Skip to main content

Jehovah lite

The much improved design
We were sitting at breakfast and the others saw someone approaching the door. I was sitting with my back to the window, so didn't realize what was about to happen. The doorbell rang.

'You go,' they said.
'It's Jehovah's Witnesses, isn't it?' I asked.
They just smirked.

And it was, but interestingly this was a JW visit lite. Rather than attempt to engage me in conversation, the female member of the (inevitable) pair just told me they were distributing these leaflets across the country and gave me one. And went. So I was immediately in a good mood, as the toast was still warm.

The good news about the leaflet is that they've finally hauled the typography into the 21st century. The old JW leaflets were so old fashioned looking, and very alien in presentation for a UK audience - they were very obviously American. I'm not talking spelling, but rather the design just wasn't the way a UK leaflet looks. Now, as you can see, they've improved things enormously.

It's only 8 out of 10, though, guys. Why not 10? The paper is still wrong. I don't know why, but US leaflet paper feels totally different - less glossy, more flimsy, than UK leaflet paper: and this was still wrong.

As for the content,this was also much more clever. Just one Bible quotation. Mostly advertising the free resources on their website. In fact with its 'Where can we find answers to life's big questions?' header, it was very reminiscent to the advertising you see on posters for an Alpha course. The front also says 'Are the answers in... Science? Philosophy? The Bible?' And then inside we read that 'the Bible is providing answers to millions of people.'

Clever again, as it's not explicitly knocking science - though we clearly get the message that science can't answer life's big questions. In case you aren't sure what these are, the back suggests:
  • What is the meaning of life?
  • Is God to blame for our sufferings?
  • What happens when you die?
These are questions that indeed are 'big'. But my suspicion is that for many people these questions aren't as imminent as various ones that science can probably do better at than the Bible. For instance, the (old testament) Bible is pretty strong on mass extermination of your enemies, and I'm pretty sure that isn't the right answer with the various Middle East problems underway at the moment.

For me, that highlights the mistake of comparing the Bible and science as an answer to some problems. Although I admit there will always be alternative theories under development, at any one time, science has a single, mainstream consensus answer - our current best theory. The Bible and other religious texts, though, can almost always deliver conflicting answers, so you choose the one that suits your preferences. How to deal with your enemy? If you're a hawk, you can use the Old Testament as the reason for smiting them and wiping them out to the very last person (children included). If you're a dove, you can use the New Testament to make it obvious that loving them and turning the other cheek is the answer.

So, well done Jehovah's Witnesses for pointing out the underlying flaw in your own argument. I'm impressed.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more