1. Let them know that it is not abnormal to experience doubt. This does not mean that your children will experience significant doubt, it just means that doubt is a common issue they will experience, to varying degrees, in a fallen world. Typically, your child’s struggles with doubt will not start until he reaches adulthood and begins to stand on his own two feet in many ways, including in his faith walk. But if you have helped your child understand that doubt is something common to all Christians, he won’t be scared to share his struggles when they arise later in life.
2. Share with them some of the doubts you struggle with. Of course, this is assuming you have brought your children up in the faith, showing them the strength of your faith as well. However, from time to time you should feel free to let them see you wrestling with God. This lets them know you are real, especially when they are older and more reflective. Showing them your doubts may embarrass you somewhat, but it can also go far in demonstrating that your faith is not shallow, but rather is marked by thoughtfulness. Sharing your doubts from time to time legitimizes the faith you do have, so they will be less tempted to think you are just a naive follower when they are older.
3. Help them prioritize their faith now. Make sure they don’t believe all issues are equal. Help them see the difference between negotiables and non-negotiables, essentials and non-essentials, cardinal and non-cardidal issues. Ensuring they understand the distinction between doctrine and dogma prevents the “house of cards” problem so that, even if they come to question one particular issue (i.e., creationism, inerrancy, premillenialism, Calvinism, etc.), they do not find it necessary to reject their faith completely.
4. Facilitate a love of Christian heroes. With all the exposure to cultural heroes (actors, musicians, models, etc.) so typical today, it is important that your children see the characteristics of godliness exemplified by real-life Christians. These examples should come from inside and outside the Bible. Reading about the heroism of Perpetua and her servant in their martyrdom is very difficult (and may be “R” rated), but your children need to know about people who actually lived out their faith with the same resources available to them today. Learning about Augustine’s life of sin before he was converted may be something you think you need to protect your children from, but perhaps they will remember the common struggle with sin when they are older and not feel so alone (which is the most fearful thing when one is doubting).
5. Allow for a great deal of mystery. We live in a western world and we love systematic theology. We want all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed. But often, when we provide answers to all of our children’s questions, we don’t allow them to develop a respect for God’s inscrutability. He is beyond figuring out. His nature and his ways are mysteries to us. From “Why did God create the dinosaurs?” to “Why does God allow Satan to have so much power?” these questions need to be left unanswered (at least dogmatically). Allowing for and rejoicing in the mystery of God will help your children, giving them the freedom to worship in mystery and truth.
6. Ask the difficult questions. Many times we attempt to protect our children from hard issues that we think may cause them to doubt their faith. However, this is not wise. In fact, parents should be the first ones who bring up difficult issues, working through them with their children. “Why do you think God would take Spot away when he knows how much you loved him?” “It has been so long since Jesus rose from the dead, I don’t think he is coming back. What do you think?” Of course, you are guiding them to talk through things they may not have thought of otherwise. If you push them on these things early, they will be better prepared to hold on to their faith when their professor in college asks them similar questions in a much more hostile environment.
7. Make sure they know the heritage of their faith through church history. We all need to know that the anchor of our faith goes deeper than mom and dad. Again, times of doubt are intensified because we feel alone. However, these feelings of loneliness can also create doubt. By cultivating knowledge of church history, it will help your kids trace their faith origins back to the very beginning, making the picture of their faith much clearer when times of confusion arise.
8. Continually teach your children an apologetic defense of the faith. It is never too early to start your kids in apologetics. The most important doctrines of our faith are the simplest to defend. Your kids should know about all the arguments for the existence of God, the resurrection of Christ, and the reliability of Scripture. Often, this can be done by parents taking the antagonist role, then allowing the children to come up with the answers. I remember a time when Katelynn, my oldest, forgot a pencil that she needed for school. I asked her why God, so powerful, allowed her to forget something so important. She prayed for the pencil to miraculously appear in her bag; when it did not, I told her, “I don’t think he exists.” She responded, “Dad, that is dumb. If there was no God, there would not be a pencil to begin with.” Simple, correct, and profound.
9. Take your child on a missions trip. Kids in the U.S. have a strong sense of entitlement, believing they must have everything their friends have (and more!) or they are suffering abuse. The skewed points of reference they normally encounter (friends, neighbors, people they see on TV) create an inability to see the blessings they do have in their lives. Taking your child on a missions trip early (say, around age 12), reorients their perspective and gives them a good dose of reality.
