaching the defense. He has worked for a long time to fine-tune his antiprocess, and it clearly works very well. If you keep on pushing the matter, it might be perceived as a sort of mental assault, and you can not predict what somebody will say or do in such a situation.

Replenishment

There is a saying that "lightning never strikes twice in the same place," but this is obviously not true in the case of a lightning rod. When the difference in electrical potential between the clouds and the ground becomes great enough, lightning will follow the easiest route, and lightning rods are designed to provide that path, again and again.

A lightning strike will reduce the difference in electrical potential, but the rod does not remain 'neutral'; it is connected to the ground and will reacquire a charge.

A similar thing happens when you debate with somebody, convince him of a point, and then let him return to his 'ground' (i.e. the other people who share his beliefs). His faith is replenished, and this gives him the strength to shrug off your arguments.

Acquiring the Rod

One of the first steps in indoctrination is to isolate people, either physically or psychically, from differing opinions. That is why Witnesses are warned against associating with "worldly people" (i.e. non-Witnesses): their "ground" must be the Watchtower Society, and they must remain connected to it to replenish their doctrinal charge.

This is a matter of human nature -- and the Watchtower Society recognizes this. People's attitudes are profoundly altered by those they identify with; returning to these people can quickly bring us back to our usual state, since we have made them a defining part of our identity. As the saying goes, "Tell me with whom you walk, and I will tell you who you are."

Maintaining the Rod

It is very difficult to effect a permanent change in somebody if they keep returning to the source of their motivations. This is why parole officers advise their clients to stay away from any friends involved in criminal activity; peer pressure amplifies the urge to revert to old habits.

The Watchtower Society continually reminds its adherents to "stay in the middle of the flock" to avoid being affected by "outside influences." This is both a matter of camaraderie and replenishment of belief.

Creating Conformity

"The Bible says..." is a frequent prefix to sentences uttered by Jehovah's Witnesses. Another common prefix is, "The Watchtower said..."

Jehovah's Witnesses study their material constantly, and the doctrines are repeated until they are driven deep into the mind. For example, every week Witnesses read the Watchtower magazine and underline the answers to the questions at the bottom of each column. On Sunday, they are obliged to hear the article read aloud at the meeting, and parrot back the answers they have underlined -- with little or no embellishment. Thus, important concepts are encountered four times: in reading, in underlining, in listening, and in answering.

Of course, the most vital concepts are encountered even more frequently, in various articles. After a few years, a Witness may hear the same key ideas repeated hundreds of times. These beliefs become embedded in their minds and can be called up in an instant. After so many repetitions, they are not analyzed.

From Rote to Obvious

If you discuss doctrine with Witnesses, you will find that they resist hearing contradictory opinions. Their beliefs are as 'obvious' to them as the multiplication table. Bear in mind that in all the hundreds of repetitions, the ideas were always presented as fact. Your single attempt to raise doubt is overwhelmed by the intense indoctrination.

Even if you do manage to get a Witness to question a central doctrine, he will typically fall back to his 'normal' position. His mind is filled with stock phrases that state the doctrine in different ways. Your argument is only one 'vote' against dozens.

Stock answers are comforting, because they feel familiar and reliable. A Witness may be temporarily dismayed by your counter-argument, but once you're gone, the weight of the indoctrination can crush your line of reasoning.

We all have our own collection of stock answers, such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (The Golden Rule). While our actual actions may contradict this principle, we can continue to believe in it because we have heard it so often, stated in various ways.

When we question a belief learned by rote, we imperil our mental stablity, since our personality has integrated (and been built upon) the belief. It is a soul-wrenching experience to question things that we 'know' -- but can not prove -- are true.

The Safer Track

If you find you are losing a debate, an effective strategy is to focus on a particular word the other person has used and debate about that. This can distract the other person for a moment and give you a chance to steer the conversation away from the conclusion you were being forced to accept.

There are many other ways to derail a debate, such as introducing new ideas that are only vaguely connected with the central issue. This technique might be called the "Red Herring Argument" or "Ad Hoc Misdirection". [4] You can keep the other person so busy dealing with side-issues that the main issue is forgotten.

Dealing with Discomfort

We are usually not aware that we misdirect a discussion; we simply feel uncomfortable with the current line of inquiry and wish to put some distance between us and the ideas we don't like. We subtly change the subject to get back to our comfort zone. This is a nefarious habit to which we are all prey, and can prevent us from entering dangerous but enlightening territory.

