I should preface this journal entry by saying - because it’s not entirely clear and could be misinterpreted - that this entry is not intended to be judgemental: rather reflective. I’ve spent a long time studying my father and, while I’m often appalled at what I see or hear, in this instance I’m curious more than disturbed. As ever, I suspect (and hope) that few people ever instigate anything out of a desire to cause harm, rather through a lack of empathy or understanding or education or foresight.

*

Earlier this year, I bought my dad a copy of An Illustrated A Brief History of Time for his birthday before realising that such an attempt to illuminate him both was futile and would probably only inspire an equally hopeless argument, so I kept the book for myself (and have since used it as a reference on several occasions). I mentioned this to him for the first time, today, and he responded, “that’s just as well: it would probably have made my blood boil.”

How do you go about challenging somebody so self-assured that they will not be challenged?

Naturally, I’ve grown up in his presence and I am used to his stance, but the comment genuinely quite shocked me. It wasn’t spoken threateningly; but merely the fact that somebody could feel such burning anger at somebody for deconstructing their beliefs (or, far more precisely, constructing an alternative truth that doesn’t correlate with those beliefs) really struck me. Just the indirect suggestion that my dad should question his faith (in fact, that he should take notice of the arguments of others who are questioning his faith) would have severely offended him. How do you respond to such a powerful zealous state of mind? How do you go about challenging somebody so self-assured that they will not be challenged?

I’ve long regarded my dad as a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is not to be confused with terrorism (the latter usually stipulates the former, but not vice versa); my dad sees things as very distinctly black or white, right or wrong: he sees things as fundamentals. Homosexuality is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Swearing is wrong. Even lying is wrong, and each of these under any circumstances. All of these things, of course, stem from his fundamental belief in the truth of The Bible: a belief which, by definition, cannot be challenged. It cannot be wrong. It is not wrong.

I ask the following as a rhetorical question (as a mark of resignation), a general question (”how does one…?”) and a personal question (”how do/would you…?”):

How do you respond to that?