Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Relationships with religious people

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

My point? It's not true to say that teaching Objectivism is something that can't ever happen with your romantic partner. I knew very well getting into it that if I was misjudging her, I would be in for a world of hurt. (a world that I see you're familiar with, TomL) So it's not something one should do unless they are SURE they know what they're doing.

My sympathies that you had some trouble in the past, TomL. (very glad to see everything worked out for you!) But that doesn't make it impossible.

Well, to be fair, you didn't really teach Objectivism to her, but you learned it together. And that is a very exciting way to do it and I don't see any problem with it at all. I'm glad for the both of you and wish you the best success for the future :lol:

As for me, no sympathy is needed, but I appreciate the sentiment. It is impossible for an Objectivist to meet a non-Objectivist and convert them while having a romantic relationship with them, and that is the only case I intended to say this about. I think we've covered all the alternatives now, I wasn't expecting to hear a story of "learned it together" but it is exciting to hear :)

By the way, you may or may not have noticed the occasional post by "Pony Girl".. she is my wife. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's what people in most countries do when they're committed to each other.  Marriage isn't a one-way-ticket to some godforsaken desert, it's more like deciding to go on a vacation to a faraway country.  Yeah, there are some commitments involved, and if you decide at the last minute not to go or cut your vacation short you may lose some money, but what of it? 

Any concerns I might have had were answered when you answered my two questions.  Your happiness is not the same as anyone else's, so don't let anyone dictate the means to accomplish it.

One last bit: women tend to change over the course of their lives more then men do.  (Not all women, only most)  So, if you're worried about one little aspect of your future wife's character, it's probably not worth the trouble.  In ten years, you won't be able to remember why you were so worked up.

It's good to know that not everyone thinks I should break it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have good news...I just had a two hour philosophical conversation with my girlfriend, and she seems to fall in line with all of the values that I hold the most dear. I made sure to put it in terms that she would understand, given her limited knowledge of philosophy, and I tried my best not to brainwash her. She agrees with the principles of individualism and Capitalism, and rejects the notion of church involvement in the government (strange for a Catholic). I am a happy moose.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, you didn't really teach Objectivism to her, but you learned it together.  And that is a very exciting way to do it and I don't see any problem with it at all. I'm glad for the both of you and wish you the best success for the future :)

Thank you. You too: good premises! :)

As for the rest, I am pretty sure I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I empathize with your situation. My last boyfriend reminds me a lot of your fiance. Generally, he and I just agreed to disagree. I know you aren't seeking advice; however, I am great at providing my opinion...so, I won't spare you. If you truly care about her, your differences can be overlooked. But, obviously the fact that she does not share the same views as you do is important to you, otherwise you would not seek the opinion of others. Note that I stated that my last boyfriend and I had different views. Although he and I did not break up solely based upon the fact that he and I did not share the same philisophical or political views, it was not a strength in our relationship. Furthermore, it is difficult to live with somone who does not share your passions. Now, these are just my opinions; you and your wife-to-be will probably be very happy together. However, from my experiences, I have found it to be very difficult to sustain a long-term relationship with someone who is your polar opposite. But, what do I know, perhaps the colloquialisim is correct. Maybe opposites truly to attract. If so...I am seeking the wrong qualities in a relationship :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, he and I just agreed to disagree.

In my search for a romantic partner, this phrase became a pet-peeve of mine. If someone asked me to "agree to disagree" -- that was the end of it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my search for a romantic partner, this phrase became a pet-peeve of mine.  If someone asked me to "agree to disagree" -- that was the end of it.  :)

Yeah...that eventually was one of the key contributors to the unwraveling of our relationship as well. (Honestly, the boy was a pseudo-socialist Catholic and I am a Capitalist Athiest :worry: how could we not disagree!) But, I secretly love having someone to debate with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just ended a three-year relationship with the daughter of a pastor, I feel that I understand Moose's situation very well. Virtually everything he has said to describe his girlfriend applies exactly to this girl.