10. Give them a chance not to believe. I remember hearing Billy Graham talk about a conversation he had with his son Franklin when he very young. He said, “Frank, your mother and I have decided to follow Jesus. We hope one day you will do the same thing.” And he left it at that. You children need to know they are free to not follow your same path so they take ownership of their own beliefs, rather than feel forced or tricked into believing the way you do. This disarming approach is very important for the future reality of their faith.
11. Prepare them for suffering. There is nothing that causes people to lose faith more than unexpected or “meaningless” suffering. This is where good theology is of utmost importance. When your children get older, they will surely suffer a great deal in one way or another. If they perceive that their suffering is something that was not supposed to happen, if they believe it is not God’s will for people to suffer, they will be very confused later in life, not knowing how to square what they believe with their life experience. But if we have taught our children well, giving them a strong biblical theology of suffering (i.e., we live in a fallen world; they should expect pain and difficulty), then disillusionment will not be a source for doubt.
12. Teach them to take care of their bodies. Many times doubt is brought about or intensified due to poor physical health. Your children need to know how vital the connection is between the spirit and the body. When one suffers, so does the other. A good eating and exercise routine will do much to prevent this type of doubt – which may be the most unnecessary of all sources of doubt (and depression).
123 replies to "Twelve Ways to Prepare Your Children for Times of Doubt"
“Could there be a problem with the central processor? Sure, but without any evidence that it’s malfunctioning, it’s a tough sell.”
Since everything is processed by the central processor there would be no way for there to ever be any evidence that it is malfunctioning (at least in the way that we are concerned about) hence you ultimately have simply moved the basic belief up a step perhaps from “my senses are reliable” to “the brain which processes my senses is reliable.” Ultimately the result is the same. There must be a basic belief at some point upon which the system is built which the system itself is incapable of testing.
@Michael T,
There are plenty of ways to determine if your brain is malfunctioning—other people can tell you, for one (please think through the consequences of the obvious objection carefully). You can also record your observations of some experience, then recreate the experience and see if your perception had changed.
Science cannot prove anything to a certainty, nor has it (or I) ever said it could. It’s always “good enough,” always “to the best of our understanding”. I cannot “prove” that I am not a brain in a vat to the degree you seem to think is necessary, but so what? If you *had* to judge the probability you were living in the Matrix based solely on the evidence, how confident would you be? 80% 99%? 99.999%? Do you have more than 4 minutes a year worth of experience that points at reality not being real? I kinda doubt it (unless you have serious issues with hallucinogens).
What you’re proposing is that I throw out all the evidence I’m not a brain in a vat and simply assert that I am not a brain in a vat, because it’s possible that all the evidence I have is wrong in the same direction. I have no reason to think all the evidence is wrong, but better to be safe and throw it all away and just assert the conclusion the evidence was pointing at anyways.
Do you see why I think that is silly?
@Greg,
The history of numbers as a formal system invented by humans to describe the physical world is relevant as evidence whether or not numbers are anything beyond that. If nothing else, it sets a minimum threshold of things we can agree on about numbers. Arguing beyond that minimum that requires evidence. Since you are trying to argue beyond that, that does put a burden of evidence on you.
Otherwise, you are doing exactly what you claim I am doing: asserting you have no burden of evidence to show that numbers are anything other than a useful abstraction.
Unfortunately, non-existence is *still* a proper null hypothesis, so you actually have to show they have existence.
And no, you don’t just get to say “numbers have independent existence because I say they do.” That is an example of an actual bald assertion.
On the subject, of numbers-as-abstraction, please add two cats to two different cats. What is the result?
As it turns out, the only way to make that go is:
Set(first cats) = { *, * }
+ Set(second cats) = { *, * }
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Set(all cats) = { *, *, *, * }
And then note that the cardinality of the resulting set of cats is 4. You first create abstract sets to represent the cats, then perform the math on that abstraction, then realize the abstraction to get the result. If the number of actual cats matches the result, then you have evidence in favor of your process of abstraction and your math.
Still confused? Try adding a chair and a cat. Non-abstract numbers requires that “1” be both a chair and a cat. Unless you concede that the “1” is simply representational of set cardinality.
Otherwise it’s a bunch of claptrap. Explain any of your objections without scare-quoting phrases you quite obviously do not understand, or move along.
Of course I cannot be certain of anything in a philosophical sense, but act in ways indistinguishable from certainty to outside observers. That is your great revelation?
