Part of this will depend on your wife. If she won’t support you, your life is going to be more difficult.
Hell yes. This has been the most challenging part. I think my emotional satisfaction would dramatically increase if she were to deconvert. Perhaps that’s not even necessary… maybe if she just saw more merit in my “quest” or would say that I’ve done a good job at researching. Instead I think she doesn’t think she can say these things because it’s “not okay” for me to be both “right” and a “non-believer.”
Thus she echoes things she heard from who-knows-where about me not reading the right things, that “these atheist scientists are so obsessed with figuring everything out,” etc.
Find other things to talk about.
Indeed, and this is where things have settled with my closer friends. The problem is that I’ve explicitly told perhaps 10-20 individuals… but there are about 2-300 who I know as acquaintances who don’t know or may know via another party. Just telling the first group was taxing because I had to retell my story of doubt over and over. I can’t imagine doing that with the remaining group individually in order to get to the point where everyone knows and we can move on to talking about “other things.”
Thus, perhaps the widespread “coming out” via a publicized summary of my story/non-belief is the best route for those.
I think my emotional satisfaction would dramatically increase if she were to deconvert.
This is hard for her, too.
Your roles and responsibilities to your wife are entirely different from the responsibility you’ve described to your own conscience to be true and follow the evidence and so on. The strategies we’re discussing on this thread, though interesting and maybe useful, are probably not things you want to use with your wife, who already knows you well and knows the story.
My advice is pretty much the opposite of Desrtopa’s. Don’t talk about your quest any more than necessary. You’re a new person, so start a new courtship, getting to know each other again. Don’t try to change her, but change yourself. Be a good husband.
The strategies we’re discussing on this thread, though interesting and maybe useful, are probably not things you want to use with your wife...
I agree, and tend to abide by that advice. I think when I provide rantish outbursts trying to justify myself, it’s usually because:
The discussion of our kids comes up and she thinks she has more of a right to raise them to believe Catholicism, citing as her primary reason that it’s really important to her. That’s quite challenging and usually leads me to want to stand up for myself regarding the amount of work and research I’ve put into this and how I think that counts as a valid reason that I have an equal say as well.
When I feel proselytized. She brings up leading topics, in my opinion. She came back from a retreat and told the valiant story of a man who doubted but said to himself, “Well, if there’s a heaven, even though I doubt, I’m going to spend my entire life trying to believe anyway so that I can go.” Given the pertinence to my own story and the fact that she shared nothing else about the retreat other than that, my bet was on her trying to defend my stance and why that logic isn’t sound (which belief is the right one to get into heaven?). (She verified later that it was, in fact, a conversion-directed comment.)
When I feel challenged about my process, like if she poo-poo’s what I’ve read, chalks it all up to bias, or something similar.
I guess I could go on a little bit, but just wanted to cite some of the items that have a tendency to draw out the “defensive me.”
Other than that, I can say with near certainty that our best times have always correlated with our longer-ish periods of just not talking about religion/my quest at all.
You’re a new person, so start a new courtship, getting to know each other again.
I had this thought several months ago, actually. I realized that I tend to talk pretty openly about anything and everything—what I read, things I find interesting, work, etc., but that she doesn’t always do this and that I missed “knowing her.”
We also began marriage counseling and I stated as one of my goals at our first session that I think finding new “common ground” will be important. We need something to fill the void left by our shared bond via religion.
Don’t try to change her, but change yourself.
I (perhaps obviously) agree with the second admonition… but could you comment on the first? I am aware of the adage that we can’t change anyone but ourselves… but is does this really imply that we shouldn’t try? Or do you think this is only the case for a sensitive relationship like husband/wife?
I understand that you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink; to shove it’s head in the water would be to drown it (or get kicked pretty good). But… if water = rationality-increasing ideas/concepts/arguments, is there anything to be said about making someone well aware of the existence of the water if they get thirsty?
Put another way, that is the point of evangelization or “rationality outreach”?
I don’t really know anything about your situation, your wife, your relationship. So please don’t take anything I say very seriously. Desrtopa may be right, and I certainly didn’t want to imply that you weren’t already a good husband.
I’m really glad to hear you’re in marriage counseling. That will be more helpful than anything I say.
As far as not trying to change her: you’ve got lots of time. If she gets thirsty, she’ll let you know. What I’m advising against is trying to deconvert her so that you feel better, which is what I read (rightly or wrongly) in the line I quoted in the grandparent.
No problem, and I didn’t take your statement as at all implying that I wasn’t a good husband.
I did say:
I think my emotional satisfaction would dramatically increase if she were to deconvert.
That is how I see things, but would not say that this fact means I’m actively pursuing bringing this outcome to pass. I do generally leave all of this alone. It’s come to the surface more lately due to discussions about children, but most of the time we just leave it be and that seems to help us do as you suggested—rebuild around other common interests, activities, and the like.
Also, even though me feeling better would be a byproduct, I only want that to be a byproduct. That is, I’d very much like her to come to her own understanding of what I now see, not that she would deconvert specifically for my feelings.
