Welcome!
This celebrates our 10th week of “An Atheist and a Catholic” here, and to celebrate that, we thought we’d try an “Ask Anything” day.
So…ask anything! Brittany and I will be monitoring the combox all day (and for however long…we get email alerts).
Not sure what to ask? Well, catch up on your reading…you can see all the posts in the An Atheist and a Catholic series here. Who knows? Maybe that will inspire some questions…
UPDATE:Â If you are reading this in a feed reader or via email, be sure to click through and see the comments. Brittany and I are discussing quite a bit, and there have been some very thought-provoking questions. See you there!
OK, I’ll start things: what’s the biggest hurdle to a life of faith?
being faithful
OK, Rebecca, so let’s dive deeper. What’s it mean to be faithful? Why is it a hurdle?
In my own life, I find that I’m distracted. I let other things take my attention…or that’s a starter thought, anyway.
sin is the main problem to trying to be faithful.
OOO, Rebecca, GOOD ONE.
One for both of you: People offer many reasons for the beliefs they hold: family tradition, identity or connection to others, fear of the alternative, reasoned inquiry, fear of death or moral chaos, emotional satisfaction or comfort, a life-changing event, the influence of authoritative figures or texts, intuition, optimism or pessimism about humanity and the future, and many more. Please choose the top three reasons you think the other person holds the beliefs she does, as well as the top three reasons for yourself. DON’T POST until you are both ready, then both post your guesses and your own reasons at the same time.
Oh sheesh. I’m going to have to noodle that for a bit, Dale. Good one…I’ll text Brittany and make sure she sees this and we’ll coordinate our answers… 🙂
Okay Sarah, I’m ready!
I’m almost there…don’t post yet!!! Had a conference call and am just now getting on this!!!
OKay, let me get over to mom’s and we’ll be in the same place.
I’m ready. So we’ll post soon! 🙂
Okay! Here’s my answers:
For Sarah – identity or connection to others (something you and Bob do together, connection with Ann, too), I think reasoned inquiry, too, because you’ve done a lot of research and reading about saints, practices, and popes. I think you might have some emotions involved, too, with the feeling of rightness you get from your beliefs and at Mass.
For me – reasoned inquiry fo sho: by-product of learning a lot about psychology and learning more about different religions, and introspection
about what I really believe. I think some intuition plays a role: when it comes
down to it, I can’t be sure that there isn’t a God, I can just suspect that the
gods people worship are invented. So mine are reasoned inquiry, introspection, and intuition.
Thanks!
OK, here are mine (haven’t read Brittany’s yet, and am DYING TO KNOW):
For Brittany (in no particular order)
1. Love of humanity, belief that good can come from humans working for humans
2. Anger or hurt at past instances within religious settings
3. Conviction about certain ways of reasoning and accepting the easier alternative
For myself (in no particular order)
1. Internal peace
2. The witness and example of the people closest to me
3. Mass, the Eucharist
Wonderful answers.
I’m pretty impressed with us 🙂
Me too! 🙂
Thanks for such a great question. 🙂
How do you keep yourself from judging your family and friends with different beliefs? I keep my judgments to myself but secretly judge. Based on values, so I am usually pretty pleased.
OK, so I’m assuming here that “judging” means something to the effect of “holding it against that person.” Would that be a fair assessment?
For me, there is value in each person. It’s harder to see in some, and there are definitely times when other people’s beliefs are very different from me. When it comes down to it, though, we are all human. God loves that irritating person as much as he loves me. How can that be?!? Obviously, I have a lot to learn.
I’d like to say that I am great at being aware of each person’s inherent dignity. Actually, though, there’s a loud snarky voice in my head. Listening to that perspective does not bring me peace. EVER.
And you know, when it comes to judging as “acknowledging that the other person is not in line with my value/belief system,” I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. In fact, despite popular conversation to the contrary, that’s almost a necessary thing. Otherwise, do you actually believe anything?