We can avoid inadvertently sabotaging a discussion if we truly care about learning, and dare to let go of cherished concepts -- temporarily, at least. If we are so inclined, we can allow ourselves to see past the words and phrases and get to the meat of the issue being discussed.

Back to the Comfort Zone

Unfortunately, Witnesses have an emotional stake in not allowing themselves to be so flexible. The Watchtower Society continually represents itself to be the sole channel of truth, and Witnesses are hesitant to challenge the comforting idea that all truth can come from one source. It is difficult to get them to even consider that the Society might be wrong about something.

As a result, if you discomfort a Witness with a proposal that is at odds with Society doctrine, he will strive to get back into his "comfort zone". If you are wise to this, you can sidestep any misdirection and keep bringing him back to the touchy issue. However, this will probably panic him, and he will cut short the discussion. He may declare that "You just don't understand!" or leave on some pretext.

Once he has escaped, he can (and usually will) forget about the issue you raised.

In debates, it is common for one or both parties to resort to a class of faulty arguments known as "Rhetorical Fallacies". If you are familiar with these, you can prevent the other person (and yourself) from using them.

Conclusions that proceed from rhetorical fallacies (or other cunning devices) will contain a flawed component, so it is a hollow victory to win a debate by using these methods if your primary concern is truth.

The rhetorical fallacies have been documented, in detail, in many places. I will touch briefly on several. For a more detailed examination, refer to a book on debating tactics, or consult one of the "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) lists on the Internet that deal with this matter. To locate one of the FAQ resources, you can use the search parameters "RHETORIC FALLACY FAQ" on one of the Web's search engines.

Some of the classic rhetorical fallacies have been omitted because they are not habitually used by Jehovah's Witnesses. I have included some rhetorical devices that I have observed myself, but have not seen described elsewhere.

Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum): an exploitation of fear. A Witness may say, "If you don't believe what we're saying, you will be destroyed by God!"

Spurious Agreement: [6] utterance (typically with a strong emotional content) designed to establish a false sense of agreement. "Don't you want to live forever?" This is an attempt to placate the 'attacker'.

Attack on the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem): questioning the source of an argument. "Maybe that book you quoted makes a good case, but I heard the author is a drunk." Alternatively, "I can't believe what you say because you're just an imperfect human being." Or, "You're just arguing to prove to your colleagues that you can change my mind."

Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): claiming that an idea should be considered valid because there is nothing to prove otherwise. "Nobody ever proved that the miracles in the Bible didn't occur, did they?"

Escape via Ignorance: [6] alluding to an existing answer unknown to either party. "Maybe I can't answer your point, but any of the Elders at our congregation could." Such claims are rarely backed up.

Escape to the Future: [6] alluding to an answer that will allegedly become known at a future date. "Maybe I can't answer your point, but we Witnesses are told to 'Wait on Jehovah' when we encounter things we can't understand. He eventually provides us with the answers." Note that no time-limit is specified.

Escape via Relativism: [6] dismissing an argument as simply a point of view. "Well, that's just your opinion." This can interrupt and sabotage a chain of logic. Another common phrase is, "Everybody has their own opinion" -- as if every opinion is backed up with equally compelling evidence.

Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): obtaining support from a famous person who is not present to state his actual opinions. "Einstein knew there was a God. Are you an Einstein?"

Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum): "proving" that something is so because it has convinced a large number of people. "Can you deny that the Bible is the most widely distributed book of all time?" (Note that Witnesses rarely resort to "Argumentum ad Numerum", which maintains that the more people who are convinced, the more likely it is that something is true. After all, their religion constitutes less than one thousandth of the world's population.)

Generalization: applying recognized patterns to specific cases. "You are a skeptic, so you just don't understand how people experience God."

Circular Reasoning (Circulus in Demonstrando): supporting a chain of arguments by the arguments it contains. "The Bible is true because it is written by God. The Bible tells us how God wrote the Bible. God doesn't lie, as the Bible tells us, so He wouldn't write a book that is false, would he?" Witnesses idolize the Bible, viewing it as unimpeachable and literally true. This might seem like the "weak link" in their belief system, but they are unshakeable in this because for them it can't not be true -- everything would fall apart.

Fallacy of Presupposition: asking for an explanation of something not yet established. "If evolution is true, then..." Since the study of evolution is a work in progress, one can always find a point of controversy, and challenge the other person to demonstrate that it is true, while assuming that failure to do so proves the entire matter false.

