Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Well 44 years ago there wasn't the choice of places to get married that there are now. Weddings in church were much more the norm that they are today.

---

I'd have thought unbelieving church weddings were much more the norm now than then, given the proportionate reduction in the number of self identifying Christians.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think some basic non-secular definitions of faithfulness and commitment within a relationship are mutual exclusivity as sexual partners (now, I know that some polyamorous folks might object to that, but I think there's also some parallel train of thought within that way of thinking that assumes some degree of boundaries regarding intimacy with persons outside one's circle, so to speak); mutual respect and care on an ongoing basis, including in cases where one partner suffers a medical crisis or other issue; mutual emotional support both within the household and when engaging with the outside world -- in other words, not disparaging or shaming or making fun of one's partner; presenting as a united front.

I don't think those things extend to demanding that one's partner maintain the same belief system forever and ever, amen, or share the same political ideology, or share the same mindset on any number of things. For one thing, that's not within the power of one person to control in another (and if s/he thinks it is, s/he is delusional); and it's not reasonable. I'm not the same person now that I was 30 or 20 or 10 or even 5 years ago. I think I've changed a lot in the context of being in a committed relationship -- that indeed the relationship itself changes us both over time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Since I've become a Christian, one of the things I've realised is that Registrars may legalise and Churches may solemnise, but essentially people marry each other. Without commitment, there is no marriage. Folks can go through the form "with their fingers crossed" or because "it's the done thing". Neither of those amounts to much unless you mean what you say.

And as I indicated earlier, learning to live with the promises you made, discovering the full meaning of them, is part of the adventure. The time of our lives.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Since I've become a Christian, one of the things I've realised is that Registrars may legalise and Churches may solemnise, but essentially people marry each other. Without commitment, there is no marriage. Folks can go through the form "with their fingers crossed" or because "it's the done thing". Neither of those amounts to much unless you mean what you say.

And as I indicated earlier, learning to live with the promises you made, discovering the full meaning of them, is part of the adventure. The time of our lives.

---

Now that I'd agree with.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As gently as I can say it, cliffdweller, seeing the rightness of an observation doesn't make it easier to live it out. It reads easier than it lives.

Plus this.

I'm not sure it's in keeping with the spirit of having this thread in Purg to inquire too closely about another Shipmate's consistency or integrity. It's not a C3 thing when someone has put personal evidence out there (that's one of the reasons why we advise caution about how much we say about ourselves and our lives on public boards) but these can be delicate and painful personal issues. None of us is wholly consistent.

I'm posting this with my Host hat off, responding as a Shipmate. Hope it's helpful. I'm sure you catch my drift.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Now that I'd agree with.

---

As gently as I can say this, let me ask: really? Because I'm not sure we're seeing that here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

a) Marriage (and relationships) are between people.
b) They don't work if there isn't commitment.

The last word means many different things to many different people and, I would submit will generally be more than just not dallying with one's secretary as LutheranChick has suggested.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I'm assuming you mean secular rather than non-secular? I'd also be interested in why you think sexual intimacy should be treated specially as the unique point in which relationships sacrifice freedom for security, and why that alone is assumed not to be going to change?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

---

Well, I'm not sure how "unique" I think sexual fidelity is vis-a-vis other kinds of faithfulness, except that I think it can bring especially messy, potentially devastating complications into a relationship ("surprise" children outside the marriage -- see the current trial of former Presidential candidate John Edwards for a timely example of that; STDs; the lack of trust issue inherent in sneaking behind one's spouse's back for sexual relations with other people) -- to me that's a whole 'nother level of trust/commitment problem than, say, one spouse having a midlife crisis and deciding to change political parties or switch from Christianity to Buddhism or to become a vegetarian.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
L*R:

quote:

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work...

---

I sympathize, Bartolomeo; you were in a pretty untenable position. But the question is: Did your veto work? Someone who went harebrained like your spouse did is not going to sit down nicely and say, "Honey, it's occurred to me "that the church is a fundamentally pagan and evil institution that should be destroyed, by force if necessary". Before I adopt that belief, I thought I'd run it by you for approval. What do you think?"