As far as not trying to change her: you’ve got lots of time.
I’m not advising him (not trying to advise him anyway) to become more confrontational or put more pressure on his wife and friends. But I think he needs social support from people who accept him, and in order to feel accepted, he needs to have people who think, if not that he’s right in not believing, at least that he’s doing something respectable and intellectually honest.
jwhendy knows best what he wants out of a relationship, and if he decides that he’s comfortable sweeping disagreements under the rug and simply not talking about what he believes anymore, then that may be the way for him to be happiest. But it sounds to me like he’s not satisfied with that, and if he wants to be accepted while remaining open and honest, he needs to be able to influence how others think.
But I think he needs social support from people who accept him, and in order to feel accepted, he needs to have people who think, if not that he’s right in not believing, at least that he’s doing something respectable and intellectually honest.
Yup. This is very well said. Even if I’m disagreed with, it would at least be nice for the disagree-ers to look at something like my comments on reading through What’s So Great About Christianity (even though I hate to listen to D’Souza, I gave into a friend’s pleading to read his book, and guess what? I also found out that I hate reading D’Souza) or Dubay’s Faith and Certitude (another acquiesced request) and at least respect the effort I put into those books/write-ups.
Or the fact that I probably spend 30-120min a day (at least) reading/thinking about theological arguments in some way shape or form. I don’t know anyone in my circles who could say that, except maybe the leaders of the community who are always preparing talks and such to give… but those are them thinking about theological thoughts to offer from within—my thoughts are of the evaluation type—“Is it true?”
Again, it’s difficult to have been respected for my intellect and general analytical (cough, anal) nature and then to have everyone complain that this subject is different and that what I’m doing is wrong. Heck, I even have someone (and my wife) say that I should have thought more about the implications of non-belief before even starting down this path. It’s challenging dealing with those views when I can’t see much virtue in literally avoiding research just because you’d rather remain ignorant. It would seem that if you seriously considered research in the first place, you already have questions about the validity of what you think to be true.
But it sounds to me like he’s not satisfied with that, and if he wants to be accepted while remaining open and honest, he needs to be able to influence how others think.
I would agree with this. I find it extremely difficult to imagine just “shutting up” about all of this, especially since shutting up may have implications for my children. While I have no problems with religious education, I do have objections to indoctrination. My wife really, really, really wants to “share the faith” with them, but I have an unbelievably hard time not saying something about the fact that “share the faith” is equivalent to teaching-as-true all of the “fun, fluffy” things about religion while explicitly not covering any of the touchy areas.
I really do “get” these areas and why they would be attractive to be able to share with a child. You get to tell them about just how much Jesus-as-teddy-bear loves them ooooh so much. And that he knows every hair on their head. And that he died just for them and to keep that baaaad satan away. And rejoice in any positive outcome because Jesus has just blessed us soooo much in our lives, and how Jesus lives in your heart and gives you the power of the Holy Spirit to be like him.
To heavily saturate a child in this is, in my opinion, unfair. They can’t even begin to contemplate most of the concepts, for one thing. My daughter, if I recall correctly, once said that Jesus was in mommy’s heart in front of me. How can she possibly know what that means? She’s not old enough to question it, though.
On the other hand, my wife isn’t going to try to explain how two people spawned the world population through incest. Or how god was upset about all these wicked people and went on a one-time global killing spree with more water than is contained on earth… and then vowed that that was the last time he would do it even though surely technology and the number of people in the world mean there is more evil today than there was 6k years ago. This stuff isn’t covered.
Hence it’s tough to keep quiet. The tender morsels that a child would just eat up are what is provided; any tough stuff isn’t. Given that the truth of the “morsels” rest on the accuracy of all those “tough subjects,” I don’t think it’s fair to skip covering the dubious stuff for the sake of making them feel warm with the rest.
It’s also interesting to me to contemplate just how much an effect what a child “learns as truth” during early years has on their ability to re-evaluate down the road. As is sometimes attributed to St. Francis Xavier and is a Jesuit motto, “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you back the man.”
So… in situations like these, it’s not just about keeping docile between my wife and I; we’re approaching an age (daughter 1 = 2.5yrs, daughter 2 = 7 mos) when we need to make calls on this stuff.
Weird—I just went to look but don’t see it, either. I was going to ask but then looked at comment moderation (which I don’t even have enabled) and saw mention of spam… it was, indeed, in my spam box and is now there again. Thanks for the comment.
Instead I think she doesn’t think she can say these things because it’s “not okay” for me to be both “right” and a “non-believer.”
Thus she echoes things she heard from who-knows-where about me not reading the right things, that “these atheist scientists are so obsessed with figuring everything out,” etc.
Do you think you would have any luck convincing her that a) figuring things out is generally praiseworthy, and b) if God wants you to believe, then you will eventually arrive at a renewed, stronger and more honest faith?