Yes, I mean “being judgmental.” I think you’ve got a good point about the belief system. No one ever says “I love kittens,” because everyone does. There’s no point in stating a belief if everyone agrees.
That and I think you and I probably noodle and ponder things WAY MORE than those around us. And perhaps in different ways. Isn’t there a name for that? (I’m resisting–just barely–the urge to start talking MBTI.)
Yes, we’re both high in need for cognition. So we have thoughts, and then think about the validity of our thoughts, and then even have thoughts about thinking about our thoughts.
I have been seeing the role of humility as increasingly important in my life and keeping my sanity. What role do you think humility does (or does not) play for you?
I try to keep my ego under control. Being focused more on others makes me happier, keeps me from getting my feelings hurt, and removes the temptation I’ve seen others succumb to (like academic misconduct). Plus I can learn a lot more when I’m not pretending like I know it all.
So yes, humility is a good value. Grad school would have been a lot easier if I hadn’t been so afraid of embarrassing myself.
Brittany, suppose that compelling evidence has come to light that God exists. How do you feel?
Sarah, suppose that compelling evidence has come to light that no God exists. How do you feel?
It depends on the God, but I’d imagine I’d be a little miffed about him not doing more to help people and prevent illnesses, natural disasters, etc. I’d also want to ask why he takes such an interest in people’s bedrooms. If the reveal included evidence of good will on his part and possibility of afterlife, I’d be overjoyed to have more time to spend with my family and friends. And it would be comforting to think of someone balancing a karmic scale.
Interesting question, Dale. I’ve learned, over the years, that my feelings don’t necessarily prove anything. If they did, I would be dead now. 🙂
That said, I think the basis of my belief system is faith. So I guess I would have to tow the irrational line and really challenge myself to practice what I say I believe, that is, to actually HAVE FAITH. That means believing in the face of compelling evidence.
Even with this compelling evidence, I would want to remind myself of what Pascal so succinctly proposed. If I believe and I’m wrong, what do I lose? If I’m living a life for God, following the way of Christ and Christian values (not people’s INTERPRETATIONS of those values, but those actual values), then I have probably enriched my life by living beyond my narrow view of the world. If I decide the heck with it and bank on there being no God (i.e., with compelling evidence) and live accordingly, it is possible that I lose a great deal (an afterlife, for one thing).
(And I can’t help but think…did I even answer the question? No distractions here…nope…not a one…)
Yes you did! You’re saying a God-centered is sufficiently valuable to make the question of his actual existence moot. A solid answer, and not uncommon.
Sarah, you mentioned the oft-stated Pascal’s Wager. One concern with Pascal’s premise is that it implies only a binary choice – belief or non belief -ignoring how many religions – and nearly as many – gods or versions of gods that exist in the world. One could have faith, but how does that address whether that faith is more correct than any other faith? Stating that there is a choice between Jehova and Atheism seems misleading to me in a world where there’s also Buddhism, Shinto, Asatru, Wicca, Bahai, et cetera.
Does that additional parameter alter the reasoning or usefulness of Pascal’s Wager?
But isn’t it boiled down to a binary choice, stated the way it was? Whether the God is the Jewish God or the Christian God or Buddha is irrelevant here.
Is there a God? Yes, I believe so.
Now, if we take the discussion a step farther and say, OK, so there’s a god, but it’s not the god you thought, what then? … Well, that changes the discussion.
Faith is not a feeling. Or maybe it’s not ONLY a feeling. I don’t, in fact, FEEL it. In our Catholic understanding, faith is a virtue, which is a habit. I read recently that it is like a muscle, one that we all have but that we do not all exercise.
How does that relate to God or no God? That what makes the question of “is there God” one that I don’t stay up worrying about.