If the belief has not solidified, you might have a chance of persuasion. But unless part of the new belief were total submission to their spouse's will, there would be no power of veto. You could stand by your beliefs, come what may, but that still would not constitute a veto of your partner's thoughts. There could be only pained acceptance, compromise (maybe), constant quarreling, a combination of the above, or a parting of ways. Or...?

No, it wasn't fair. But if someone is of the temperament to adopt extreme opinions, any reasonable prior arrangement for discussion would be dust in the wind.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Bartolomeo:

quote:

---

In similar fashion, if the marriage began with the premise of an intellectual atheist and an inactive Christian respecting each others' differences, well, any significant move away from the center of that is going to be disruptive, and it isn't fair (IMO) for one spouse to make such a change unilaterally and insist that the other just accept it.

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work; marriage shouldn't be the thought police.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Ultimately that marriage ended in divorce after my spouse told me that Christ himself had appeared to her in a vision and told her to leave me and pursue a life of chastity. She moved out several days later.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose the evidence suggests, strongly, that 'forsaking all others' is 'honoured more in the breech than in the observance'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Ultimately that marriage ended in divorce after my spouse told me that Christ himself had appeared to her in a vision and told her to leave me and pursue a life of chastity. She moved out several days later.

I am now happily married to someone else.

I see this as a positive outcome.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose the evidence suggests, strongly, that 'forsaking all others' is 'honoured more in the breech than in the observance'.

---

What evidence exactly?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Bartolomeo:

quote:

---

In similar fashion, if the marriage began with the premise of an intellectual atheist and an inactive Christian respecting each others' differences, well, any significant move away from the center of that is going to be disruptive, and it isn't fair (IMO) for one spouse to make such a change unilaterally and insist that the other just accept it.

---

What I can't understand is why someone would insist on a veto on a spouse's new beliefs or opinions. That seems unfair and frankly unlikely to work; marriage shouldn't be the thought police.

---

I think there's a line crossed when the new beliefs and opinions reject or trivialize the other spouse and their beliefs. The problem isn't "I believe in God," it's "people who don't believe what I believe are going straight to hell, and you, my dear, are first among them unless you repent."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

One definition would be a follower of scientism - as distinct from science. Scientism is a philosophy where you believe science is the only real source of knowledge, and anything outside of the laboratory should be dismissed as superstition.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

One definition would be a follower of scientism - as distinct from science. Scientism is a philosophy where you believe science is the only real source of knowledge, and anything outside of the laboratory should be dismissed as superstition.

---

Is that the same as e.g. logical positivism or indeed as scientific empiricism? Also does that imply scientism precludes theism or agnosticism?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...although I'm still of the opinion that this thread is most likely an academic exercise rather than a real problem between two real people in a real marriage. I could be wrong, but I know where I'd put my money!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
That my personal definition of commitment includes something that could be poetically described as "Thou shalt have no Gods before me."?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...although I'm still of the opinion that this thread is most likely an academic exercise rather than a real problem between two real people in a real marriage. I could be wrong, but I know where I'd put my money!

---

Unfortunately if that were true then I, my wife and several of our friends would not be as upset as we all are. Although I suppose in one sense you could say ours was a marriage between two academics, we're real provided anything else is.

Can I ask what you find so incredible? That my personal definition of commitment includes something that could be poetically described as "Thou shalt have no Gods before me."?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
"No other gods before me"? That's a recipe for disaster. You can't insist on being #1. Relationships work when each person puts the other first, but you can't demand that - it has to be a gift.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you really want your spouse thinking of you as a "god"-- however you might define that??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Really, it's two reasons

1) Why would an unbeliever air out all his dirty laundry in a christian forum, where most of the people don't even speak the same language as him (metaphorically I mean)?

2) You write in a cool detached way as if it's happining to someone else, and you're the psychologist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Really, it's two reasons

1) Why would an unbeliever air out all his dirty laundry in a christian forum, where most of the people don't even speak the same language as him (metaphorically I mean)?