She is also a Christian of the apathetic variety. She goes to church only because her parents expect it, and she has very little serious interest in philosophy, politics, or any other intellectual endeavor.

For a long time we very rarely discussed her ideas, and not for my lack of trying. Whenever I attempted to discuss such things with her she became closed-off and defensive. She was afraid of the conflict of a disagreement, and she had little in the way of argument, rational or otherwise, to support her beliefs. In three years the only justification she ever provided for her belief in God was, to quote, "I believe it because I want to believe it."

Needless to say, I suggested that this is not a rational basis for one's view of existence. She admitted this, but still maintained that she was simply unable to reject her religious views because she could not conceive of any other way.

All of this certainly detracted from our relationship. I could never respect her intellectually as an equal for this refusal to think.

And yet we were in love. I do believe it is possible to genuinely value someone greatly despite these kinds of intellectual differences. I also believe that whatever we had was greatly diminished by such differences. It may have been love, but it was never enough to base a lifetime or a marriage on. It was primarily for these reasons that we eventually ended it. We had a good relationship, but it would not have worked in the long term.

I don't claim that this would be the case for all such relationships, but I do believe that it would always be a very serious obstacle. In my case, despite her refusal to apply her mind to her ideas, this girl is intelligent and relatively driven. Her religious beliefs are abstract formalities to her, and she has an implicitly scientific view of the world in most respects. I valued many qualities of hers on the sense of life level, and we simply had a lot of fun together. Maybe this is enough in some cases.

With regard to "teaching" her Objectivism, in the course of our relationship she read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and a small amount of the nonfiction. I was also eventually able to engage her in discussion of these ideas to some degree. Although I believe it did cause her to think more deeply than she had, and although she agreed vaguely with some of the political ideas, ultimately it didn't sink in. She simply lacked the desire to use her mind in any serious way.

As to Moose's situation, I'm afraid that I must agree that his announced intention to tell his children nothing about religion while accepting his wife's decision to religiously indoctrinate them does suggest that he does not take his own ideas seriously. He says he would insist that she teach them religion "in a manner that is not brainwashing." There is no such manner. Telling a child that religious ideas are true is brainwashing by definition. It is the deliberate destruction of a child's rational faculty.

One of the reasons I broke up with the aforementioned girl is that, despite being religious in only the most superficial sense, she wanted to send her future children to church. I would never even consider accepting such an atrocity. To an Objectivist, that prospect is sickening, as someone else suggested.

I do not believe that it is inherently immoral to raise children with a religious person, but it does require a very clear agreement on the religious parent's part to not teach the child religious ideas as truth in any way. To accept any other compromise or concession--to allow even a little bit of religious upbringing--is monstrous. You do not teach that "there is no god" as simply an alternative dogma, but you do teach that reason is the only source of knowledge. It is not possible for one parent to do this while the other teaches irrationalism.

To be charitable, perhaps Moose understands some of this, but it is not clear from his statements.

Edited by amagi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I believe it did cause her to think more deeply than she had, and although she agreed vaguely with some of the political ideas, ultimately it didn't sink in.  She simply lacked the desire to use her mind in any serious way.

To be more accurate, the desire isn't there because the need isn't there in her life for a philosophic shift of that magnitude.

When a person is acting on their implicit philosophy and they have some success to the degree that their overall impression is that it's working, then they aren't going to grasp a need to overhaul it. It is simply easier than having to face potentially very difficult and emotional philosophic revaluations.

In such a person it takes the catalyst of the loss of something of great important to them in order for them to bring the idea that "this isn't working" into the foreground enough for them to want to change.

This is why most new Objectivists are young. They don't have a life built on bad premises that they have to tear apart, and consequently have to throw away whatever is built on them, in order to change. People get married, have kids, and choose careers based on very bad premises, and if they see the reality of what of they have done to themselves, it can be devastating. I had an acquaintance who was explicitly aware of this fact, foresaw having to get divorced as a result of integrating Objectivism and stated to me "I don't want to know" -- and he was referring to knowing how to relate reality to values, because then he would be unable to evade it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In such a person it takes the catalyst of the loss of something of great important to them in order for them to bring the idea that "this isn't working" into the foreground enough for them to want to change.