If a fair God wanted people to believe any particular religion, he would have to provide some evidence so that people could tell which religion they were supposed to believe. If he’s not going to intervene, and therefore tamper with free will, as they would say, then if you start out by having faith, you can only pick the right religion to have faith in by luck. So supposing you had started in a different religion, but God wanted you to be a Catholic instead, there should be evidence for you to conclude that Catholicism is right if you look. Having considered this, you cannot simply have faith that Catholicism is right until you have first satisfied yourself that there were sound reasons for arriving at it rather than any other religion (since a person with a different upbringing who experienced a similar “salvation” by God would surely have arrived at a different religion.)
It follows then that the sort of information you ought to be looking for is the sort that anyone who’s not already a Catholic would research, not works of apologetics that start out assuming a position of faith.
I think that’s the approach I’d use to try and convince people that what you’re doing is sound and intellectually honest. You might start out by asking if God wants other people to be Catholics, and if yes, how he expects them to choose.
This might be a suitable approach, though I think in the “schism,” she’s simply assumed from the start that I’m wrong. Moving forward, it never seems to matter what I say or do—many people who she respects and who are quite a bit older and more knowledgeable of theology exist. It’s easy for her to ride their coattails.
I would say that she’s in a situation of not owning her reasons, and thus she likes to exert the implications of what these other, older people think and recommend (raising our kids Catholic, me trying until my death bed to believe, etc.) but when pressed on any specific point, she’s unable to speak to the logic or implications because they are not really her arguments/thoughts.
This is also frustrating because, well, she’s my wife! It’s disappointing to have someone who respected your intellect and decision making retract their vote of confidence in favor of the views of others to the point where there’s really no open discussion going on anymore. She seems so scared of something (more in a sec) in conversations that she’s been quite prone to saying things I don’t even think she means.
Last night we were talking and she brought up how the OT prophecies came true in Jesus. I asked for an example and she said something vague about Moses and Jesus. I said, “Do you mean that like Moses led the Israelites out of slavery from their bondage in Egypt, Jesus leads us out of slavery and bondage to the evil one and sin?” She agreed that this was what she meant.
I then asked what she would say if I told her that archaeologists have never found any evidence to support anything like the Exodus portrayed in the OT and that some doubt that a figure named “Moses” even existed.
Her response was, “I don’t care what you think. You’re finite.” Then we got into a lengthy discussion of why she actually should care if she thinks that the OT/NT connection between Moses/Jesus is a basis for her belief. I think we may have resolved the discussion in her stating that it wasn’t really a basis for belief.
The same occurred when she vaguely said that the Bible and “those other people who wrote about Jesus” were all she needed. I asked who “those other people” where and what they said. She didn’t know. It turned out that her notion of these people actually came from me, and that she had internalized my statements as what the wrote being a support for Jesus’ authenticity.
In fact, this was my first seed of doubt. If what the gospels claimed about Jesus were true… I found it absolutely preposterous that if someone alive at the same time had the inclination to write about him, they would write only a few lines and state nothing of his miracles, deeds, fame, or the like. So, she obviously could’t have meant that, either.
I actually did bring up (before reading your comment) that I found it frustrating when talking to her that it seemed like we didn’t even agree on common starting points for approaching the world, and gave as an example her responses that, “I don’t need an explanation for everything to believe it.” I suggested that in every other area of life, she probably doesn’t actually believe that, stating that she would hope that an explanation exists for why her internal combustion engine provides power rather than explodes.
She ended up agreeing that evidence was, actually, important. So there was progress made.
I didn’t handle the discussion so well. It’s very difficult for me to be gentle but also defend myself. She got quite emotional. When I asked what bothered her the most, she said it was thinking down the road of our friends taking her kids through the sacraments and our kids not being able to participate (how to raise our two daughters is still quite a debated “hot topic”) and how monumental a celebration these things are.
Back to what she’s scared of. It was incredibly interesting to me that this was what bothered her so much. When I doubted, I was scared (and still am) about not being aligned with the best explanation of “what is.” For whatever reason, it actually wasn’t difficult to walk away from religion at all if it was false. It’s more dealing with the emotional/social consequences and deciding when “enough is enough” on the research front. For her, I was just shocked that this is what had her so troubled.
And this led me to wonder if it really is mostly about community, experiences, relationships, wanting to provide imagined “snapshots” of parties and fun for our kids as they go through these various rituals, etc. I’m not sure what to make of this, but it might be my first experience with someone who literally has belief in belief.
I think she might be far more scared of not having the benefits she associates with belief rather than actually believing wrongly. For me, it was always (unless I’m fooling myself), the latter.
I feel that many of my comments have had pretty negative connotations regarding my wife. I’d like to at least add an addendum that I do care for her greatly and that she is one of the most other-aware, caring people I know. I’m a selfish a-hole compared to her and I can’t believe the level of forgiveness and tolerance she has for me and others.
And this led me to wonder if it really is mostly about community, experiences, relationships, wanting to provide imagined “snapshots” of parties and fun for our kids as they go through these various rituals, etc.
