Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Relationships with religious people

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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!

An eloquent example of a Christian apatheist is the "churchgoer", Anne Lamott. (ref: Travelling Mercies, "Why I Make Sam Go to Church".) For her, being a churchgoer means attending church regardless of what she believes -- or even as a statement that belief is not what is important.

Apatheists and skeptics need some ethical grounding. And church offers it.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just started dating a Catholic college student and this thread was very helpful. Even before the first date she knew I was an atheist and we haven't talked about it much since (about 2 weeks). Only thing that came up was that her parents shouldn't know (yet), and what business is it of their's anyways?

I found that's it's nice to talk about things other than politics and philosophy for a change, although she's into these subjects as well. We've already discussed our different point of view in abstaining from sexual activity and she liked my answer that it was in my self-interest to do so until I fall in love with someone (and then explained "love").

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.

Individualism, Capitalism, and the separation of church and state are important principles---in ethics and politics. Politics depends on ethcis, and both depends on epistemology and metaphysics. If you agree (for now) on your derivative values, but have not identified your fundamentals, you could be in for a surprise.

At base, if you are committed to reason and to reality, you are at odds with Catholic dogma. There is only one reality. (Not two!) Reason is competent to know it. This commitment to reason and reality is more fundamental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately even though you have foud this girl, you will eventually be faced with the challenges of several things that this girl would want from you. First is a comporomise more likely then not, will be asking you to become a Catholic, it will eventually happen. You see I have encountered this idea when talking to a couple of friends in college about a girl i was interested in who was catholic. Well being that I am an Objectivist, thus an Atheist, I said that this could be a problem and what was spouted off to me was, Well there is always some compromise in love. This statement implied that I would have to revert back to Catholicism, but also goes even deeper than this. You see it goes deeper because in stating this desire to convert you, the person isn't interested in discovering who you are and what you value. They are interested in changing you. Love should never be about changing the person you are attracted to, but discovering why you were attracted to the person in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see it goes deeper because in stating this desire to convert you, the person isn't interested in discovering who you are and what you value. They are interested in changing you. Love should never be about changing the person you are attracted to, but discovering why you were attracted to the person in the first place.

Exactly. Nor would I seek to 'convert' my partner to Objectivism (if that is possible), although I'd shed light to certain aspects of the philosophy.

Interestingly, I always thought Jewish women would be the best matches for me in terms of philosophy and values. After dating (and having relationships with) several Jewish women, I just couldn't find a match. Now my new partner and I have dated about 2 weeks and it feels like we've been together much longer. Perhaps it's may be because I was raised Catholic and still respect some of the Catholic values? I don't know.

But, like in all matters, I look at the individual. It's difficult and perhaps wrong to lump all Jews or Catholics into a collective, although they share some factual traits that are hard to ignore (the nature of their religions, for instance).

I've been thinking about whether or not it would be a betrayal of my values to be married in a church or to raise my children Jewish/Catholic/etc. I believe it would be quite difficult to find an O'ist mate, so finding someone that values you for the person you are (and not if you believe in God or not) is of prime importance. In all actually, at least someone who is grounded in some type of religious morality is better than a nihilist who doesn't believe in God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all actually, at least someone who is grounded in some type of religious morality is better than a nihilist who doesn't believe in God.

While this is true, you shouldn't love someone because they are better than the alternitives. You should love them because they are perfect for you. If you had to choose between three women, but you didn't love any of them, would you choose the one who is the best of the three? Or would you pass and find someone who truly makes you happy? Personally, I would, and have, passed.

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is true, you shouldn't love someone because they are better than the alternitives. You should love them because they are perfect for you. If you had to choose between three women, but you didn't love any of them, would you choose the one who is the best of the three? Or would you pass and find someone who truly makes you happy? Personally, I would, and have, passed.

Zak

Excellant advice. I also passed. Then I found the love of my life. HOLD OUT, PEOPLE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what web forums are for.. not romantic partners :thumbsup:

Maybe, but having someone who challenges you is important, as well. My wife and I have different political views, and I respect hers, and she respects mine, but we make sure we keep each other in line, by being able to back up what we say. I know, for me, that she keeps me thinking. And that's an important aspect of her, that I greatly value. She doesn't need to agree with me, she just needs to respect what I think. And I do the same for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it would be quite difficult to find an O'ist mate, so finding someone that values you for the person you are (and not if you believe in God or not) is of prime importance.