I think that’s an issue I see as irreconcilable, and we’ll likely have to agree to disagree, as I see it as very relevant. Presenting it as a binary decision is an oversimplification at best, dishonest at worst. Reality is too complex to present it that way, in my opinion. Especially in light of much of religious doctorine (including Christianity, but I was raised southern baptist, so YMMV) that presents following any non Christian faith as worshipping Satan and hell-worthy.
Jamie, I do not agree that “not believing in this God right here” is hell-worthy. In fact, we can’t say what’s hell-worthy. Thank goodness for that.
So I think maybe we are defining our binary decisions differently, though I’m not sure I can express it in a way that will reconcile it…ahhh. Well. We agree to disagree, then.
**passing you some coffee**
It doesn’t help that I have a dislike for binary applied outside of the purely logical/mathematic/computational world. 🙂
For Brittany, so called “modern” atheists want to expand the notion of atheism, from a belief that God does not exist to anyone who is not sure that there is a God. Do you agree with this, and if so, where are you on the spectrum? Do you just see insufficient evidence for the existence of God or do you see evidence that God does not exist? Or is it a personal belief, not motivated primarily by evidence?
I probably fall close to the belief that gods don’t exist. As far as whether agnostics (don’t know if there’s a god) and apatheists (don’t know if there’s a god, don’t care, please stop asking) belong should be called atheists, I don’t think so. I think that “nones” (agnostics, atheists, and apatheists) may have similar interests and needs, so there might be reasons for them to belong to groups for nonbelievers.
The second is more difficult. First, it depends on the god. Second, It’s hard to find positive evidence to “prove” something doesn’t exist, so I think there’s insufficient evidence. This is a personal belief, but it’s strongly based on evidence. I’ve learned a lot about how people think and perceive, which makes it hard for me to believe in a god that intervenes in people’s lives. Culture and biased processing offer a better explanation to my mind. So I have an alternative explanation for the supernatural I find more plausible.
Thanks. So if I understand correctly, it’s not so much that God doesn’t exist, but even if He does then He’s not interested in us, and so the point is moot?
To me, yes. I find Sarah’s explanation below about living up to her values being a life worth living whether there’s a God or not really compelling. I think we just fall on opposite sides of the existence question.
Not to put words in her mouth, but I think Sarah might believe that those values are divinely inspired, whereas I think they’re a consequence of human nature and socialization.
Hmmmm….couldn’t it be both divinely inspired and biologically/culturally handed on?
Sure. For me, I think the divine inspiration isn’t necessary, but I know that a lot of people think that it’s both.
Thanks so much for the question! I like these discussions, even there’s no way we can really resolve our points of disagreement.
There may not be “physical” evidence of God, as in “look at that 100 foot footprint” or a giant eye in the sky visibly seen, but there is evidence in the fact that we are even having this discussion. Humans seek something more, seek answers, seek lasting fulfillment, seek immortality, seek purpose.
Theism, atheism, and even agnosticism all are ways we humans try to answer these longings. But the longings are there whichever stance is subscribed to.
Which view BEST answers these longings in the most lasting and fulfilling way?
See, to me, the fact that people seek something more is the best evidence that they’ve created it themselves. Perception is strongly influenced by motivations and expectations.
But to actually answer your question, I think worldview is not nearly as important as values. I see over and over that people who live their lives in a prosocial way are more fulfilled and happy than people who are selfish and materialistic. The reasons for the behavior aren’t as important as the behavior itself.
Thanks for asking!
Okay, I’ve got another question, that anyone can answer, not just Sarah. What are your top 3 values, why, and how do you encourage them in others around you?
My top three values:
1. Humility
2. Charity (as in caritas, love of neighbor)
3. Coffee
Oh wait, the third one’s not a value? WRONG! IT IS TO ME!!!! MWAAAAHAAAHAAAAAA.
Yipes. I missed the WHY part of that. And the “encouraging them in others”. So here’s the rest of my answer.
1. Humility, because without it, we’re just jerks.
2. Charity, because we humans gotta stick together.
(Yes, I’m simplifying.)