Yes, of course that is what it is about. Due to past survival advantages these social conventions and connections are tied to our sense of security. By trying to convince her that her faith is wrong, from her perspective you threaten her safety and the safety of her children.
Explicitly identify your goals and rank them. Do you want to achieve your own peace on the topic? Do you want to convince your wife that her faith is wrong? Do you want to stay in this marriage? Do you want your children to grow up as atheists? Ranking your goals is important; you may have to make short term compromises to achieve greater long term successes.
Identify behavior that will help or hurt these goals. If you want your wife to feel secure in the marriage you may have to avoid telling her why her religious beliefs are misguided. If you want to maximize your influence over your children’s beliefs you may have to negotiate with your wife; if they go to church with her then perhaps they also get matching rationality training from you.
Behave purposefully; have a goal in mind when you interact with your wife and with other people. When you have a goal in mind it is easier to avoid defensive reactions and much more likely that you will achieve the desired result.
By trying to convince her that her faith is wrong, from her perspective you threaten her safety and the safety of her children.
Indeed, though difficult to abstain from. I should keep this point in mind more, though.
Explicitly identify your goals and rank them.
This post and comments/discussion has quite renewed me in this area. Concretely, I am re-determined to read at least the core sequences and finish the initial books (and, consequently, goal) I set for myself HERE as well as finalize and “publish” (to blog or PDF) my statement of nonbelief started HERE.
The others are good questions—I’m assuming they are rhetorical, but I do want to stay in the marriage and would like to raise my children to be aware of trusted and proven tools of learning, universal truths, etc., without much about the supernatural debate at all, frankly. While perhaps difficult to do, this has struck me as the most reasonable and decent thing to do. I don’t want them to be “indoctrinated” atheists any more than I want them to be “indoctrinated” anything-elses.
When the time comes that they have the mental capacity and interest to pursue that question… let them pursue it. My hope for them is that they find their own answer that satisfies and is found with a reliable set of tools.
When you have a goal in mind it is easier to avoid defensive reactions and much more likely that you will achieve the desired result.
Thanks for that encouragement and for the comments in general.
I would say that she’s in a situation of not owning her reasons, and thus she likes to exert the implications of what these other, older people think and recommend (raising our kids Catholic, me trying until my death bed to believe, etc.) but when pressed on any specific point, she’s unable to speak to the logic or implications because they are not really her arguments/thoughts.
Reminds me of a family friend of mine, the wife of the most religious scientist I know, an astrophysicist who has more books on Christianity than astrophysics. I’ve discussed religion with her a few times, and it seems that her primary motivation for believing is a conviction that people like her husband know what they’re talking about.
If you haven’t already, you might want to bring up the fact that other religions and denominations also have their intelligent, experienced supporters, and taking it as given that the supporters of any one religion know what they’re talking about means concluding that the supporters of every other religion don’t. You have to be able to step outside the faith to give everyone their fair shakes. If she’s motivated more by her stake in the community, it might move her somewhat to consider that other communities believe differently, and go through a similar song and dance with different doctrines at stake. It might help get her thinking “there are other communities I could be part of if I didn’t believe what I believe now.”
I then asked what she would say if I told her that archaeologists have never found any evidence to support anything like the Exodus portrayed in the OT and that some doubt that a figure named “Moses” even existed.
In cases like this, I think it’s better to find out what she expects, ideally something you don’t know about or something she doesn’t suspect you already know about, so that rather than justifying the data post hoc, she can take notice of what she would anticipate given her beliefs being true, and then find out whether reality agrees with that.
Last night we were talking and she brought up how the OT prophecies came true in Jesus. I asked for an example and she said something vague about Moses and Jesus. I said, “Do you mean that like Moses led the Israelites out of slavery from their bondage in Egypt, Jesus leads us out of slavery and bondage to the evil one and sin?” She agreed that this was what she meant.
Since I was exposed to many believers’ views on Christianity well before I started researching the religion myself, I was quite surprised to find out what the old testament messianic prophesies actually entail. Not only did Jesus never fulfill most of them even by generous interpretations, he never claimed in life that he was going to fulfill many of them. The doctrine of the Second Coming actually arose out of attempts to square the scriptural requirements for the messiah with all the things Jesus didn’t accomplish; the messiah has to do them, and Jesus didn’t, so it must be that he’s going to do them when he comes back.
If you bring this up with your wife, you should wait for a time when she’s more receptive to it. It won’t make much difference for her to find out if she hasn’t already made herself aware that she expects otherwise.
I’ve discussed religion with her a few times, and it seems that her primary motivation for believing is a conviction that people like her husband know what they’re talking about.
True, and since widespread refutation of theism isn’t happening (or accepted), there are always Swinburnes, Plantingas, Kreefts, and WLCs to point to.
It might help get her thinking “there are other communities I could be part of if I didn’t believe what I believe now.”
I actually brought this up last night. She could conceive of it being possible that had she been a different religion, she might be as passionate/convicted of that community compared to the current one, but she couldn’t bring herself to do so when I gave an example of a non-religious community with strong rituals and relationships. She said that it would have to be a community with a “purpose outside herself.”