Let’s figure out what “certainty” looks like. In my own life, I have only ever believed I was actually a brain in a vat once, for around 4 hours. I’m 32 years old, which means those 4 hours are just over 0.001426% of my life. This means that 99.998574% of the evidence that I have is pointing towards me not being a brain in a vat, and as it happens, the history of how that 0.001426% came to be causes me to doubt the validity of the impression I had for those 4 hours.
So there would be 7.4 minutes per year contemplating life in the vat (decreasing year over year, of course) if I were 99.998574% confident I wasn’t a brain in a vat.
You then call it a sin to short-change the time I should spend worrying whether I’m a brain-in-a-vat. Have you not been reading the conversation? I’m paid up for years.
As for the rest of it, allow me to point out that thumping a bible isn’t evidence. Neither is thumping your chest.
@Greg,
So your certainty only appears certain to outside observers, but really isn’t? That’s what you’re saying.
No. I was attempting to say “I can understand how you could be mistaken, but here’s several paragraphs explaining what acting with unjustified certainty actually means in this context.” You blithely ignored those paragraphs, of course, because you’re not interested in being right, you’re interest in pushing your ideology.
Yes, I refuse to “acknowledge” something that I have seen zero evidence for. And yes, you haven’t once even mentioned evidence. That’s precisely the point.
But it really doesn’t matter: you have removed the need for me to pretend you aren’t the petty tyrant Carrie seemed to think you are when you first showed up.
You believe I deserve to die for not thinking the way you want me to think—for not letting you and your ilk demand I believe your grand pronouncements about the nature of the universe without any evidence.
Exactly what sort of reaction do you expect when you claim that not thinking the way you want me to is “a capital crime.” The fact you do this while claiming to serve eternal, transcendental, love is just a nice little goose-step thrown in for good measure (go read Orwell’s England Your England if you do not understand the reference).
And capital crime according to whom? The ideological ancestors of the people who invade countries, burn accused witches, blow up buildings, and behead people on the streets?
@Greg,
Are you familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis?
“There are plenty of ways to determine if your brain is malfunctioning—other people can tell you, for one (please think through the consequences of the obvious objection carefully).”
I generally wouldn’t make the obvious objection. But since you don’t believe in basic believes you must first prove that those other people exist. As is for all you solipsism could be true.
“You can also record your observations of some experience, then recreate the experience and see if your perception had changed.”
If your observations have changed, couldn’t your present observation of the past record also change?
“What you’re proposing is that I throw out all the evidence I’m not a brain in a vat and simply assert that I am not a brain in a vat, because it’s possible that all the evidence I have is wrong in the same direction”
You have not presented any reliable source of evidence one way or the other that you are or are not a brain in a vat, or that you weren’t created 5 minutes ago with all your memories intact, or that other minds exist. All you have done is make bald assertions about the reliability of your “evidence” with no proof thereof. Ultimately you are no better better than those who claim basic beliefs. You just don’t like the phrase because it opens doors that you don’t want opened.
@Michael T,
So the other minds are part of the conspiracy, then? The computer running my vat has put the other minds there in order to have these horrifically boring debates with ideologically motivated simpletons about whether I’m a brain in a vat so I will… what? Question seriously whether I’m a brain in a vat? Get defensive?
I seem to recall saying days ago that at some point, as the possibility of evidence diminishes further and further, the conspiracy must get weirder and weirder in order to be sustained.
Which means at some point the conspiracy is unfalsifiable, and just plain stupid. Do you understand what I’m saying here? BIAV make you little better than a conspiracy theorist, ranting about chemtrails and how I can’t disprove mind-controlled aliens working for the CIA were responsible for the JFK assassination and 9/11.
Nobody but a fool takes that nonsense seriously. I don’t have to assert that mind controlled aliens working for the CIA were not responsible for the JFK assassination and 9/11, just like I don’t need to assert that I am not a brain in a vat.
If there were any evidence for either of those conspiracy theories, then you could present it. If you can’t present it, then I have no reason to take it seriously. Claiming that all the evidence I do have that I’m not a BIAV isn’t good enough is just fancy footwork. You may as well claim that the 9/11 conspirators covered up all the evidence that secret ninjas planted explosives in Tower 1, it’s an equally facile claim.
You do not need to “assert” that there was no 9/11 conspiracy: those who think there is a conspiracy must demonstrate it. Just like you do not need to assert that you aren’t a BIAV, those who think you are must demonstrate it.
@Greg,
Sure, would you like me to copy and paste the first few sentences of Wikipedia, or the OED? “The extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.”