I to have thought and know it is going to be difficult to find an Objectivist mate, but I have decided that this is the only woman I will accept and try to find for myself. There will be no if ands or buts about this topic. It is the primary issue for me. I have worked through my head all the imaginary situations with religious people and know that regardless of how much they may try to respect my view eventually they will turn on me, trying to get me to go to church or trying to convert me. You must remember a religion is a person's focus if they are truly a religious person. Also, even though I am unsure if I want kids yet, I know for damn sure that I don't want them being taught and brainwashed in a religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it would be quite difficult to find an O'ist mate, so finding someone that values you for the person you are (and not if you believe in God or not) is of prime importance.

But "who you are", if you're an Objectivist, is "someone who doesn't believe in God". That's part of your identity, and if she doesn't value that part, then she doesn't value all of you. Just bits and pieces.

How many bits and pieces are enough? What's your threshold? She has to value 90% of you? 80% 50%?

What if you later meet someone that values 100% of you?

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TomL hit the nail right on the head. I've personally tried a relationship with a religious person (before I fully understood the application of the trader principle to romantic relationships), so maybe I can add my two cents.

Somehow, this person I had dated kept their religious mysticism compartmentalized, isolated, boxed in from the rest of her mind's activity. She was an engineer, and pretty good at it. She worshiped competence in living life successfully. Both of these facts presupposed her valuing of reason, which she managed to do despite her belief in God (which is the value of a form of anti-reason).

The relationship didn't last very long because eventually the topic of religion and God crept in. At the time, I remember thinking that I could "teach" this person to move away from faith, especially by reasoned argument and by pointing to how she lived the rest of her life. This failed; she adamantly clung to her religious beliefs, eventually making the relationship unpleasant for the both of us (she was actually the one to pull the plug).

The fact is that faith in God is a trait rooted in the absence of reason, and so long as a person clings to this faith, they could not possibly value an Objectivist's wish to apply reason 100% of the time to the entirety of his life.

My advice, in general, is to attempt to assess the degree to which a potential partner is a person of faith. Sometimes people aren't really "faithful," even though they profess to be. However, if you discover a deep-rooted or even mildly-serious faith in God, then you will likely find that trading with this person will not bring equal value to you. Remember, if one wishes to engage in a romantic relationship, one should <i>only</i> be looking for an equal, not someone who could not possibily live up to you, nor someone <i>you</i> could not possibily live up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice, in general, is to attempt to assess the degree to which a potential partner is a person of faith.  Sometimes people aren't really "faithful," even though they profess to be.  ...

Those who profess faith and aren't really faithful are inconsistent. This reflects a lack of integration. It can reflect a lack of integrity. (It can also be honest -- as in the case of someone who is looking for an alternative to skepticism but hasn't identified one.) But this is still a problem.

If the person sees themselves as a person of faith, and if you don't value faith, then you really are asking them to change. You're either asking them to change the fact that they're a person of faith, or youre asking them to change the way they see themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you later meet someone that values 100% of you?

Certainly, and that person would earn my love and we'd be happily married together. Please do not think for a second that I do not have an ideal, because I do. But, I'm also trying to be realistic to the effect that there aren't any available female Objectivists between the ages of 18-25 in my area. If I were looking for that ideal right now I believe I'd be quite lonely and frustrated that I don't have a partner.

But, I disagree to the effect that as a student of Objectivism (I'm not quite there yet) that I cannot fall in love with someone who believes in God. My mother, for instance, believes in God yet she loves me with all her heart and would certainly lay down her life for my sister and I if need be (but, lets not talk of emergencies). I confide in her that I am an atheist and share Objectivism with her (she's read Atlas Shrugged at my request) and she doesn't love me any more or any less - honestly, she's seen the power of Objectivism because before I learned of it I was in a horrific mental state dealing with depression and chronic drinking problems. Last week she cryed tears of joy saying that I've been so happy, that I've been beaming for the first time in my life since I've met my girlfriend - and my practice of Objectivism has partally been the reason for this. I believe I can find the same thing in a life-partner, in a wife.

My girlfriend and I actually had our first disagreement today to do with philosophy. A friend asked her to drive him to a job interview, but she had to work on a presentation that was due in 5 hours. She wrangled over the choice: whether to drive her friend to the interview or work an extra hour on the presentation. Of course, I told her to be selfish and do what she believed was in her self-interest. This seemed to puzzle her.. "put myself ahead of others?" she asked, and I firmly said "yes". Even though she felt guilty at first for not driving her friend, she eventually became more comfortable with her decision.