2) You write in a cool detached way as if it's happining to someone else, and you're the psychologist.

---

1) I'm not looking for validation here (that's what my friends give me) and enjoy polite disputation. Just like everyone else I think my laudry is cleaner than other peoples, plus I'm apparently learning a lot of new words for what other groups of people would call me. Although I agree that language is a problem. Practically, not just metaphorically. (E.g. when believers talk of a personal god it always puts me in mind of personal pizzas).
2) That's probably a side effect of my training (in hard science/mathematics, not medicine).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, sorry but you wanted me to be frank. There's a third:

3) It sounds an awful lot like role playing: "Let's pretend I'm an atheist spouse whose wife has suddenly got religion, and doesn't know how to handle it."

You'd then study with fascination the sort of responses you got from various shades of christians. You'd poke a stick at them sometimes to provoke them into revealing how their thought processes worked.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:
Would someone please be kind enough to define "intellectual atheism" for me? It's not a modifier I've seen used before in this context and I suspect the distinction that springs to my mind (intellectual vs. popular) isn't the one intended.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
But there still isn't a veto. There is persuasion and compromise, and then things might work out. Or there is no persuasion. Then someone stays and is unhappy, or someone flounces.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I would define "intellectual atheism" as a personal conviction that belief in God (or multiple gods or some other higher power) is not only factually wrong but something that actively undermines the superior moral system that is purely a product of logic and reason....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Which begs the question, how does any sort of moral system (let alone one which is "superior") derive from logic and reason?

---

If you're really interested in my personal opinions then:

i) No system of logic alone is going to derive a moral code or system of ethics (whether there is a difference between the two is another question).
ii) Given a couple of extra axioms (e.g. the Golden Rule) then, depending on the axioms, it's either possible or trivial, but being axiomatic these starting conditions are of course not in themselves logical. Indeed portions of many religious works consist of attempting to logically extend the axioms assumed provided by their higher power into a useful moral code.
iii) In this sense only truly rational philosophy of live is an absolute agnosticism (even as to whether life itself exists) that doesn't really provide any useful message as to what to do in any particular situation.
iv) No follower of a coherent philosophy of life ever believes it to be unreasonable.

---

Well... I did ask!

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but it sure doesn't sound much like "hard science/maths" to me!

---

In that case you should really read up on eg. Euclidean geometry. It requires five axioms to be held true to be able to then logically construct most of what people innately hold to be true about shapes. Or you could try Russell's Principia Mathematica but that takes many tens of pages to reach 1+1=2.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - so it sounds like the supposed origins of religion/morals/ethics (which I would have thought of as a "soft" science) actually overlaps into "hard" science/maths, yes?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - so it sounds like the supposed origins of religion/morals/ethics (which I would have thought of as a "soft" science) actually overlaps into "hard" science/maths, yes?

---

I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Formal logic is certainly a prime mover in both philosophy and mathematics, although of course the context is slightly different. Previously the gap between philosopher and natural philosopher hasn't always been as large as is assumed today. Pythagoras combined a secret mystic school of mathematics with a religion based on beans. Or look at Aristotle, who seems to have had fans from both sides of the cultural divide, although both groups now see his opinions as outdated or wrong.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not really making any point, just trying to establish a relationship between (a) your answer to how any sort of moral system derives from logic and reason, and (b) the subjects you read at university.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by E to the i pi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not really making any point, just trying to establish a relationship between (a) your answer to how any sort of moral system derives from logic and reason, and (b) the subjects you read at university.

---

Oh I see. In which case the connection is an understanding of the basic principles of formal logic from having read maths. I admit my later career in mathematics and geophysics has less innate connection.

Does this mean that you see moral systems as innately illogical then? That sounds frightening like the people who say "If it were true there is no God then there would be no reason for me not to kill you".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've never heard anyone say that - but it has been suggested that such peoples' (atheists) motive for being good (or appearing to be good) might just be self serving. It has crossed my mind too.

---