This is why most new Objectivists are young. They don't have a life built on bad premises that they have to tear apart, and consequently have to throw away whatever is built on them, in order to change.

There was never a truer statement. This is what lead me to Objectivism. Even though when I change over I knew many people back here at home would be upset, mainly because I went from being a Catholic to an Atheist, it didn't stop me from changing, because I needed to change. Anybody interested I have a sort of short story, I say sort of because there isn't a plot really and I don't know what else to call it, that goes into my change and if anybody wants to read it just PM me and provide your email and I will send it. I have never had a fellow Objectivist read it and would be interested on one's take of it.

Edited by Richard Roark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Here is my 2 cents. When marrying a religeous person and having kids with them keep these things in mind.

They will want them in Church. They want to brainwash them as soon as possible. The Grandparents will want them in Church or saying prayers no matter what you say. Religeous Grandparents will not listen to what you say. Also people tend to get MORE mystical the older they get so things probably won't get better they will get worse.

I speak from experience!

Here is a question. What do you do if you are married already and you become a student of Objectivism but your spouse does not. Get divorced? What if you have kids? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I speak from experience!

Here is a question. What do you do if you are married already and you become a student of Objectivism but your spouse does not. Get divorced? What if you have kids?  :(

That's exactly what I was talking about. You're in a potentially devastating situation, and you know it. What are you supposed to do? You're supposed to think, resolve your premises as best you can, and choose your own future values. I hope there's noone who will try to tell you what to do specifically, but I'm sure someone probably will :/ There's a mountain of context you've left out of your question that you need to consider.

Whatever you decide, always remember that children are people too. They do have minds, and they do have volition. Just because someone is forced to go to church and listen to sermons and be subjected to guilt and second-handedness everyday (*cough*) doesn't mean they will grow up to be religious zombies -- they might turn out just fine (*cough* *cough*, pointing to self). It's also possible that you could get divorced, legally take full custody of the children, teach them Objectivism -- and they'd still wind up in church anyway, because that's what they want.

Volition trumps all environmental factors in a person's development. The environmental percepts are worthless until the child decides how to use them in his own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly the situation I face. I recently discussed in full my acceptance of Objectivism with my wife, who is a devout Christian. We have two children who are also religious.

We have agreed not to divorce right away. And, to her credit, she is trying to understand my philosophy and is not being hasty either.

We've had a few long discussions and it's amazing how they progress in a naturally linear fashion. She started by questioning metaphysics (although she didn't define it as such) we then moved into epistemology and, yesterday she asked me for a full explanation of the ethics ("Man*every man*is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life," Ayn Rand). That took some time.... I don't expect the discussion to move on to politics because we are in agreement in most areas.

On a side note: Having to explain Objectivism to someone with whom you are close is an excellent exercise in articulation and presentation. I've always been able to explain Objectivist thought on paper but I'm pleased to know that I have internalized to such a degree that verbalization is almost (but not quite yet) easy.

I don't know what the future holds for this marriage. I value her in many different aspects beyond our philosophical disagreement. She is incredibly rational in other areas of her life (she is a college math instructor) and she is goal-oriented.

For now, I have agreed to allow her to raise the children in a religious environment. I can't absolutely forbid it but I won't condone it. After all, they are her children as well and she has rights. If we divorced, she would likely retain primary custody and I would be in the same situation. She wants to go to counseling alone (with a Christian counselor) and will decide from there if she wants to stay married.

If anyone has thoughts on the matter, I'm open to discuss them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

("Man*every man*is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life," Ayn Rand).

Internalize that as much as possible, substitute "I" for "man". If choices are made beyond your control that affect your future (such as if she decides to divorce you), what goals are you going to pursue? What, specifically, is in your rational self-interest? What will you do the rest of your life? It is the application of this premise to your own life that you must focus on. As I heard myself early on when integrating Objectivism, "we've heard you talk the talk, now lets see you walk the walk."