...she can take notice of what she would anticipate given her beliefs being true, and then find out whether reality agrees with that.
Yes, probably a better approach than what I attempted.
I was quite surprised to find out what the old testament messianic prophesies actually entail. Not only did Jesus never fulfill most of them even by generous interpretations...
Well, as you stated below, this is neatly sidestepped by the second coming/afterlife. As far as I know, all or most of the things on that list are said to be occurring at the second coming, or more how I have heard it, are fulfilled in heaven.
If you bring this up with your wife, you should wait for a time when she’s more receptive to it. It won’t make much difference for her to find out if she hasn’t already made herself aware that she expects otherwise.
Indeed, or perhaps as nerzhin suggested, I should just refrain from talking about it at all.
Maybe if I pursue the activities in my “Edit/Update” section of the article above, particularly finishing off some of my reading list and writing my “story” out, it will have a greater impact on her than any direct confrontation/dialog. She’s stated that she doesn’t like all the “atheist blogs” I read and that I’m “unbalanced.” Perhaps were I to display willingness to read theological books, it would remove that objection… or it might reveal that the objection wasn’t real and that she’ll not be happy with my non-belief even if I fulfill such a requirement.
Hell yes. This has been the most challenging part. I think my emotional satisfaction would dramatically increase if she were to deconvert. Perhaps that’s not even necessary… maybe if she just saw more merit in my “quest” or would say that I’ve done a good job at researching. Instead I think she doesn’t think she can say these things because it’s “not okay” for me to be both “right” and a “non-believer.”
Thus she echoes things she heard from who-knows-where about me not reading the right things, that “these atheist scientists are so obsessed with figuring everything out,” etc.
Indeed, and this is where things have settled with my closer friends. The problem is that I’ve explicitly told perhaps 10-20 individuals… but there are about 2-300 who I know as acquaintances who don’t know or may know via another party. Just telling the first group was taxing because I had to retell my story of doubt over and over. I can’t imagine doing that with the remaining group individually in order to get to the point where everyone knows and we can move on to talking about “other things.”
Thus, perhaps the widespread “coming out” via a publicized summary of my story/non-belief is the best route for those.
This is hard for her, too.
Your roles and responsibilities to your wife are entirely different from the responsibility you’ve described to your own conscience to be true and follow the evidence and so on. The strategies we’re discussing on this thread, though interesting and maybe useful, are probably not things you want to use with your wife, who already knows you well and knows the story.
My advice is pretty much the opposite of Desrtopa’s. Don’t talk about your quest any more than necessary. You’re a new person, so start a new courtship, getting to know each other again. Don’t try to change her, but change yourself. Be a good husband.
I’m well aware. It absolutely is.
I agree, and tend to abide by that advice. I think when I provide rantish outbursts trying to justify myself, it’s usually because:
The discussion of our kids comes up and she thinks she has more of a right to raise them to believe Catholicism, citing as her primary reason that it’s really important to her. That’s quite challenging and usually leads me to want to stand up for myself regarding the amount of work and research I’ve put into this and how I think that counts as a valid reason that I have an equal say as well.
When I feel proselytized. She brings up leading topics, in my opinion. She came back from a retreat and told the valiant story of a man who doubted but said to himself, “Well, if there’s a heaven, even though I doubt, I’m going to spend my entire life trying to believe anyway so that I can go.” Given the pertinence to my own story and the fact that she shared nothing else about the retreat other than that, my bet was on her trying to defend my stance and why that logic isn’t sound (which belief is the right one to get into heaven?). (She verified later that it was, in fact, a conversion-directed comment.)
When I feel challenged about my process, like if she poo-poo’s what I’ve read, chalks it all up to bias, or something similar.
I guess I could go on a little bit, but just wanted to cite some of the items that have a tendency to draw out the “defensive me.”
Other than that, I can say with near certainty that our best times have always correlated with our longer-ish periods of just not talking about religion/my quest at all.
I had this thought several months ago, actually. I realized that I tend to talk pretty openly about anything and everything—what I read, things I find interesting, work, etc., but that she doesn’t always do this and that I missed “knowing her.”
We also began marriage counseling and I stated as one of my goals at our first session that I think finding new “common ground” will be important. We need something to fill the void left by our shared bond via religion.
I (perhaps obviously) agree with the second admonition… but could you comment on the first? I am aware of the adage that we can’t change anyone but ourselves… but is does this really imply that we shouldn’t try? Or do you think this is only the case for a sensitive relationship like husband/wife?
I understand that you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink; to shove it’s head in the water would be to drown it (or get kicked pretty good). But… if water = rationality-increasing ideas/concepts/arguments, is there anything to be said about making someone well aware of the existence of the water if they get thirsty?
Put another way, that is the point of evangelization or “rationality outreach”?
I don’t really know anything about your situation, your wife, your relationship. So please don’t take anything I say very seriously. Desrtopa may be right, and I certainly didn’t want to imply that you weren’t already a good husband.