I think encouraging both of these in others comes from a way of living. Actions speak louder than words (and are, in fact, a way of communicating and very effectively). While you can’t always control what your actions say, you can control how you act.
3. Coffee. It goes without saying if you know me. And if you don’t, lucky you. 🙂
And a bonus, that occurred to me as I was considering those things that I most need to work on in myself: forgiveness and patience. They go hand-in-hand for me.
Forgiveness takes humility, at least for me, and it also takes patience.
Patience takes…well, often it seems to take a miracle. I can’t speak about patience except that I know I need more of it… 🙂
1. Empathy – because it cures 90% of what ails us
2. Perspective – which relates to humility, and cures the other 10%
3. There is no #3.
I encourage them by example.
A question at large (not just for Brittany):
What are the factors to determine that a value is good? How is good defined? Or, I guess worded a different way, what is truth?
We need some philosophers here 🙂 These questions are above my pay grade!
Seems like some of my replies have been eaten or something. I know I answered this question somewhere…
How would you define reason, and do you think Faith is against Reason?
I would define reason (without looking at a dictionary) as that which we can know with our minds. Facts.
Faith is not against reason and is, in fact, complementary to it. Faith is a muscle we flex, a virtue put into practice.
So does a Pagan use the virtue of faith when they pray to their gods? Or is the virtue of Faith strictly a Christian thing? Are people born with the virtue or is it given at a later time in a persons life?
And this is the point when I have to defer to the grown-ups, Don. I think there are levels of looking at that.
It seems that much of these kinds of discussions have to focus, first and maybe even for an extremely long time, on semantics and definitions. Our use of words has to be equivalent, especially since many of the words we use in these discussions have weight that may not be intended (or, in other cases, may be intended and not understood).
In this context, I speak from a Catholic Christian viewpoint. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 153, says that faith is a gift that comes from God.
As a gift, you can choose not to open it, not to receive it, not to use it.
Of course, then we have the other usages of the word faith, like having faith that a certain team will lose or that the rain is coming based on the forecast.
The first question is “is there a god?’ Faith and reason lead a person to answer that question in the affirmative. The next question is what religion best answers the understanding one has reached. This is likely limited by cultural and experience. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices connected to a construct of god. As such all religions are based upon faith. Christianity is a religion that is ground in faith and reason. Reason is what often starts a person on the search for truth. The Catholic Church calls faith a theological virtue which is infused in everyone. So, Yes pagans use the virtue of faith.
The concern I have with that definition is that faith often makes claims of fact: God exists, heaven is real, etc. When it does, it often conflicts directly with reason, and we have to decide which to follow.
Yes, Dale, that’s true. I respond that much of science, that bastion of supposed reason, is actually also faith.
Can you give a specific example of science operating as faith?
What comes to mind is the ongoing discussion of the size of the universe. With each new study, we seem to forget that we are trusting the constructs we’ve made, the system we’ve built, the math and the calculations.
But how do I know they’re RIGHT? Is it a limit of my small intelligence that I will never really be able to comprehend the true size of our universe? How do I know I can trust these scientists with their publications, peer reviewed though they may be?
The science we use is neither non-flawed nor changeless. By its very nature it can’t be.
Though we laud reason as the basis for science, in fact there is a lot of hypothesizing in science. That is as it should be. We have to always seek more, more, more. We have to understand more deeply.
Trusting science, in many ways, is not so different than faith. Many of us aren’t ever going to understand the math that leads to the hypothesis that the universe is x (size). Does that mean we shouldn’t believe it and trust in the research and work that went into that calculation?
That said, I think we are going to get very close to turning this into wordplay…and I can respect and agree that we do not, in fact, agree. 🙂
Well no, this is not a “wordplay” issue. In fact, you’ve done a beautiful job explaining why science is NOT a faith. Faith is about accepting a conclusion regardless of evidence.