She said something to the effect of, "I've always put others ahead of myself. I've never been able to say 'no' to anyone before. This is the first time I've ever done it". I then held her hand and her that I would be the first person she could try it with. I told her to always put herself ahead of me. I went on to say, "How does it feel that I have complete joy when I'm around you and that every second we are together I'm selfishly happy? That nothing I do for you is out of duty or obligation, but rather out of total selfishness. That I never have to sacrifice my values because you're worth it in my eyes and I cherish every second of our time together." She seems pretty moved by this.

Eventually, her friend called her and said that he got to the interview and got the job. She got a B+ on the presentation and everyone appeared to benefit from her selfish action. I told her that I would have been disappointed if she didn't commit the selfish act, if she didn't place herself and her self-interest over and above the interest of others. It was an interesting test early in the relationship to see to what effect my philosophical views can have on others.

I've always thought that ethics is probably the best way to introduce someone to Objectivism. Politics is too controversial, especially if they aren't of the L-F mindset. Metaphysics? A world without God may seen unbearable and barren. Epistemology? Seems too difficult to understand, since even I have a difficult time with it. Ethics, though, you can easily integrate into your life. You have definite control over your actions and ethics can be applied and their effects can actually be observed. It was the understanding of the Objectivist ethics that changed my life the most, and then everything else followed.

My girlfriend (albeit for a short time), has accepted the fact that I am an atheist, and I've given her an introduction to Objectivist ethics and metaphysics already. She appears to be interested and has accepted that this is the person I am and that she will not change me. The common perception is that atheism is evil, nothingness and desolate.. that only the worst of the immoral beings on Earth cannot believe in God. From the first date we had and onward, I've focused on minimizing the atheistic element of Objectivism, but rather have expanded on it's good qualities. I have even created a kind of metaphor (which I haven't used yet) that our "brand" of atheism is "white atheism", that in essence we believe in Nature, truth and the goodness in man. "Black atheism" is the nihilistic kind, where nothing exists and men are evil beings. Philosophically, I'm not quite sure about the metaphor (perhaps someone can critique it for me) but I think it's helpful in discerning Objectivism from other atheistic philosophies.

To sum things up, I am not getting married tomorrow and there is the possibility that the relationship in the end will not work out. But, I remind myself that only a year ago I discovered Objectivism for the first time. I was myself an altruist, a person who prayed to God every night asking Him to give forgiveness to those who have sinned and who violated me. I prayed for friends and family members that did evil things, hoping that God would hear my pleas in their favor. I was taught through Catholic school and CCD that selfishness is wrong and that we must sacrifice to God and others. Only after did I discover Ayn Rand did I realize what I've been taught and the horrific psychological impact it had on me. It's no coincidence that my recovery from severe depression and alcoholism began with my discovery of philosophy and rejection of Christianity and God.

Like I said, I'm not out to convert my girlfriend. I will introduce her to the Objectivist ethics and see how she reacts to them. I know Catholicism, so I can illustrate how our ethics contrast and why rational egoism is superior to self-sacrifice. She is truly a wonderful person; she has ambition, intellect, and she's a beautiful human being. I already respect these values, as she sees the same in me. Perhaps she doesn't understand, but she values my intellect, my drive and my attractiveness (not to be boastful). Of the relationships I've been in this is the first since discovering Objectivism and I can already feel the beauty of honest, selfish desire for another woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not think for a second that I do not have an ideal, because I do.  But, I'm also trying to be realistic to the effect that there aren't any available female Objectivists between the ages of 18-25 in my area.

Did John Galt have a relationship with a woman "in his area" before Dagny just because she was far away and he was lonely? She was, and he was... but what did he do? Why?

You are suffering from an ideal/practical false dichotomy. I would suggest re-reading (if you haven't already) chapter 9 of OPAR, and apply that to your thinking here.

What one seeks in a romantic relationship is not a range-of-the-moment, fleeting infatuation, but love of an individual, which is something that lasts a lifetime. If there is an ideal that must be adhered to, then it must be adhered to, consistently -- or you will ultimately fail. It is also wrong for you to take up someone's time on this earth (hers, not to mention yours) when you are already well aware of the very real possibility of failure of the relationship. She could be doing something else more productive, depending on how she chooses her own values. You should at least advise her on what you estimate your chances for a lifetime together are. If you don't know -- you shouldn't be in a romantic relationship to begin with.

