Ethics of divorce

[annadios]

I've been married for 3 1/2 years. I was 20 and he was 28 when we got married. At the time, we were both devout, conservative, fundamentalist Christians who were raised by parents who sheltered us from just about every opposing viewpoint and religiously indoctrinated us from the time we were born.

 

I found my way out of religion and am now an atheist. My worldview has changed completely over the past two years and I consider myself a rationalist. My husband, on the other hand, is still a very anti-rational thinker and a Christian as I once was. And I do not know what to do.

 

I don't blame my upbringing for my own choices; I take full ownership for them, since I was an adult at the time I decided to enter into a marriage relationship. I take responsibility for the fact that I did not dedicate time to acquiring adequate self-knowledge prior to making a lifelong commitment involving another person. I take responsibility for the fact that I did not take the time to get to know my husband for as long as I should have. And I take responsibility for the decision to get married at an age that was too young. I see now, too late, that I was an utter idiot with my choices.

 

I value keeping my word and I know I, as a consenting adult, made a promise to him on our wedding day and it would be a terrible thing for me to go back on my word. At the same time, we had always planned on children, but I do not think it wise in the slightest to bring children into the mix, one parent being a strict rationalist/atheist and the other an anti-rationalist/religiously driven thinker. Our beliefs about the most fundamental areas of life are now not only different, but they are diametrically opposed and raising children in the middle of that would be lunacy.

 

Aside from the issue of children, I just don't know how the marriage can ever have a hope of being happy when we have such conflicting values and beliefs. But I also desperately do not want to go back on my word and break a promise I made by ending the marriage. I know therapy is probably the first step to figuring things out (whether that leads to staying together or separating). Any other suggestions or advice?

[ThomasDoubts]

Others will be able to offer you better advice and suggestions than I could, but I couldn't help but notice you left something out.  What are your husband's thoughts or feelings about your atheism?  Have you discussed it, or are you still in the closet, so to speak?

[annadios]

Others will be able to offer you better advice and suggestions than I could, but I couldn't help but notice you left something out.  What are your husband's thoughts or feelings about your atheism?  Have you discussed it, or are you still in the closet, so to speak?

 

Good question. Yes, he knows I am an atheist and we communicated about it throughout my "deconversion" process. He does not consider it a deal breaker for the marriage on his end. He even says if I decide I won't have children with a Christian husband, that would not be a deal breaker for him. But I know him and I know that he doesn't know himself well at all. I can vividly picture us/him 5-10 years down the road with extreme tension in our relationship because he won't let go of his dream of a family that he's always had, even though he thinks he can let it go for the sake of keeping the marriage alive.

[meeri]

Hi annadious, first I'd like to say that I'm very sorry you're in this difficult situation. Divorce is never easy and is bound to be life-changing in many ways. Therapy is certainly something I would suggest and perhaps your husband would be willing to consider it as well?

 

I'm curious, what's wrong with breaking a promise?

[powersquash]

My wife turned me onto FDR and rationality in a somewhat similar situation. The way you described your husband's knowledge of your views seems to suggest it is quite limited. I would talk him through what you believe and why you believe so. There are many ways you could go about this; Christianity, ethics, politics and so forth. Stef has tonsssss of podcasts over how to talk to your loved ones about rationality. Hope this helps! And if you would like to hear some more about how my wife helped me get into FDR just mail me

[ribuck]

Hi annadios,

 

I'm sorry to hear about your situation. It's terribly sad when a person feels that they are not free to direct their life in the direction that would make them happiest.

 

Harry Browne's book "How I found freedom in an unfree world" talks about your situation in some depth. He wrote the book just after he ended his unhappy marriage.

 

He explains that a happy marriage is sustained not by the wording of the vows, but by a commitment of both people to work to ensure the happiness of the other. As soon as that is absent from one or both sides, the vows are no longer relevant. He believes that a happy marriage is best sustained when there is no formal commitment, and when the couple are together because it makes the both happier than they would otherwise be, rather than because of a promise they made in the past.

 

When I first read Harry's book I found this idea jarring, because I (like many libertarians) viewed a contract as sacrosanct. But then I realised that in my business dealings I have always avoided contracts and preferred to sign a Memorandum of Understanding. This is a document that sets out the honest understanding of two parties at the time of signing, but is not binding into the future. This motivates both parties to behave in a way that increases the prosperity of both, because either party can drop out of the agreement if it ceases to operate in their best interests.

 

Having used this anarchic approach so successfully in business, I realised that Harry was right. It is also the best approach for personal relationships: to consider the relationship valid and enduring only while both parties prosper.

 

Of course, your situation would be more complicated if there were children involved (as they would not be voluntary participants in the relationship), but you are fortunate that your difficulties came to light before you had children.

 

Oh, and congratulations on applying rationality to your own life and rejecting your earlier irrational beliefs.