Science doesn’t actually deal in certainties — only of increasing or decreasing confidence. Hypotheses (like the size of the universe) are constantly overturned as new data come to light and old data are reconsidered. Eventually, one theory will fit the data so well that a consensus develops and deepens. Earth’s orbit of the sun was not the first hypothesis to explain the sun’s path across the sky. But it’s the one in which we have the most confidence now, after a long scientific process.
So no, science is not “also faith.” Fine to suggest that they are both of value, but as you’ve demonstrated, they are not the same.
This is where I have to admit, up front, that I am vastly overrated in this combox. 🙂
They are not the same. (I am botching this up big time.) (Maybe I should just quit now.)
But how do you “prove” these parts of science any more than you “prove” the things that are taken on so-called faith?
I think perhaps it’s semantics and my brain is not smart enough to handle this conversation. Ahhhh, well.
I would disagree that faith is accepting a conclusion regardless of evidence. Thomas Aquinas was very clear that reason and faith cannot contradict each other. If right reason holds something that cannot be true and that same idea is accepted by faith, then the faith must be incorrect. Thomas’ reasoning was simple: since God gave us both reason and faith and God is not a liar, then neither should they contradict. Faith is not what is believed in spite of evidence. Faith is what is believed because of evidence. An irrational faith is not the faith most Catholics would have in mind. That would be something akin to superstition.
I did very much enjoy your very accurate assesment of scientific knowledge. In that context, I would say that the one of the main differences between science and faith (I do not claim that it is the only difference) is the difference between inductive and deductive logic. As you so rightly pointed out, science bases its theories on observation and experimentation and through inductive logic suggests a unifying principle. Faith, on the other hand, begins the the principle and applies it to various areas of life.
To go further (hit send and thought of this): I don’t see faith and reason as at odds. I see them as working together.
This reminds me of my dissertation defense 🙂
People often pit Faith and Reason against each other. Faith is certainty without physical evidence (we could call it an emotional kind of conviction). Reason is certainty with some rules or logic applied. It’s a cognitive way to get to certainty.
We could also think of them as processes. The process of faith is putting doubt out of your mind through introspection or worship. The process of reason is getting rid of doubt through study or observation or calculation.
I don’t see them as mutually exclusive. I think many people’s beliefs are reached through reason, even if each thinks the other’s assumptions or reasons are flawed.
As you investigate what is true, good, or fair, in what ways do your worldview and associated organizations support your freedom or interfere with your freedom to reach your own conclusions?
Ack! I answered this and it was eaten by Disqus!
I think this is one place where atheists and freethinkers have it made, because we encourage questioning, free inquiry, and making your own conclusions.
I feel very free to change my mind and admit I don’t know something. I actually like being wrong because it means I’ve learned something. I am a little resistant to the idea that I’m wrong, though 🙂
I would like to pipe up here. The idea of questioning is not limited to atheists and freethinkers. I encourage everyone to question things. And I am not in the minority.
I am surprised to hear that, Sarah. I have always held you up (and a few other people in your particular religious community) as being especially tolerant of questions. My experiences with religious education were that questions were allowed, but not all conclusions were respected or encouraged.
That’s probably a stereotype about Christians, then. I’ll have to think more about it!
The fundamental questions are “Where did I come from?” “Why am I here?” “What’s the purpose of life?” If there is no god, then humanity must be an accident. If humanity is an accident, then I have to consider myself some kind of cosmic joke that serves no purpose. The universe would be better off with us. If life is meaningless, then how can you say we have a purpose, noble or otherwise. You can talk about being good, but what is goodness if it isn’t derived from something of greater good. Does a collective of humanity create a greater good?
I reject the notion that god is necessary for meaning. We can find meaning from lots of things. What’s the point of art, or science, or anything else that people do for the joy of doing it? But if you define good as being divinely inspired, then I won’t be able to convince you otherwise. We can look at things like happiness or health of people, life expectancy, murder rates, culture, etc.