I would also point out that "in my area" is a false limitation and trap you are setting for yourself. Also, a mother's love for a child is not the same as romantic love. It is not the value of herself/her own values she sees in you, but her own fullfillment as a woman qua woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did John Galt have a relationship with a woman "in his area" before Dagny just because she was far away and he was lonely?  She was, and he was... but what did he do?  Why?

You are suffering from an ideal/practical false dichotomy.  I would suggest re-reading (if you haven't already) chapter 9 of OPAR, and apply that to your thinking here.

What one seeks in a romantic relationship is not a range-of-the-moment, fleeting infatuation, but love of an individual, which is something that lasts a lifetime.  If there is an ideal that must be adhered to, then it must be adhered to, consistently -- or you will ultimately fail.  It is also wrong for you to take up someone's time on this earth (hers, not to mention yours) when you are already well aware of the very real possibility of failure of the relationship.  She could be doing something else more productive, depending on how she chooses her own values.  You should at least advise her on what you estimate your chances for a lifetime together are.  If you don't know -- you shouldn't be in a romantic relationship to begin with. 

I would also point out that "in my area" is a false limitation and trap you are setting for yourself.  Also, a mother's love for a child is not the same as romantic love.  It is not the value of herself/her own values she sees in you, but her own fullfillment as a woman qua woman.

Tom, THANK YOU. I am quoting you in full here because every word of what you said bears repeating. I am glad that I am not alone in advocating this very important truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also point out that "in my area" is a false limitation and trap you are setting for yourself.

I have learned from Tom that this isn't important. True in many cases it is difficult to find somebody in your said area, but should this stop you for trying to find somebody you want to be with and know that you will be 100% happy with her and she with you. To this I say no, there are many ways to find other Objectivist that live elsewhere. If a romantic relationship starts up with one not in my area so be it and if she is the one, then a decision will have to made about what to do about this when that time comes. Yet, to give up completely because one "isn't in your area" is to say the least irrational.

Edited by Richard Roark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add that I don't even think it's absolutely necessary for an Objectivist to limit themselves strictly to other Objectivists. Of course, seeking out other Objectivists does weed out a lot of people who would be bad choices. What's really important, to me anyway, is finding someone who has a sense of life that matches your own and who shares many of your values, regardless of whether that person has studied Ayn Rand and/or agrees with every aspect of her philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add that I don't even think it's absolutely necessary for an Objectivist to limit themselves strictly to other Objectivists. Of course, seeking out other Objectivists does weed out a lot of people who would be bad choices. What's really important, to me anyway, is finding someone who has a sense of life that matches your own and who shares many of your values, regardless of whether that person has studied Ayn Rand and/or agrees with every aspect of her philosophy.

No, that is not necessary on the first date. But it must be in your opinion POSSIBLE that the other person WILL become an Objectvist. If this is ever "impossible" in your opinion, then the relationship must be ended. It is, of course, more complex than this, but that's my attempt at summarization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, although not completely. I would never consider a serious relationship with anyone who was not at least open to learning about Objectivism, but I certainly wouldn't end a relationship because the person I loved disagreed Miss Rand on some minor issues; there are many more important things to worry about in a spouse than whether or not they agree that conceptualization occurs only in humans, or that Naturalism in art is objectively inferior to Romanticism. (And, if a person disagreed with either of these two things, I don't think they could properly be called an Objectivist, in the sense that Miss Rand would have approved of.)

If an Objectivist truly loves someone, it will be a (proper) response to that persons sense of life, values, and (implicit) philosophy. If you personally chose not to enter into a long-term relationship with a non-Objectivist, then that's fine - for you. All I'm trying to say is that being an Objectivist does not require that you have a spouse who is also an Objectivist. What it does require is that you chose your spouse based on the fact that they share a number of objectively chosen values, and have a sense of life you enjoy and admire.

As a final note, I'll add that if they share enough of your values to be an objectively chosen spouse, they'll probably be skirting pretty near being an Objectivist, regardles of whether or not the understand and agree with the entire philsophy, which is the only way Miss Rand approved of the term "Objectivist" being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a final note, I'll add that if they share enough of your values to be an objectively chosen spouse, they'll probably be skirting pretty near being an Objectivist

... and we've come full circle. How many values are enough, exactly? 90%? 50%?

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However many you (rationally) decide are enough to ensure your own long-term happiness.

