Going to Church on Sundays

[EdithSimcox]

Question for Christians obviously: How important is it to you to be able to go to church on Sunday?

I have recently refound faith after an absence of 25 years. My DP is finding it impossible to accept. I've been trying to find ways of being as unobtrusive as possible about it - including going to church near the office on a weekday lunchtime so as not to disrupt our family weekends. But I do want to go to church on Sundays sometimes - I want a 'home' church, to be part of a regular congregation, to sing hymns, to feel part of a church family (DP would really shudder at that one). In the last 8 weeks I've managed to go twice. I wasn't going today anyway because I knew 2 weeks in a row would really tip her over the edge. But this morning she asked me to agree never to go on Sundays. I said it was too big an ask to try and bounce me into and she had a sort of panic attack (I don't know if that's a technical thing, but it's definitely a physical panic/pain response she has - which she is having therapy to deal with but she thinks may never go away)

I do want to put her and the DC first, and I am prepared to compromise, but I was thinking more like going once or twice a month, not never. But she says I can pray anywhere and go to church in the week, so it's not a big thing to ask at all.

As a compromise I'm think I'm going to agree not to go until September, but that won't be enough I'm sure.

What do you think?

Because rationality is important to me. I would find it very difficult to feel the same about somebody who has decided to abandon rationality and adopt a non- rational position*

*please note -"non rational" is not the same as "irrational"

All the ones you list later, like love and justice and beauty are things that come from humanity. They do not require belief in an external "being".

Of course not, Bertrand. Couldn't agree more. That wasn't what I was saying. I was only saying that an absolute split between 'rational' on the one hand and 'religious' on the other seemed to me to be a bit of an over-simplification.

Manically busy, so excuse brevity (and failure to engage with a host of pps).

Bertrand

Believe it or not being a Christian does not mean I have 'abandoned rationality'!

Rational thought is always there, my thought processes are largely rational. However I just recognise there is much that we just don't know enough about. I look for answers to many of these things, I love a puzzle. My faith based beliefs are interwoven with all of this though. My faith encourages me to question my own motivations mainly - which most would agree was a good thing. Selfish motivations do not make for sound rational thought processes.

Well, actually, yes you have, capsicum.

You have decided that you are happy to believe in something for which there is no proof. You have reached the cliff edge of the evidence based and provable- and made the "leap of faith". Nothing wrong with that. But I would find it difficult to have a life partner who did the same, although I have many friends who have.
It's not about having the same opinions. It's about having the same turn of mind.

I go once or twice a week. Before I was a church-goer my Dh went every week on a weeknight and once a month on Sunday. Now we go together

Bertrand yes, on a macro level I believe in something which you cannot prove. I have no problem with this because proof cannot be provided for unknowns. And yet we have to make decisions, everyday, based on this incomplete information. Our whole perception is manufactured in our brains, easy to appreciate when you study accommodation in eyesight, for example.

On a micro level, though, I apply rational thought to the decisions I make. My faith, I find, actually encourages me question my own rationality, as it promotes self examination in terms of motivations.

Bertrand, can you explain further why your life partner would be no more if they became a Christian?

"Bertrand, can you explain further why your life partner would be no more if they became a Christian?"

I didn't say he would be no more. I said it would be an issue for me. And no, honestly, I don't think I can explain further. I have explainned in as much detail as I think I can manage several times already! Happy to have a go at answering any specific questions you may have though.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Atheist does not mean Rational, nor does it mean "only believes that for which there is evidence".

Edith, I am sorry that this situation is still going on. Has there been any shift in your DW's stance since last summer?

No, Dione, it doesn't. Forgive me- did I accidentally say it did?

Bert - of course you believe in things you can't see!

Were you there at the Big Bang? Yet you probably believe it happened?

Have you observed macro evolution? Yet you probably believe it happened.

There you go, two beliefs that you didn't witness for yourself. Neither did any scientist either for that matter.

A life partner moving from rational to non-rational patterns of thought...

This and other similar posts Bert. Just because a person was/is an atheist does not mean that they are rational. And it is the move from no faith to faith that Edith's wife is struggling with. Not a move from rationality to non-rationality.

I'll be back tomorrow but just to say, to be fair to bertrand my DP conceives of the whole thing in exactly the same way as she does. Bert, are you my DP?

Though of course I'm with you Dione

No I'm not, Edith. Because if you look, you'll see that I have said that I think your partner is wrong to stop you from going to church and she is being very unreasonable. But that you can't expect her to just accept your change without challenge, question and deep thought

"his and other similar posts Bert. Just because a person was/is an atheist does not mean that they are rational."
I agree. Which is why I have not mentioned atheism on this thread.

"Bert - of course you believe in things you can't see! "
I believe in lots of things I can't see. I don't believe in things that there is no evidence for.