I’m really glad to hear you’re in marriage counseling. That will be more helpful than anything I say.
As far as not trying to change her: you’ve got lots of time. If she gets thirsty, she’ll let you know. What I’m advising against is trying to deconvert her so that you feel better, which is what I read (rightly or wrongly) in the line I quoted in the grandparent.
No problem, and I didn’t take your statement as at all implying that I wasn’t a good husband.
I did say:
That is how I see things, but would not say that this fact means I’m actively pursuing bringing this outcome to pass. I do generally leave all of this alone. It’s come to the surface more lately due to discussions about children, but most of the time we just leave it be and that seems to help us do as you suggested—rebuild around other common interests, activities, and the like.
Also, even though me feeling better would be a byproduct, I only want that to be a byproduct. That is, I’d very much like her to come to her own understanding of what I now see, not that she would deconvert specifically for my feelings.
That’s a good reminder.
Do you think he’s not being a good husband now?
I’m not advising him (not trying to advise him anyway) to become more confrontational or put more pressure on his wife and friends. But I think he needs social support from people who accept him, and in order to feel accepted, he needs to have people who think, if not that he’s right in not believing, at least that he’s doing something respectable and intellectually honest.
jwhendy knows best what he wants out of a relationship, and if he decides that he’s comfortable sweeping disagreements under the rug and simply not talking about what he believes anymore, then that may be the way for him to be happiest. But it sounds to me like he’s not satisfied with that, and if he wants to be accepted while remaining open and honest, he needs to be able to influence how others think.
Yup. This is very well said. Even if I’m disagreed with, it would at least be nice for the disagree-ers to look at something like my comments on reading through What’s So Great About Christianity (even though I hate to listen to D’Souza, I gave into a friend’s pleading to read his book, and guess what? I also found out that I hate reading D’Souza) or Dubay’s Faith and Certitude (another acquiesced request) and at least respect the effort I put into those books/write-ups.
Or the fact that I probably spend 30-120min a day (at least) reading/thinking about theological arguments in some way shape or form. I don’t know anyone in my circles who could say that, except maybe the leaders of the community who are always preparing talks and such to give… but those are them thinking about theological thoughts to offer from within—my thoughts are of the evaluation type—“Is it true?”
Again, it’s difficult to have been respected for my intellect and general analytical (cough, anal) nature and then to have everyone complain that this subject is different and that what I’m doing is wrong. Heck, I even have someone (and my wife) say that I should have thought more about the implications of non-belief before even starting down this path. It’s challenging dealing with those views when I can’t see much virtue in literally avoiding research just because you’d rather remain ignorant. It would seem that if you seriously considered research in the first place, you already have questions about the validity of what you think to be true.
I would agree with this. I find it extremely difficult to imagine just “shutting up” about all of this, especially since shutting up may have implications for my children. While I have no problems with religious education, I do have objections to indoctrination. My wife really, really, really wants to “share the faith” with them, but I have an unbelievably hard time not saying something about the fact that “share the faith” is equivalent to teaching-as-true all of the “fun, fluffy” things about religion while explicitly not covering any of the touchy areas.
I really do “get” these areas and why they would be attractive to be able to share with a child. You get to tell them about just how much Jesus-as-teddy-bear loves them ooooh so much. And that he knows every hair on their head. And that he died just for them and to keep that baaaad satan away. And rejoice in any positive outcome because Jesus has just blessed us soooo much in our lives, and how Jesus lives in your heart and gives you the power of the Holy Spirit to be like him.
To heavily saturate a child in this is, in my opinion, unfair. They can’t even begin to contemplate most of the concepts, for one thing. My daughter, if I recall correctly, once said that Jesus was in mommy’s heart in front of me. How can she possibly know what that means? She’s not old enough to question it, though.
On the other hand, my wife isn’t going to try to explain how two people spawned the world population through incest. Or how god was upset about all these wicked people and went on a one-time global killing spree with more water than is contained on earth… and then vowed that that was the last time he would do it even though surely technology and the number of people in the world mean there is more evil today than there was 6k years ago. This stuff isn’t covered.
Hence it’s tough to keep quiet. The tender morsels that a child would just eat up are what is provided; any tough stuff isn’t. Given that the truth of the “morsels” rest on the accuracy of all those “tough subjects,” I don’t think it’s fair to skip covering the dubious stuff for the sake of making them feel warm with the rest.
It’s also interesting to me to contemplate just how much an effect what a child “learns as truth” during early years has on their ability to re-evaluate down the road. As is sometimes attributed to St. Francis Xavier and is a Jesuit motto, “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you back the man.”
So… in situations like these, it’s not just about keeping docile between my wife and I; we’re approaching an age (daughter 1 = 2.5yrs, daughter 2 = 7 mos) when we need to make calls on this stuff.
I left a comment on your critique of D’Souza. It’s far enough back that I thought I’d go out of my way to call some attention to it.
Edit: It was there a few minutes ago, but it’s no longer showing up; do only approved comments appear on your blog?