I don't mean that you should dismiss the value others -- especially your children and your spouse -- have to you personally. I mean that you should embrace that value as measured against your life rather than as measured against sacrificing your life for their sake.

There is nothing wrong with thinking of yourself first, in fact that is required of you. But that doesn't mean you have to toss everyone else out the window, either. You have to fit them into your value system with yourself at the top, rather than them -- and you have to decide what that means and how to make decisions with regards to your time on this earth. It's yours, not mine or anyone else's to tell you what to do with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean that you should dismiss the value others -- especially your children and your spouse -- have to you personally. I mean that you should embrace that value as measured against your life rather than as measured against sacrificing your life for their sake.

There is nothing wrong with thinking of yourself first, in fact that is required of you. But that doesn't mean you have to toss everyone else out the window, either. You have to fit them into your value system with yourself at the top, rather than them -- and you have to decide what that means and how to make decisions with regards to your time on this earth. It's yours, not mine or anyone else's to tell you what to do with.

Tom: While I don't like the fact that she will raise the children in a religious context, it does not change my sense of happiness or goals. I can still live an efficacious life in any case. Also, I know that children raised in a religious environment can still use their volition to choose their own philosophy. I must balance my responsibilities as a parent with her right to teach her children according to her philosophy.

Ultimately, I cannot and will not force her to parent a certain way even pertaining to my kids — that would be a disvalue. Is it tough? Absolutely. But the result of living a rational, objective life with the freedom that implies is worth the price. And, while I don't hold this as some pie-in-sky hope, it's possible I can influence my wife to accept Objectivism. I know there is no danger of my accepting Christianity.

What's unique about my situation is that, while the conflict has been painful, I am now talking to my wife with an intellectual depth we've never known. Like many couples, we had always left philosophy on the back burner and never really shared our inner thoughts about these things. Now, although it is a debate, it's an invigorating experience because of the total intellectual honesty that's present. If you had told me 15 years ago, I would spend hours discussing metaphysics and epistemology with my wife, I would have scoffed: "Episte-what?" Then, I would have squawked: "Never."

Good premises to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the primary reason I think I need to make sure I find a woman who is an Objectivist as well. I don't want to face these issues and know that eventually any relationship with anybody who isn't at least an Atheist will fail. Sorry about what you are going through though, but I don't ever want to be in your position, it is bad enough with family and former friends, though not all of my family knows that I am an Atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

though not all of my family knows that I am an Atheist.

That in my experience is less of a big deal than you might think it is.

My grandfather was a Southern Baptist pastor for 30+ years. I was forced to go to church, listen to the passionate, emotional sermons, see the second-handed guilt being passed from person to person. I have 6 aunts & uncles on that side of my family, with many, many cousins and 2nd cousins. They are all Christians except for me (and one uncle who is an inconsistent Buddhist, but that's another story).

When I decided to tell my grandmother that I was an atheist (my grandfather died 20 years ago) I was expecting her to tell me I was going to hell, and to deride me for my evil ways.

What she actually did was say that it didn't matter and she'd pray for me anyway. I was shocked, but the truth did not injure her at all, and she even seemed grateful that I had told her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you decide, always remember that children are people too.  They do have minds, and they do have volition.  Just because someone is forced to go to church and listen to sermons and be subjected to guilt and second-handedness everyday (*cough*) doesn't mean they will grow up to be religious zombies -- they might turn out just fine (*cough* *cough*, pointing to self).  It's also possible that you could get divorced, legally take full custody of the children, teach them Objectivism -- and they'd still wind up in church anyway, because that's what they want.

Volition trumps all environmental factors in a person's development.  The environmental percepts are worthless until the child decides how to use them in his own mind.

True, and this is some consolation to someone who has already had children with a religious spouse before discovering a rational philosophy.