[Josh F]

Not to detract for the brave and difficult question presented, but I just want to heap piles of praise on the FDR community, this might be the only place on the internet where people are offering advice on working through and maintaining the relationship.  I'd hate to see how an atheist forum, for example, might respond.

[Steff Prax]

Wow.   That's a tough one.  My convictions as an Anarchist and Atheist grew steadily over my 17 year marriage, before the divorce.  Our principles certainly differed, and I certainly craved rational conversation, but it was her controlling and manipulative behavior that eventually put my misery over the edge.  Getting a Christian/PoMO to take the red pill, when they don't want, is certainly a challenge.

 

I didn't hear anything in your delivery about being miserable in the relationship as it currently stands.   It seems you are just fortunetelling that their MAY be unhappiness down the road because you can't pound rational thought into his head as fast as you'd like.

 

If you don't have kids, then you don't have much to lose by walking away, but I have to wonder how hard you've tried to talk some sense into him.  Some of us are quite a bit more thick-headed than others.  The degrees of our Statist and religious indoctrination varies.  By your admission, it took you 2 years to get deprogrammed.   How much eloquently stated material did you have to absorb during that time to get to the point where you are today?  Did your hubby have the same exposure over that time?  Can you restate the same arguments to him with the same level of eloquence?

 

I would certainly hold on the idea of kids at this point, but I just have to wonder if you've really given him a fair chance to catch up to your "enlightenment".

[LanceD]

While I can only make judgements based on partial information and a lot of me filling in the blanks, it seems like you may be moving towards divorce a bit too early. While my wife and I agree on the subject of religion there are many issues we both have from childhood. Instead of allowing those problems to drive us apart we have instead turned towards each other and with the help of things we have learned here on FDR and other places we are both working to help each other improve ourselves, and thus our relationship.  I definitely agree that a marriage between a rational athiest and a devout christian cannot survive, however I wonder if you have really tried to help your spouse "see the light" so to speak. If you love him the correct course of action would be to do what is best for him, and divorcing him probably isn't the best thing for him. So as long as he is not actively abusing you verbally or physically I think divorce could be seen as more of an escape for you, a taking the easy road kind of thing and abandoning your spouse because with everything you describe about him he doesn't sound like a bad guy! 

 

If I were you I would be trying to expose him to rational thought and philosophy, I wouldn't even be trying to tackle the subject of his religious beliefs. If you can get him thinking rationally and lead him on the path of self knowledge and investigating what actually happened to him as a child then doubts about his religion will happen on their own. Actually trying to convert him without first making him doubt his parents righteousness will just result in a defensive response. 

 

I also suggest you investigate why you think divorce is the best option. Why give up so early? At one point you thought this man was your mate for life, and you seem to think your vows and promises were important. Well there are parts in them about how you are supposed to stick around when things are hard. This is one of those times, but you want to run away?

[AnarcoB]

Hi. Religious beliefs come in a lot of gradations and flavors. There are people who don't really get into religion much, and then there are principled atheists who post their most personal stories and struggles on FDR. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Are your concerns just about atheism, or do they go deeper into other questions of what we as individuals are capable of conceptualizing? What are your dreams now? What matters most to you now? Who do you respect now? What type of person engages and challenges you now? Is your husband curious, respectful, understanding? Can you imagine a time in the future where, after your children are grown, you and your husband revel in each others presence? Is he struggling with this as much as you?

[tasmlab]

Are you crazy head-over-heels in love with him?  I would start with that. If you are thinking about divorce solely on worldview, your heart may not be in the mix.

 

More of a general observation, but at 20* you were still obviously still drinking from the firehose of change and learning.  Fresh out of being parented and indoctrinated to finding the likes of what people think here is EPIC.  I mean, you probably aren't mentally settled yet and who would want to be at 23?

 

From a practical standpoint, if you are emotionally done with him, you and everyone will be unscathed by a divorce.  I'd be surprised if you have assets at this point, no kids....  you are just doing paperwork with the government at this point.  Like breaking up a teenage love affair and getting a new drivers' license at the same time.

 

But that last sentiment is only heartless if you are bonkers in love.  I'd start there.

 

* (Any age really, I'm not suggesting this is easy for anyone of any age)

[annadios]

Thanks, all, for your replies. Sorry it's been so long.

 

Since you all have taken the care to ask, I suppose I will address the two general inquiries that seem to have come up in most of the replies.

 

1) What are my husband's thoughts/attitudes toward the difference in our viewpoints and our marriage in general?

 

He is completely willing to go to therapy (secular therapy) - insomuch as we can afford it - and his desire is to work things out. However, I can't help but think that this is partially due to his religious background that strongly advises against divorce in almost any and all circumstances, and not necessarily because working it out would be best. I am also willing to go to therapy, not necessarily for the purpose of working it out, but rather to decide if I want to work it out.