Weird—I just went to look but don’t see it, either. I was going to ask but then looked at comment moderation (which I don’t even have enabled) and saw mention of spam… it was, indeed, in my spam box and is now there again. Thanks for the comment.
Do you think you would have any luck convincing her that a) figuring things out is generally praiseworthy, and b) if God wants you to believe, then you will eventually arrive at a renewed, stronger and more honest faith?
If a fair God wanted people to believe any particular religion, he would have to provide some evidence so that people could tell which religion they were supposed to believe. If he’s not going to intervene, and therefore tamper with free will, as they would say, then if you start out by having faith, you can only pick the right religion to have faith in by luck. So supposing you had started in a different religion, but God wanted you to be a Catholic instead, there should be evidence for you to conclude that Catholicism is right if you look. Having considered this, you cannot simply have faith that Catholicism is right until you have first satisfied yourself that there were sound reasons for arriving at it rather than any other religion (since a person with a different upbringing who experienced a similar “salvation” by God would surely have arrived at a different religion.)
It follows then that the sort of information you ought to be looking for is the sort that anyone who’s not already a Catholic would research, not works of apologetics that start out assuming a position of faith.
I think that’s the approach I’d use to try and convince people that what you’re doing is sound and intellectually honest. You might start out by asking if God wants other people to be Catholics, and if yes, how he expects them to choose.
This might be a suitable approach, though I think in the “schism,” she’s simply assumed from the start that I’m wrong. Moving forward, it never seems to matter what I say or do—many people who she respects and who are quite a bit older and more knowledgeable of theology exist. It’s easy for her to ride their coattails.
I would say that she’s in a situation of not owning her reasons, and thus she likes to exert the implications of what these other, older people think and recommend (raising our kids Catholic, me trying until my death bed to believe, etc.) but when pressed on any specific point, she’s unable to speak to the logic or implications because they are not really her arguments/thoughts.
This is also frustrating because, well, she’s my wife! It’s disappointing to have someone who respected your intellect and decision making retract their vote of confidence in favor of the views of others to the point where there’s really no open discussion going on anymore. She seems so scared of something (more in a sec) in conversations that she’s been quite prone to saying things I don’t even think she means.
Last night we were talking and she brought up how the OT prophecies came true in Jesus. I asked for an example and she said something vague about Moses and Jesus. I said, “Do you mean that like Moses led the Israelites out of slavery from their bondage in Egypt, Jesus leads us out of slavery and bondage to the evil one and sin?” She agreed that this was what she meant.
I then asked what she would say if I told her that archaeologists have never found any evidence to support anything like the Exodus portrayed in the OT and that some doubt that a figure named “Moses” even existed.
Her response was, “I don’t care what you think. You’re finite.” Then we got into a lengthy discussion of why she actually should care if she thinks that the OT/NT connection between Moses/Jesus is a basis for her belief. I think we may have resolved the discussion in her stating that it wasn’t really a basis for belief.
The same occurred when she vaguely said that the Bible and “those other people who wrote about Jesus” were all she needed. I asked who “those other people” where and what they said. She didn’t know. It turned out that her notion of these people actually came from me, and that she had internalized my statements as what the wrote being a support for Jesus’ authenticity.
In fact, this was my first seed of doubt. If what the gospels claimed about Jesus were true… I found it absolutely preposterous that if someone alive at the same time had the inclination to write about him, they would write only a few lines and state nothing of his miracles, deeds, fame, or the like. So, she obviously could’t have meant that, either.
I actually did bring up (before reading your comment) that I found it frustrating when talking to her that it seemed like we didn’t even agree on common starting points for approaching the world, and gave as an example her responses that, “I don’t need an explanation for everything to believe it.” I suggested that in every other area of life, she probably doesn’t actually believe that, stating that she would hope that an explanation exists for why her internal combustion engine provides power rather than explodes.
She ended up agreeing that evidence was, actually, important. So there was progress made.
I didn’t handle the discussion so well. It’s very difficult for me to be gentle but also defend myself. She got quite emotional. When I asked what bothered her the most, she said it was thinking down the road of our friends taking her kids through the sacraments and our kids not being able to participate (how to raise our two daughters is still quite a debated “hot topic”) and how monumental a celebration these things are.
Back to what she’s scared of. It was incredibly interesting to me that this was what bothered her so much. When I doubted, I was scared (and still am) about not being aligned with the best explanation of “what is.” For whatever reason, it actually wasn’t difficult to walk away from religion at all if it was false. It’s more dealing with the emotional/social consequences and deciding when “enough is enough” on the research front. For her, I was just shocked that this is what had her so troubled.
And this led me to wonder if it really is mostly about community, experiences, relationships, wanting to provide imagined “snapshots” of parties and fun for our kids as they go through these various rituals, etc. I’m not sure what to make of this, but it might be my first experience with someone who literally has belief in belief.
I think she might be far more scared of not having the benefits she associates with belief rather than actually believing wrongly. For me, it was always (unless I’m fooling myself), the latter.