However, if anyone still entering into such a relationship were to use this as a justification for allowing a child to be raised in the church then they would be, in almost every conceivable context, despicable and evil. For anyone who takes ideas and reason seriously, this would be an enormous betrayal, not to mention a hideous example of child abuse.

Also remember that even though some independent individuals reject their childhood indoctrination entirely, they are the (probably very rare) exceptions. It's true that most people will emerge from even a serious church upbringing as the sort of casual Christians that are the norm today--that is, they won't take religion seriously. But it's also true that the vast majority will still consider themselves nominally religious.

And even if they don't, it's likely that they still will have absorbed countless, deadly false premises on every level of philosophy, and they will be burdened with a mountain of unresolved contradictions even if they become implicitly rational individuals.

With at least one rational parent it certainly might be easier to avoid that fate, but that parent would be competing against an institution whose entire purpose is arguably to systematically destroy a child's rational faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the primary reason I think I need to make sure I find a woman who is an Objectivist as well. I don't want to face these issues and know that eventually any relationship with anybody who isn't at least an Atheist will fail.

When I first started looking for romance after I decided to live as an Objectivist, it wasn't easy for me to see what I ought to be looking for. I wasn't yet experienced in many things I needed to know. For example, my skills at judging people were fairly weak since I had always tried NOT to judge people prior to Objectivism.

Anyway, I dated a few women with varying degrees of rationality (and one with a particular ability to lie that I hadn't fathomed possible). I was intent on "making" an Objectivist if I could just find the right sense of life. Ultimately I discovered, through trial and error, what the problems were with what I was trying to do.

So when I finally came to the realization of my error, I scratched out the word "potential" from in front of "Objectivist" at the top of my written list of requirements for a romantic partner. She would have to already be one, or it wasn't going to work.

Incidentally, most people who are atheist but not Objectivist have other problems. They are mostly very altruistic and proselytize both atheism and altruism, and deny that being an atheist makes them "immoral" (in the sense that "morality" has come to be synonymous with "altruism"). Ugh.

Some atheists are also not really atheist (what I call a "weak" atheist) .. they don't believe in god(s), but they still believe in the supernatural. Just a stone's throw from worshipping at mass...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANYONE who is not an Objectivist has problems, singling out atheists is rather unfair don't you think?

I wasn't the one who did so. Richard Roark implied that a woman who was "at least" an atheist might be "good enough". I meant my remarks about atheists to be taken in that context.

I've not seen any connection between being an non-Objectivist atheist and being an altruist. If you have, please supply the evidence for it.

I'm speaking from personal experience and interact with non-Objectivist atheists in general. If you want at least one small piece of evidence, observe the home page http://www.atheists.org/ -- the paragraphs in quotes.

  Personally, I've been an atheist all my life, but only an Objectivist for the last two years or so and I was NEVER an altruist.  For most of that time I was sort of an amoralist (on the grounds that I could see no rational basis for morality), which eventually lead into a sort of a distorted version of selfishness (one based on the false premise that other people were inheirently irrational).

I've heard that before, and its a relatively common thing among Objectivists, but not so common among atheists.

Atheism's only requirement is a lack of a particular belief (i.e. the belief that one or more gods exist), and as such, few blanket statements about all atheists are possible.

Since everyone lacks a belief in one god or another (those that believe in the Christian god do not believe in Allah, etc) then by that definition everyone is an atheist. The only theists would be those that believe in all god(s).

I realize that no statement I make applies to all atheists, everywhere, nor did I intend any such implication. I was making a statement about atheists in general in Western culture.

Incidentally, most people who are atheist but not Objectivist have other problems

Did you miss the word "most" in that?

To illustrate this point - consider that Buddhists and Objectivists are both groups of atheists, and yet, what can we say they have in common?  The two groups do not share any logically positive philosophical statements as far as I can tell.  They differ on such basic ideas as the Laws of Logic.

That's why I make a distinct between a strong atheist (no such thing as supernatural) and a weak atheist like a Buddhist, who believes in something supernatural, even if it isn't god(s).

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...