 

I would say, with regard to my atheism, he is understanding and accepting for the most part, but not really very curious at all. I say "for the most part" because, while he acts like he is accepting of it to my face, he will express vague worry to my mom occasionally in their phone conversations (she is aware that I was having serious doubts about my Christian faith, though she does not know that I am now an atheist, thus his vagueness - by the way, my mother is a fundamentalist Christian). So, this makes me feel as though he wants me to believe he is totally understanding, but in actuality he feels as though he needs someone who is "on his side" with whom to commiserate - which I do understand on some level.

 

I say he is not very curious because, while we did discuss on several occasions my thought processes during my "deconversion," he has more recently asked me not to watch/listen to atheist YouTube videos and other atheist audio/video materials while he is within earshot because he says he is tired of hearing what he describes as "the same things from the same angry atheists over and over again." So, to those who have asked if he would be willing to watch Stefan's videos on atheism, the answer would be, unfortunately, no.

 

When he brings up a topic like Satan affecting events in the world, I have tried asking sincerely "So, why exactly do you believe in a literal being called Satan?" This kind of conversation always either ends up with him starting to raise his voice because he gets frustrated at having to explain himself in detail or with him just admitting he can't prove any of his religious beliefs, but he's experienced it himself, so he chooses to believe it. The latter is more disturbing and disheartening to me because I know I would never have children with someone who openly admits they believe things for no reason at all and would want to pass that kind of thinking on to my children.

 

2) Are there any other factors (besides our differing world views) that would lead me to the option of divorce?

 

Yes, he was my first love and I still am very attached to him at least as a friend. At the same time, looking back on our entire 6-year relationship history with a clear head now, I think a major reason I married him was because we had slept together on a regular basis before we got married and both felt incredibly guilty about it because that's how we were raised to think. As best I can remember, and as messed up as it sounds to me now, I think at least I - and maybe he as well - thought we were obligated to get married since we had taken each other's virginity. So, am I head-over-heels in love with him still? No. Is he with me? I think he is much closer to being head-over-heels than I am at least.

 

I suppose I should also mention that there have been two separate instances, about 18 months apart, the most recent of which happened in October 2013 where he has solicited attention or company from women online (strangers, not women he knows). He hasn't, as far as I can tell, physically cheated, but obviously the bond of trust in the relationship was shot to shit when those instances came to my attention. He did not voluntarily admit to either instance, but rather I found out about them both quite accidentally. Needless to say, this is also playing a huge part in my decision making as far as whether to stay in the marriage. The reason I didn't list this as my primary concern for our marriage is that I think if his online escapades were the only issue in our relationship, we could work through it with a lot of therapy. I'm fairly certain his online activities are due in large part to the fact that neither of us had any kind of dating experience prior to our getting married and I think he was understandably curious as to what it would be like to have female attention (it's very important to note I am not making an excuse for him, just an explanation).

 

At the end of the day, I know it is my decision and my decision only. I don't want to rush into such a permanent decision - I think I've done enough of that for one lifetime. So, I'm taking my sweet time, weighing all factors with reason, not emotions, as my guide, and hopefully getting the maximum amount of input possible from insightful people such as yourselves.

 

Again, thank you all so much for your replies and encouragement and please feel free to reply again in light of this new information.

[dsayers]

I just wanted to add that I would not put any stock into your promise itself anymore than I would a person's signature on a document while under duress. A mysticist and a rationalist will only slowly run out of things to share. Whether this means to separate or encourage him to think, I don't know. Just wanted to point out that a promise born of guilt and coercion should be the last factor to be considered, if at all.

[LanceD]

With the new information in your latest post I think for me the decision would be fairly simple.

 

If I still loved my partner and thought that by staying in the relationship I could help them achieve better self knowledge and improve as a person. Then I would stay.

 

However if I no longer loved the person, or as it seems in your case never actually loved the person, or thought there was no way I could help them effect positive change in their life then I would leave.

[tasmlab]

I'd say this goose is cooked.  If you don't really love him, the rest is just piling on.  Go and be free.  Some people don't even finish college or have their first kiss by your age.  You've lost nothing and can only possibly makes things worse for no reason.  Might as well go file tomorrow morning when the office opens.

 

(disclosure: I'm just a stranger on the internet.  Peace!)

[ribuck]

He broke his wedding vows by soliciting the affection of other women online. Therefore he has voided the contract of marriage, and you are released from it. The rest is just paperwork.

[elzoog]

I would think about whether your vow was really rational. For example, I am now 49 years old. I could make a vow that I will continue to teach at the university I am teaching at for the next 100 years. Since that would mean that I would still be around at 149, it's pretty unlikely I would be able to keep such a vow. So, a vow like that would be pretty irrational. On the other hand, I could vow to donate $20 to FDR if I download 4 more podcasts. That kind of vow would be a lot more reasonable.