Surfeit of Questions (Plurium Interrogationum): demanding a simple answer when this is not possible. "Okay, if God didn't create the universe, tell me how it got here." The response can not be both honest and brief if each statement implies additional questions.

Affirmation of the Consequent: improperly validating the key element of an implication. "The Bible says God's people will be happy; we are happy; therefore the Bible speaks truthfully."

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi): a conclusion that does not follow from the argument. "Jehovah's Witnesses have the true religion because only we do so much door-to-door preaching." If you point out that Mormons also preach in this way, you'll be told that they don't do as much of it, or that their religion is obviously false.

The Language Trap: [3] using a word in different ways, but logically treating it as the same concept. "You say you're looking for truth. Well, we refer to our religion as 'The Truth'. Why do you think we do that?" The Language Trap is not just a rhetorical device, but a major problem in communication. I call it a "trap" because both people can inadvertently tumble into it if they are not aware that the same word can be used with different senses and connotations.

Bifurcation: presenting alternatives as either/or, such as good/evil, false/true, while admitting to no grey areas. Witnesses are taught to think in "black and white" and tend to believe "If you're not one of us, you're one of them." They refer to this as the sheep and goat distinction.

"Hobson's Choice" or Alternative Advance: [7] providing two or more choices which do not cover the range of possibilities but reflect essentially the same proposition. "If you don't agree with me, let's study this book I've brought along. If you do agree, let's go to the Kingdom Hall this Sunday." Both choices expose you to indoctrination. One choice that is missing: "If you don't agree, we can just call it quits."

Monopolizing the Question: [6] asking a question then giving the answer immediately. "Who was sent to us to redeem us? Jesus, of course!" Watchtower literature uses this technique relentlessly.

Appeal to Antiquity (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem): validating a proposition by its age. "The Bible has survived for so long that it must be true!" Compare the Illyiad, Gilgamesh, the Vedas, and so on.

Appeal to Novelty (Argumentum ad Novitatem): supporting a statement by its very newness. "Yes, there have been errors in the past, but we receive 'New Light' from Brooklyn, and so 'the light keeps growing brighter'. You see how this brings us closer to truth?" The Witnesses have had several major doctrinal reversals and re-reversals. This tends to discredit their 'New Light' principle.

Appeal to Poverty (Argumentum ad Lazarum): exploiting the impression that money corrupts. "The Watchtower Society is a non-profit organization, and nobody is getting rich on all this. Isn't that what God wants?"

The Slippery Slope: stating that the acceptance of a conclusion will have appalling consequences. "If what you say is true, it negates the value of the Bible, and that is not acceptable, so you must be wrong, somehow."

Repetition for Emphasis [8] (Argumentum ad Nauseam): driving home an unproven point by repeating it so often that it might become accepted by rote. Witnesses often do this by returning, again and again, to an earlier point that has been postponed. The point being repeated is typically one that they have learned by rote.

Reification: treating something abstract as real. "I know there's a God; I've felt him in my life." This statement can be explained in several ways that do not require an actual god to exist.

Straw Man: attacking a caricature of what the other person said. "You said you don't read the Bible literally. Well, if it's just a bunch of stories, why do historians and archaeologists find it so useful?"

Stalinesque Methods [9]

The Watchtower Society warns Witnesses that certain types of information are not "wholesome" or "uplifting." [10] Witnesses have learned through repetition and peer pressure that helpful advice from the Society should be taken very seriously indeed. Even suggestions take on the significance of a command. Through unrelenting reminders, Witnesses are taught to make decisions regarding:

To fill the void, Witnesses are given books and magazines, written by the Society, which they are supposed to study carefully. There are so many such publications that they can fill their time without recourse to the media frowned upon by the Society.

For example, if Witnesses wish to learn about other religions, they have a book that purports to explain the most important ones. It does give an overview of each religion, but this is immediately followed by an explanation of why that particular religion is wrong.

To learn about the theory of evolution, a Witness will typically read a Watchtower Society book such as Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?, which uses long-discredited criticisms of the theory of evolution, and makes considerable use of "Straw Man" rhetoric.

If you ask Witnesses if they have studied other religions, or evolution, they will quite honestly reply in the affirmative. They have indeed studied these in detail, although their source material is carefully written by the Society to ensure that the correct conclusions are reached.