I feel that many of my comments have had pretty negative connotations regarding my wife. I’d like to at least add an addendum that I do care for her greatly and that she is one of the most other-aware, caring people I know. I’m a selfish a-hole compared to her and I can’t believe the level of forgiveness and tolerance she has for me and others.
Yes, of course that is what it is about. Due to past survival advantages these social conventions and connections are tied to our sense of security. By trying to convince her that her faith is wrong, from her perspective you threaten her safety and the safety of her children.
Fortunately you are not constrained by WWJD and can engage in some instrumental rationality.
Explicitly identify your goals and rank them. Do you want to achieve your own peace on the topic? Do you want to convince your wife that her faith is wrong? Do you want to stay in this marriage? Do you want your children to grow up as atheists? Ranking your goals is important; you may have to make short term compromises to achieve greater long term successes.
Identify behavior that will help or hurt these goals. If you want your wife to feel secure in the marriage you may have to avoid telling her why her religious beliefs are misguided. If you want to maximize your influence over your children’s beliefs you may have to negotiate with your wife; if they go to church with her then perhaps they also get matching rationality training from you.
Behave purposefully; have a goal in mind when you interact with your wife and with other people. When you have a goal in mind it is easier to avoid defensive reactions and much more likely that you will achieve the desired result.
Indeed, though difficult to abstain from. I should keep this point in mind more, though.
This post and comments/discussion has quite renewed me in this area. Concretely, I am re-determined to read at least the core sequences and finish the initial books (and, consequently, goal) I set for myself HERE as well as finalize and “publish” (to blog or PDF) my statement of nonbelief started HERE.
The others are good questions—I’m assuming they are rhetorical, but I do want to stay in the marriage and would like to raise my children to be aware of trusted and proven tools of learning, universal truths, etc., without much about the supernatural debate at all, frankly. While perhaps difficult to do, this has struck me as the most reasonable and decent thing to do. I don’t want them to be “indoctrinated” atheists any more than I want them to be “indoctrinated” anything-elses.
When the time comes that they have the mental capacity and interest to pursue that question… let them pursue it. My hope for them is that they find their own answer that satisfies and is found with a reliable set of tools.
Thanks for that encouragement and for the comments in general.
Reminds me of a family friend of mine, the wife of the most religious scientist I know, an astrophysicist who has more books on Christianity than astrophysics. I’ve discussed religion with her a few times, and it seems that her primary motivation for believing is a conviction that people like her husband know what they’re talking about.
If you haven’t already, you might want to bring up the fact that other religions and denominations also have their intelligent, experienced supporters, and taking it as given that the supporters of any one religion know what they’re talking about means concluding that the supporters of every other religion don’t. You have to be able to step outside the faith to give everyone their fair shakes. If she’s motivated more by her stake in the community, it might move her somewhat to consider that other communities believe differently, and go through a similar song and dance with different doctrines at stake. It might help get her thinking “there are other communities I could be part of if I didn’t believe what I believe now.”
In cases like this, I think it’s better to find out what she expects, ideally something you don’t know about or something she doesn’t suspect you already know about, so that rather than justifying the data post hoc, she can take notice of what she would anticipate given her beliefs being true, and then find out whether reality agrees with that.
Since I was exposed to many believers’ views on Christianity well before I started researching the religion myself, I was quite surprised to find out what the old testament messianic prophesies actually entail. Not only did Jesus never fulfill most of them even by generous interpretations, he never claimed in life that he was going to fulfill many of them. The doctrine of the Second Coming actually arose out of attempts to square the scriptural requirements for the messiah with all the things Jesus didn’t accomplish; the messiah has to do them, and Jesus didn’t, so it must be that he’s going to do them when he comes back.
If you bring this up with your wife, you should wait for a time when she’s more receptive to it. It won’t make much difference for her to find out if she hasn’t already made herself aware that she expects otherwise.
True, and since widespread refutation of theism isn’t happening (or accepted), there are always Swinburnes, Plantingas, Kreefts, and WLCs to point to.
I actually brought this up last night. She could conceive of it being possible that had she been a different religion, she might be as passionate/convicted of that community compared to the current one, but she couldn’t bring herself to do so when I gave an example of a non-religious community with strong rituals and relationships. She said that it would have to be a community with a “purpose outside herself.”
Yes, probably a better approach than what I attempted.
Well, as you stated below, this is neatly sidestepped by the second coming/afterlife. As far as I know, all or most of the things on that list are said to be occurring at the second coming, or more how I have heard it, are fulfilled in heaven.
Indeed, or perhaps as nerzhin suggested, I should just refrain from talking about it at all.
Maybe if I pursue the activities in my “Edit/Update” section of the article above, particularly finishing off some of my reading list and writing my “story” out, it will have a greater impact on her than any direct confrontation/dialog. She’s stated that she doesn’t like all the “atheist blogs” I read and that I’m “unbalanced.” Perhaps were I to display willingness to read theological books, it would remove that objection… or it might reveal that the objection wasn’t real and that she’ll not be happy with my non-belief even if I fulfill such a requirement.