 

I don't know specifically what wedding vow you make, but I am guessing it was a "forever" kind of vow. If a 100 year vow isn't rational, then how can a "forever" vow be rational? I don't think that you should hold yourself responsible for upholding an irrational vow regardless of how rational you felt it was at the time you made it.

[Eva]

Dear Annadios, I don't think this kind of vows are very rational. Keeping a contract for the sake of it is not rational or objective; its conditions may be irrational themselves, and reality – our own reality too – is not fixed. Marriage is an irrational institution by definition, as it ignores and tries to impose our needs to this basic fact.

 

I don't think calling yourself a "rationalist" is rational either. You don't need to be an "-ist" about things that are plain true. However, I really value what this signifies in how you intend to move forward. It is not easy. Best of luck!

[MrCapitalism]

Keeping a contract for the sake of it is not rational or objective

 

why you gotta bring contradiction bombs into here?

[Eva]

why you gotta bring contradiction bombs into here?

 

Hi Mr. Capitalism! Would you keep a contract that contained "contradiction bombs" too?

[MrCapitalism]

you've changed the subject from your statement, to my actions.

[Eva]

you've changed the subject from your statement, to my actions.

 

Ok, let's see... Would anyone keep a contract that contained "contradiction bombs"? Or do you mean that contracts are always objective and rational—and so my action to "bring contradiction bombs into here" makes your change of subject, from my statement to my actions "why you gotta bring contradiction bombs into here?" legitimate?

[Kevin Beal]

I'm responsible for negotiating terms in the contracts that I accept.

 

A common result of negotiating is accepting terms you do not agree with, even some irrational terms. Those terms are accepted so that your investment in the contract is acknowledged.

 

I do not get to say that I'm not upholding the contract anymore simply because I disagree with some of the terms, even if they are irrational.

 

Imagine me going to court for violating my contract, and in my defense I say that I didn't uphold because I thought the terms weren't agreeable, after the fact, after I've had a chance to negotiate, after I've already agreed.

 

Well, that would be kinda crazy of me, right? (It would also be a kind of fraud in many cases since you are saying you'll do something and you don't).

 

I don't know what the OP should do, I'm just commenting on the point you raised.

[MrCapitalism]

My beef is not with the "rational and objective" part of your statement, it is with the "keeping a contract for the sake of it."

 

The only reason for keeping a contract is "for the sake of it."

 

Contracts are contractual.

 

You don't get to go back on your word later, even if you made the mistake of agreeing to "irrational and subjective" terms. If you do, you deserve the consequences and sanction for breaking your promise. And yes, I know this from experience, as I have agreed to irrational contracts in the past. However, I don't get to pull a "Keeping a contract for the sake of it is not rational or objective," card and default on my obligations. That's just crazy. I have to live with the choices I made.

 

I believe this derail does have some relevance to the OP, but I don't think I can put it into words.

[elzoog]

Imagine me going to court for violating my contract, and in my defense I say that I didn't uphold because I thought the terms weren't agreeable, after the fact, after I've had a chance to negotiate, after I've already agreed.

There are examples of where courts rule that a contract is not legally binding.

For instance, one cannot contract for an illegal or impossible act. In addition, in order to enter into a legally binding contract, one must have the capacity to enter into that contract (e.g.- with some exceptions, minors do not generally have the capacity to enter into a contract).

I would consider an "eternal" clause in a contract as an "impossible act".See:http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum.nsf/0a92a6dc28e76ae58525700a005d0d53/6a653200b74c8a2085257405007a3ac3!OpenDocument

[tasmlab]

As far as advice to the OP, I presume most of the 'contract' discussion is an intellectual digression for us philosophy nerds.

 

I would think all of the crushing ethical violations of honoring it (the unloving marriage, the betrayal of rationality in the face of religion, the incompatible virtues, et al) outweigh the breaking the promise to the husband, country and God.

 

Not to ruin the fun of  the contract debate.  Keep on. :-)

[AnarcoB]

This is a very emotionally difficult subject. Sometimes it may seem like the emotional pain can be skirted by an intellectual analysis and conclusion, but in the end it is just heart-wrenching and sad. It really is an awful position to be in. I don't have any answers, but take time to recognize and embrace your loss. Ultimately, there's only one other person who needs to hear it all.

[tasmlab]

This thread could be broken into two parts: One being "The Ethics of Divorce" to discuss the contractual side, and another "What the hell should I do?" to address the OP's dilemma.

[Eva]

Well said, elzoog: "I would consider an "eternal" clause in a contract as an "impossible act"." People get into unfair and irrational contracts all the time because they are not being rational themselves, or because they are coerced, like children...

 

I guess contracts are very happy there are some people willing to defend them at all costs.

 

Very good points tasmlab there too!