A Witness can be so well prepared to raise objections to evolution that only an expert in the field -- or a well-read skeptic -- could contend with the barrage of counter-arguments. [11]

While the Watchtower Society has never (to my knowledge) published a blacklist of books that may not be read, they do provide guidelines for selecting reading material. As a result, Witnesses are very well informed about the Society's view of things, and have a good idea of what material is considered bad. They avoid information that would encourage doubts.

Within the Witnesses, the term "independent thinking" is used pejoratively. They are strongly advised to learn from Watchtower material rather than forming their own conclusions. [12]

Orwellian Methods [9]

Since the Watchtower Society has such tight control over the information to which a Witness is exposed, they are free to rewrite history to maintain a sterling image, and to help people forget about previous failures.

Between 1968 and 1975, the Society unsubtly and repeatedly implied that the world would arrive at a cataclysm known as "Armageddon" in 1975. [13] Because Witnesses can read between the lines (taking certain suggestions as commands, for example), many quit their jobs, sold their homes, or postponed further education, in order to get ready for the Great Day.

1975 came and went. Thousands of Witnesses left the fold -- a trend that would not be reversed until three years later. Yet if you ask a Witness today about what happened in 1975, they will say that it was simply the result of some overzealous brothers, and that most Witnesses did not take it seriously.

Those Witnesses who were present during the 1975 debacle -- and have remained Witnesses -- also claim that the incident was not of great import. It is worth noting that the majority of current Witnesses joined after 1975, and have been exposed to the constant down-playing of the event by the Society. This creates an environment wherein the old-timers begin to doubt their own memories. Some may conclude that only their congregation was swept up in '1975 Fever'.

Most Witnesses are completely unaware that a similar apocalyptic prediction failed in 1925, and they lost half their membership. The information is available to them, if they care to dig deeply, but their work-load of reading and service makes it difficult to find time for such research.

Since the Society controls so much of what a Witness reads, sees and hears, they have a captive audience to whom they can say almost anything. They can rewrite the past with little fear of contradiction. [14] So even if you know the Society's history well, you may have trouble convincing a Witness that what you say is factual.

With full awareness of the tactics that Witnesses use to deflect arguments, you can win most debates with them if you keep a cool head. However, if you intend to bring about a permanent change in attitude, your efforts may be doomed to failure.

At issue here is not truth, but need. The Witnesses' belief system provides them with a psychological foundation whereby they can make the world more comprehensible. The actual beliefs may be as outlandish and contrived as any conspiracy theory, but the rapid growth of the religion (which increased from 2 million to over 5 million in the two decades between 1977 and 1997) shows that they are offering something that many people want to have.

The negation of one of their beliefs does not necessarily produce a lasting result, because Witness beliefs are intertwined -- more like chain-mail armor than the links of a chain. The failure of one belief can be repaired, in time, because it does not fit the overall pattern or lifestyle, and will remain an irritant until the Witness can accomodate or dispose of the new information.

Thus, you can 'win the battle but lose the war'. You can not create a profound change in a Witness unless he already has some doubts. You are not inside his head, so you cannot know what doubts are likely to exist, if any -- and he is not likely to tell you, as this would be considered a weakness of faith. Witnesses are trained to monitor themselves carefully for backsliding.

My conclusion, based on two decades of experience with Jehovah's Witnesses, is that you can only have an open-minded discussion with those who are already concerned about discrepancies in the doctrine or the behaviour of the Watchtower organization. There is no sure way (short of 'deprogramming') for you to induce these concerns, because the key factor is the personality of the individual Witness.

Deprogramming -- the isolation of an individual and the systematic destruction of his beliefs -- can be a callous procedure that takes away a person's security and gives nothing in return. The void must be filled if you are attempting to do good. If that is not your aim, then what is your purpose? Are you trying to prove to yourself that your ideas are correct? Moreover, does the person need this kind of help? What is the benefit?

While logic has its place in any discussion, there is something else that must be considered when debating with Jehovah's Witnesses: compassion. Your concern for the well-being of the individual can be more compelling than your carefully constructed arguments. As a side benefit, compassion can be a stabilizing force if your own core beliefs come under scrutiny.

I must admit that the strict code of the Witnesses can sometimes put them in a life-threatening situation. You may feel obliged to do something about this. Your success is not, however, assured.

If emotional comfort is more important than truth, a Witness can stand up to both physical and mental challenges. Indeed, it is unlikely that a person can remain a Witness unless he gives mental comfort such a high priority. This is a deep dishonesty, but who among us can say that we have never adjusted (or limited) our beliefs to ease the burdens of our life's journey?