But you have to take that evidence on trust, don't you? Since you are not, yourself, going to replicate all the work that produced that evidence, you have to believe that those who did do that work are trustworthy in their reporting. And you have to accept that evidence can never equal proof. In effect, you are saying that scientists' testimony is trustworthy.

Evidence-based is not the same thing as provable, and you should know that. I'm quite happy to say that my belief in God is evidence-based since it is based on the evidence of my own and others' experience, and I regard that as trustworthy. Interestingly, the phrase 'leap of faith' comes from the Christian philosopher Kierkegaard, who used it to mean not that faith is irrational, but that it requires a decision to trust.

We make our deepest life-commitments based on a mixture of reason and emotion. And, of course, as mainstream research in neuroscience (for example by Antonio Damasio has shown, cognition and decision making involves both reason and emotion - indeed, emotion is central to reasoning. So the idea that our central beliefs could somehow be purely rational is not supported by the evidence of how our brains actually work.

i take it on trust that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. There is overwhelming evidence that it will. I take it on trust that if I am not allergic and take the recomended dose of paracetamol it will ease my headache and not do me any harm. Because there is currently overwhelming evidence that that is true. However, should further research show that not to be true, I would shift my belief to fit the evidence. Should someone produce a credible body of evidence that God exists I will shift my belief to fit the evidence. That is the rational approach. There is no evidence God exists except personal testimony. And personal testimony alone is not evidence. This is not, please let me make it clear, a criticism. It is a statement of my views.

"And personal testimony alone is not evidence."

In a court of law personal testimony is evidence. It has to be corroborated by another person's testimony, of course. But that is still testimony.

I said "personal testimony ALONE is not evidence"

You would be hard pushed to get a conviction in a court of law if the only evidence you had was personal testimony.

Yep, of course, that's why it has to be corroborated by another person's testimony. There may be other kinds of evidence but quite often there isn't. Personal testimony corroborated by others is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

I originally said that "'I am quite happy to say that my belief in God is evidence-based since it is based on the evidence of my own and others' experience, and I regard that as trustworthy" - that is, my testimony and other people's testimony. I am not applying lower standards that a court of law would apply.

Fair enough. But I respectfully suggest that if a crime was committed, and another person and I said you did it, it would be very unlikely you would be convicted without any other evidence at all.

And I cannot imagine circumstances where a group of people all saying "I believe there is a God" could count as any sort of evidence that there is one. I know, trust and love many people who believe there is a God. I would need more evidence than that. Incidentally, I find Jesus' supposed treatment of Thomas a real problem when considering this sort of thing. Why would questioning something make you less worthy than blind faith?

Bert it was a joke. I’m sorry I should have acknowledged that you have said that I should just go. I sort-of agree with you, except it is just not that easy. On the ‘rationality’ argument I think I do agree with you. There’s nothing inherently rational about being atheist as you’ve acknowledged, and there is faith is not irrational, ditto. But for me I think it is as you say simply non-rational. I have spent the last year (almost) beating myself up for not being able to explain, even to myself, let alone others, why I have changed my view. And I have only just really accepted that it is ok to just ‘know’ something without having the logic argument or empirical evidence to back it up. I know I love my DC. I can’t explain it. That is how it is. I feel the same way about my faith – I can’t explain it. But I don’t mind that anymore. St Thomas Aquinas said something like, ‘for those who have faith no explanation is needed, and for those who lack it no explanation is possible’. Happy with that.

None of that means of course that there may not be people of faith who can explain their faith, or for whom it is a rational construct. It just doesn’t seem necessary to me.

LovelyDF that is a really good point about context; which I am trying hard to remember!

Greenheart it really is about faith – but on more than one level. There is the point Bert is making but that is only one layer of it. We are several months and a small fortune into couples therapy so we are airing some other issues too. But they pale into insignificance in comparison.

Niminy thank you for your thoughts and prayers. You told me many moons ago that I was brave. If I’d known that this would never end how long it would take I’m not sure I’d have taken the plunge. Despite it all, I’m still glad I did. And, being a lawyer, I completely agree with your evidence in court point.

Notsitting good point about change, we’re working on that!
HFPA I too thought it was odd, I am your second category almost spot on, but for some people even that is a game-changer.

Capsium I love the ‘not fully understood box’ – I have tons and tons of stuff to put in there.

Thirtynine Thanks for your support. It’s really not abuse though. I don’t want everyone to hate my DP!

Tuo lovely post (at 1am, tut) every word of which I agree with

Ginger thank you, very thoughtful advice. We are both putting a huge effort into trying to work it through, and find compromises

And if anyone still cares after all that, the new compromise (for now) is no Sundays, but other things are fine – like me being back here, and weekday church etc.

Sorry for the typos I'm out of practice

Re typos Edith in my case practice makes perfect.

Anyway, very lovely to see you here, and to know that you and DP are still talking and trying to work it all out. Sending love and prayers.