Competing Narratives

Different people attribute different underlying causes to phenomena. Bad things happen to people. Some people will explain this as due to a personal weakness or decision. Others believe it results from not following the will of God.
both explanations involve telling a story about how such a circumstance occured. Both also draw from wider more generic narratives to explain the specific narrative.
I found myself arguing with someone, not for a particular narrative but simply to promote the idea that even though we may not want one explanation to be true and really think that another narrative is more likely correct, neither narrative is wrong when viewed from the perspective that produced it.
When a person always draws from the same major narrative (religion) to explain minor narratives (why bad things happen) I understand that it can get a little tedious.
But I think we should consider that within the belief of the religious narrative it is considered honorable to continuously draw from that narrative. And to ask someone to explain it differently is like asking them to tear out a piece of who they are.
It seems like the very people who want everyone to consider that there are other explanations for phenomena other than religion hold onto their favorite narrative as dogmatically as the religious people. Its probably too much to ask that people consider the chance that the other side may be correct or that no one has sufficient answers. But I do think we should find reasons to give some small credit to other narratives. We should find something honorable within the other narrative. That is not to say that we should not criticize. But if we add some salt to our criticism it will make it more palatable. Salt is the part of it that we can honor. We don't even have to give it the highest honor, just a small pinch could make a world of difference.