Depends on the collective. Sometimes yes, sometimes an emphatic no. Groups tend to make a general tendency more extreme. I think that life expectancy and other similar metrics (e.g., quality of life, access to healthcare, threat of violence, etc.) suggest that humanity has been getting increasingly good. Not sure if that gets at what you were asking or not.
My comment isn’t about “good” but about “meaning”. I know a “good” debate in in the background, but please reflect upon ‘meaning of life”. Your use of metrics for good would be valid if metrics showing increases in violence, pornography, human trafficking,etc weren’t also increasing.
Do you have citations for that? I’d be interested to hear them. The life expectancy and health metrics are well-substantiated, and there’s a best-selling book Better Angels of Our Nature that demonstrates a decline in violence. Slavery is also on the decline, although human trafficking is getting more attention lately.
As far as meaning, people find it lots of places. There’s not a universal answer. I personally don’t waste a lot of time pondering my life’s meaning or worrying if I’m self-actualized. I just try to do what I can to help people. I can say that I don’t know any atheists or agnostics who think they’re living with no meaning.
I don’t want to sound jaded, but anyone can write a book quoting statistics. We would both choose different interpretations of the validity of the authors. I am sure we both have different reading lists and articles we view as credible. I’ve spent 20 years working with men and women in prison. I also know that many cases do not get reported or reported correctly. My purpose is not to play “mine is bigger than yours” but to understand how you view existence.
As to “meaning of life” I understand you to be saying that it is subjective and personal. That would close any further discussion because what you believe is right for you and doesn’t have to meet any other standard.
Yes, but not everyone can get those statistics published in a peer reviewed journal. If you have any articles, I really would be interested in them. I was very pessimistic about humanity until I read that book, but would love to hear counterpoints to that message. For example, maybe it’s a general trend across time and countries, but maybe not in the US. That would be helpful for me to know because of the work I do in the nonprofit world.
I’d agree with your assessment of my take on “meaning of life” as being subjective, personal, and not something I trouble myself with. For you, I think you’re saying that God is necessary for you to feel your life has meaning; a commonly held and understandable belief, but I don’t feel that way.
A question for the atheists: How do you define “the good?” In other words, what is the standard to judge morals choices? (I am late to this party, so I apologize if this question was raised and answered)
Yes, that’s been answered. It’s a really common question asked of atheists. I think I’ve gotten it answered a couple times, so if you get a chance to read the comments and still have questions, let me know.
Thank you for your response. I read the rest of the comments and I could not find a definition. I once again sincerely apologize if I missed it, I don’t mean to re-hash settle arguments. I am looking not for examples of good things and bad things, good actions and bad actions, but a definition of “the good”
Oh, I’m sorry. I’m not sure what you mean by “the good.” I thought I had answered your question! Can you give me a little bit more about what you’re looking for?
I am looking for the standard that guides moral decisions. For example, Socrates would probably say that pleasure is good and pain is evil. That which increases pleasure and decreases pain is good. Thomas Aquinas would say that the good is that which perfects the design of nature. So anything that takes us away from our design is bad, but anything that fulfills the end of our design is good. My question is by what standard does an atheist measure good and evil? Or is the answer like Satre’s who said that there is no good or evil?
These aren’t really questions for a psychologist, but I know some philosophers who’d be thrilled. Most people, no matter what their beliefs are value fairness and equality and don’t like harming others. Sometimes people might place other values above Fairness and Harm, but they’re pretty universal. This might sound snarky, but to an atheist, believers are just using the divine to justify the values they’ve learned from society at large. I think evil might be a supernatural concept, but I’m not a philosopher.
Thank you for your response. I don’t think you need to be a philosopher to answer the question. All that is being asked is “By what standard does an atheist judge right and wrong?” In order to say something is right or wrong, one must know what the good is. To say that a “value” is universal does not tell me whether it truly is better choose things like kindness over cruelty.
