Worst Case Scenario Doctrine

Religious presumption often bolts to ‘worst case scenario’ while creating doctrine from the belief that
a harm caused to the few translates to the need of abstinence for all, whereas a more liberal (or
logical?) interpretation of Creations intent would be the assertion that it is the obligation of the
individual to craft unique beliefs and behaviors in navigating between any two extremes.  Ironically,
the presence of pervasive and homogenous doctrine represents a significant contradiction to the
frequently espoused notion that free-will is endowed by Creation.   Instinctively sensing a breach of
logical sequence, many then erroneously cite the lack of logical explanation as evidence of divine
mysteries intended by creation to never be known.  Free-will then inherits definition based upon the
decision to avoid the many complications associated with its authentic choosing

How Bout a Drink

The consumption of alcohol may be a good example to illustrate the point. Experience would
suggest consumption in moderation can function as a positive and enjoyable benefit of living. In
contrast, over-indulgence is widely regarded very harmful to the individual and those close to

As a rule both religion and science acknowledge there are those for whom consumption of alcohol
is contra-indicated based upon a seemingly innate inability to control the times and/or amounts of
consumption (so I’ve heard anyway).  In the harming of self and/or others, over-indulgence is
viewed by secular society in a fashion parallel to the religious notion of 'sin'.  

Many religious sects of past and present have used any variety of religious terms at the disposal to
forbid the consumption of alcohol as a matter of significant distinction to those in ‘same faith’.

Of course not all religions (in fact most) have religious edicts strictly prohibiting the consumption of
alcohol but how many religions focus the energies of fellowship in support of the individual exploring
the issue with a personal God/Creator/Whatever?  …without the presence of a known ‘right
outcome’?   ‘Don’t give a bum a dollar; he’ll just buy a beer’ Sound familiar?
No Credit, No Fault Doctrine

In a focus upon tangible results the definition of goodness is limited to the presence of good
deeds as indicated by favorable outcome. Good deeds and outcome are seen to derive from a
compliance with a Creators desire. Conversely the commission of 'sinful' and/or evil acts are
explained by citing cause to an outside source in the incarnation of 'satan'-the ‘King of all that is
Bad'. The forces relevant to the motivation of good deeds are diminished as the individual is
obligated to cite a deity as the source. Meanwhile individual accountability is diminished through
the notion of "the devil made me do it".

The otherwise autonomous individual concedes "all things happen for a reason", adopting by
default a view that events concede nothing to influence by the Individual.  Events and individual
destiny serve at the whim of external forces.
Life on earth is filled with numerous volatile opportunities of which participation is seen
as good (or at least not counter productive) when conducted ‘in  moderation’. At the
other end of the spectrum, as it pertains to any one or more issues, participation has
the potential to descend to an ‘indulgence-enroute-to-addiction' if a range of
‘moderation’ is exceeded.  The consequences of which are then viewed (with virtual
unanimity) and described by one or more descriptors to convey negative influence.