Guilty Axioms
In “Challenging Axioms” I mentioned how religious axioms are sometimes supported by yet additional axioms as a backup for the times where reality is found to contradict the primary axioms. These backup religious axioms seem to fall within two categories: excuses and guilt. Let’s focus on guilt for a moment.
Following the example of the parked car, see if the following similar account makes sense.
After a full day of work, Brian pulled into the driveway of his home and parked his late model Ford Mustang GT. After shutting off the engine, he gathered his belongings, opened the door, and stepped out of the car. Before closing the door, he locked it. Kevin then walked up the pathway to his front door, unlocked it, and stepped into his house, closing the door behind him. He had plans to meet a friend for dinner in about a hour, so he went about getting ready to go out. During this time, he had no reason not to believe that his car is not in his driveway. After all, he parked it there and locked the door. He took very good care of the car, going in for oil changes on a regular basis, washing it once a week, and keeping the inside free from clutter. He did everything he could to keep the car looking and performing excellent. However, when he stepped out the front door of his home, he found that his car is not where he left it. In its place were a few shards of broken glass, presumably from one of the windows of his car. His car had been stolen. He stood in utter shock. His belief that his car was parked safely in the driveway had been proven wrong. It seemed that everything he did to take care of the car was all for nothing. After a moment, when the initial shock of his failed belief passed, he realized that he hadn’t cleaned the windshield when he gassed up that morning. His oversight of that detail, he concluded, was the reason why he no longer had his car. He was not worthy to have such a nice vehicle if he was going to forget to wash the windshield at the gas station.
If you’re like me, you must be baffled by Brian’s conclusion. How could he possibly think that his car being stolen was his fault? Further, how could he believe that something so small, such as washing the windshield while fueling, could be the cause of his car being stolen? The cleanliness of the windshield and the security of his car are not linked by any measure.
No, Brian’s conclusion isn’t logical. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s not his fault his car was stolen. The responsibility is only with the thief. Yet, these types of conclusions are made by adherents of religions everyday.
When religions claim to know the intents of God, and press believers into accepting doctrines and practices that create the expectation that if they follow the prescribe worship or lifestyle God is said to want for them, they will be blessed or find happiness. When a person doesn’t feel blessed or does not find happiness, the beliefs instilled in them by the religion causes them to focus on an area where their life is not in harmony with what is said to be God’s intent. They will blame themselves, and this blame is partially a defense against losing faith in the religion they adhere to, and the beliefs prescribed by that religion.
It’s when a person refuses to blame themselves for their experience of the failure within their religion, that a possible domino effect of failed axioms occurs. This collapse of beliefs causes a person to reject their religion. Often this is an extremely painful process, because a person’s self identity may be so attached to their religion that they must detach themselves from what is the foundation of their identity. After this, they must establish again their identity and self worth.
No responses yet