There really is no one-size-fits-all answer here. Some values that rank very high on your list may be worth three or four (or more) of your lesser values. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves how many and which values are enough. Whether the values they are enough is something that requires a bit of testing. This is part of the reason it's a good idea to have a lengthy relationship before getting married. I think it's also a good idea to live together before marrying as well, because there are some things you really can't understand about people until you're able to observe them that closely.

Of course, mistakes do get made, or values change, which is why we have divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However many you (rationally) decide are enough to ensure your own long-term happiness.

You are of course describing "the way things are", not "the way things should be". This very rationalistic conclusion is why the divorce rate is as high as it is, and why most people never find happiness in marriage even if they stay together.

" According to this idea, every man faces a basic alternative: to dedicate himself to the good, the right, the noble, to be an ''idealist,'' in which case he must be unworldly, unrealistic, doomed to defeat -- or to pursue success, prudence, that which works, to be a ''realist'', in which case he must dispense with ideals, absolutes, moral principles... The alternative is: be good without earthly purpose, or seek ends while ignoring the necessary means. In other words: commit yourself to virtues or to values--to causes or effects -- to ethics or to life." -- Dr. Peikoff in OPAR, page 327 (paperback).

That is what you are doing. You realize that 100% of values are the ideal, and then you purposely seek less than that out of the idea that its "impractical" to seek 100% agreement. Is 100% moral value agreement between two human beings really the same thing as a perpetual motion machine? i.e. Impossible in this universe? Because then you'd be right.

I, a happily married man, submit that you are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that you and your wife agree on everything 100%? Or just 100% of your values? I find either prospect incredibly hard to believe. Two people sharing 100% of the same values would require contexts of knowledge that were 100% identical.

I'm not rationalizing at all. What I'm saying is that it's not necessary for two people to share ALL of the same values to have a happy and fulfilling marriage. Each of us has certain key values we look for in a mate that are, in fact, absolutely necessary. For instance, I require a mate who values health & fitness, financial stability, ideas, sex, along with, of course, reason, purpose and self-esteem. But there are other values that aren't so important. For instance, I value science-fiction literature. Is it necessary that a potential wife values science-fiction? No.

As an Objectivist, I seek out mates who meet 100% of certain values, but not all the values I hold. I don't think I'd care to live with a female me; that would make life dull. Perhaps this is because I do enjoy a good argument!

Do I seek moral perfection? Yes. Are there circumstances under which I would forgive a moral transgression? Yes, provided steps were taken to correct it. Is it necessary for a person to be an Objectivist to act morally and hold the values required to share a life with me? No, of course not.

I never indicated anywhere that I thought the ideal was someone holding 100% of my values. To rephrase a little from above, the ideal woman will hold 100% of certain values (which could also be said as holding some of the same values as me), but won't necessarily value everything that I value.

Ayn Rand presented Howard Roark as the ideal man, but at the time _The Fountainhead_ was published, Objectivism hadn't even been fully developed yet, so how could Howard Roark be considered an Objectivist? Yet, he was the ideal man. This means that the ideal woman doesn't necessarily have to be an Objectivist, which is the point I was trying to make.

(I believe the topic of whether or not Howard Roark is an Objectivist was covered on this forum several months ago.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, perhaps your confusion arises in the difference between morally required values and OPTIONAL values. I disagree with your assertion that a proper Objectivist can and should choose a spouse that they know will never accept the morally required values of Objectivism. TomL has already illustrated this rather nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that my wife and I are in complete moral agreement. Wide abstractions do not require the same contexts of knowledge, otherwise we would not all be able to decide that "honesty is virtuous", for example. Or that there is, in reality, no mind/body dichotomy (and what that means we ought to do).

It is necessary for two people to share ALL of the same moral values to have the happiest and most fullfulling marriage possible on earth -- anything less is by definition a compromise of the ideal.

There are, of course, optional values -- those of no moral consequence. For example, I value a good tennis match, my wife does not. There is no moral consequence to this particular value, so it is of no consequence. My favorite clothing color is blue, my wife's is red. Again, not of moral significance.

You are on the right track. Abstract what you are saying one more level, and you've got it. The way to decide if a particular value is "key" or not is to ask: Is it of moral consequence? If the answer is "yes", then it is key.

Incidentally, we both had written check-lists of values we sought. Mine had categories broken down into "required" and "optional" values. The test I used to determine which category a value belonged in was: "Would I gain/lose respect for the person if they had/lacked this value?" If the answer was "yes", it was placed in the "required" category. I evaded nothing of moral significance that I could come up with on the basis that there were "more important" values already on the list. It was all or nothing, and I got what I was looking for. :)

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...