The Documentary Hypothesis is not an “attack on scripture.” It simply takes a historical approach to the books of the law. It does have the added benefit of explaining the seemingly confusing disparities within the books (i.e. why different segments of the books have such wildly different writing styles, call god by different names, etc.)—the hypothesis is that they were written for political purposes, to serve the various kings of Israel in their internal political struggles.
It surely cannot hurt to understand what mainstream theologians have been saying about the Bible for the last 40 years.
Now, how about Evolution by mutation and natural selection? Are you comfortable with your understanding of evolutionary processes as at least a plausible occurrence? The “ratchet effect”, etc.?
@Greg,
I accept the definition of probability in OED and pasted it here, because that is the actual definition of the word probability. The word doesn’t have different definitions in different “realms.”
Evolution and the documentary hypothesis aren’t “attacks on god”, they are a theory about how life diversified from a simple organism, and a historical hypothesis about how the first five books of the bible were written, respectively. Surely you can at least admit that it’s at least possible that evolution is true, and it’s at least possible the documentary hypothesis may be valid.
Let’s talk about chemical bonding. I’m sure you’re familiar with chemical bonding: inject two parts hydrogen, one part water into a sealed beaker, and you will end up with water, because the atoms will naturally want to share electrons.
Let’s assume there is a big, complicated molecule that has it’s elements lined up just so, and when you put a similar number of molecules next to it, you will end up with a copy of the original molecule.
I shouldn’t need to point out what happens if you can get even one of these molecules to form: it will keep generating copies of itself. Strictly by natural processes, the interactions of the electrons will help the corresponding atoms line up. So one of these molecules is going to turn into lots of these molecules assuming you have enough of the various elements around.
As it turns out, that’s a simplified explanation of how RNA molecules work (and RNA-only lifeforms, like SARS, Ebola, etc.). The fact that the copies don’t always turn out perfectly is the “random mutation”. I use RNA because it’s simpler to explain, but DNA is not all that different, chemically.
Do you see how it’s possible that once you’ve formed the first RNA molecule, every other RNA molecule can simply be an imperfect copy of it?
@Greg,
Please be so kind as to answer the challenges I have put to you:
Is it possible that first five books of the Torah were written for reasons of internal politics in the Israeli kingdom?
Is evolution by random mutation and natural selection possible?
Is DNA replication as a function of chemistry possible?
Is it possible that the universe started expanding all on it’s own, based strictly on sub-atomic interactions within the pre-bang singularity?
Or more simply: is it possible that all this can happen naturally, without divine involvement?
@Greg,
Again, please be so kind as to answer the challenges I have put to you:
Is it possible that first five books of the Torah were written for reasons of internal politics in the Israeli kingdom?
Is evolution by random mutation and natural selection possible?
Is DNA replication as a function of chemistry possible?
Is it possible that the universe started expanding all on it’s own, based strictly on sub-atomic interactions within the pre-bang singularity?
“So the other minds are part of the conspiracy, then? The computer running my vat has put the other minds there in order to have these horrifically boring debates with ideologically motivated simpletons about whether I’m a brain in a vat so I will… what? Question seriously whether I’m a brain in a vat? Get defensive?
I seem to recall saying days ago that at some point, as the possibility of evidence diminishes further and further, the conspiracy must get weirder and weirder in order to be sustained.”
It doesn’t seem that strange at all that if you were a brain in a vat that those controlling you would create hallucinations for you to interact with.
“Which means at some point the conspiracy is unfalsifiable, and just plain stupid. Do you understand what I’m saying here”
The proposition that your faculties reliably present reality as it truly exists is equally unfalsifiable. There are numerous ways they could be unreliable and you would have no way of knowing it.
“BIAV make you little better than a conspiracy theorist, ranting about chemtrails and how I can’t disprove mind-controlled aliens working for the CIA were responsible for the JFK assassination and 9/11.”
Thank you. I of course do not believe you are actually a BIAV, but it is rather a thought experiment about how one comes to knowledge at its most basic level. As Greg rightly points out this is a conversation you are unwilling to have and instead resort to bald assertions and ad hominem attacks.
I have deleted the last few comments between Greg and James as this blog isn’t the type of blog where that stuff is allowed.
Also I have closed comments to prevent further bizarre behavior from occurring here.
Honestly, that was just weird.
[…] Continue Reading […]
[…] Here is a very helpful article about 12 ways to help your children prepare for times of doubt. […]
[…] Patton of Credo House just had a worthwhile post entitled: Twelve Ways to Prepare Your Children for Times of Doubt in which I think he shares some exceptional […]