Or did I miss your meaning and do you mean to say that good is whatever a person says it is?
These are very philosophical questions, though. And I can’t answer for all atheists. We’re not a homogenous group any more than believers are. In some sense, yes, it’s whatever a person says it is, but we the fact that we do have quite a bit of agreement about that isn’t meaningless. Consensus is an important indicator of validity. Fairness and (avoiding) harm promote trust, prosocial behavior, cooperation, etc. which makes people happy, makes civilization possible, and makes people healthier and live longer. I’m a very practical person, so maybe these things are too utilitarian, but I take a very pragmatic approach to issues like this. If it leads to measurably better outcomes, it’s good. If it leads to measurably worse outcomes, it’s bad.
I do not disagree with your point that these are philosophical questions, but as I wrote, we don’t need professional philosophers to answer them. We all have a philosophy.
If you do not believe you can answer for all atheists, that is okay. We will stick to the your beliefs as a particular atheist, if that is okay.
You said that “If it leads to measurably better outcomes, it’s good. If it leads to measurably worse outcomes, it’s bad.”
I think that this is a very good place to start. I do have some follow up questions:
1. How do you measure the outcome?
2. What is the standard of goodness? You mentioned civilization, health, and longevity. Are these the standard of the good? Do we measure goodness on how these three are maximized?
Well, I guess you’re forcing me to develop one 🙂
Well, health outcomes and longevity are pretty easy to measure, epidemiologists do all the time. Happiness is self-report. I think these are pretty good standards. The biggest problem is that they’re multiply determined. It’s hard to clearly show that this or that thing causes them. I also think that fairness and harm are worth pursuing for their own sake. But it’s because I think they’re good. I’m not an excellent philosopher, obviously 😉
Even though you say that you are not an excellent philosopher, the fact that you are coming up with very clear definitions shows the precision of your thought.
A clarifying question: if health and longevity are standards of the good, does that mean it is never morally okay to lay down your life for another? To do so would be counter to health and long life.
I think your insight is correct that the causal link between action and consequential happiness is difficult. Reading an author like Dickens (or watching Breaking Bad), we often get the sense that our actions have consequences beyond our control.
But if ethics are based on consequences and not principles, and consequences are hard to discern, then how can such an ethic govern our choices?
This entire idea fascinates me. I am a cradle Catholic that lost her way and after my mother died, my faith rushed back. I know it was because of my mother’s prayers.
I have been friends with Wiccans, Muslims, Fundamental Christians, etc. I find as I am older, my good friends share the same faith system, politics, etc. I enjoy meeting new people and listening to them but my best friends share my views on the world. This helps me have an empathetic ear when I can. I am amazed at your friendship. How do you not take things personally? I don’t know If could be good friends wi someone who thinks my God isn’t treat and all the saints and Mary lived in vain? Just curious!
Mary Beth, that’s a good question. One big thing for me is that I have been an unbeliever. I was for many years. I sympathize.
Another thing is that we are family. Our husbands are brothers, and they are very close.
But what I think trumps it all is that (and I think I speak for Brittany here): we LIKE each other. We get along. We laugh at the same sorts of things and find the same sorts of things interesting.
I’ll admit to being a little fascinated by all of this, and this conversation in particular helps me to understand and know a friend better.
Well, I’m pretty respectful and don’t mind other viewpoints. It’s actually kind of hard to fight with me about beliefs. My husband could tell you I’m snippy about household chores, but not about beliefs. Plus, we have a lot of the same values. So we just focus on what we have in common. If we were focused on how we’re different, we’d probably fight a lot.
I am an atheist, I would like to ask those who have lived with the Catholic faith in their gods and how big? I do not worship anyone, so I can not understand is the one who always pray to the supreme direction and it feels like, and how do they worship that nurtures a lifetime
Would you be able to rephrase the question?