What do/did you teach your child if you have doubts?

[namechange0123]

Luckily DS is still too young (20m) to understand, but:

I was born and raised in a country with a strong Catholic culture. Learned my prayers very early, went to church every Sunday, did my Holy Communion, confirmation etc.

During the early teenage years religion gave me some comfort, but later on I detached myself. Got a degree and PhD in hard sciences and became very much the "I want to see first" type. DH followed exactly the same path.

But we got married in church, because somehow we feel guilty of this and thought it was the right thing to do.

I really would like to provide DS in his childhood with the same comfort I had, give him a positive explanation of negative events, death etc, but how can I get him to follow this path if we don't lead by example?

I think that it's important that kids (those of other religions aside) do learn the basics because it's our culture, our heritage even though I've not even met a vicar who believes in genesis! I had a set of kids bible stories and we went to the nativity service from toddlerhood. I actually love church despite being a skeptic - and I've met so many clergy who's opinions aren't far from mine. One of my DD's is a chorister now.

biologos.org/articles/can-a-scientist-believe-in-the-resurrection-part-1/

children are born with an innate spirituality

In what way? Can you expand on this?

Belief does not require proof. Because it is belief. If it had proof it would be scientific fact. I can rightly talk about wild and varied beliefs without referring to any proof at all.

Indeed. And I can rightly talk about how it's a load of old claptrap. But when I do, I'm told "you can't prove there's no god!"

I can rightly talk about how it's a load of old claptrap. But when I do, I'm told "you can't prove there's no god!"

Ah..so you in reference to 'claptrap' are merely talking about your own beliefs? Or do you think you are stating a fact?

Talking about beliefs in the way you would state a fact is usually when people stop you and in an attempt to clarify that you are discussing a belief, in that there is an absence of proof.

However just to cloud the issue believing something very strongly does tend to involve treating the belief as a fact, in the way you might structure your thoughts or decision making processes. It is only when seeking to clarify the origin of the assertion in question that someone's beliefs become clearly distinct from things they know as facts.

Beliefs, IME are absolutely common place. Most people have not really enough experiential knowledge for the things they consider 'fact' to be anything other than a strong belief and trust in what others think they have discovered. Phenomenon undoubtedly exists however I'm not sure it is understood absolutely and correctly.

Talking about beliefs in the way you would state a fact is usually when people stop you and in an attempt to clarify that you are discussing a belief, in that there is an absence of proof.

There is an absence of proof for anything, if someone can say "all that evidence is false and has been placed there by god as a test of faith".

Young Earth Creationists use just that argument in saying the Earth is 6000 years old. And no one can prove they are wrong.

Science will always be trumped by make believe, because with make believe, you can make up anything you want to override the evidence.

Lifecraft,

Science will always be trumped by make believe, because with make believe, you can make up anything you want to override the evidence.

What would you consider as an alternative? Blindly believe any research and its conclusions going? Inadvisable as science is advancing and surpassing old scientific thought continually. Know and understand every piece of research intimately? Impossible for most (all) people. We all have to make decisions regarding what to believe.

My point is that we are all have to make decisions regarding what we believe. And I'm ok with that. If someone's beliefs conflict with my own I have a choice of whether to challenge them, attempt to change their belief, change my own belief or ignore them and still believe what I believe. This process is common to all people.

It is pretty unsurprising that there will be beliefs that fall on the outer edges of the spectrum. It's a sign of a (relatively) free society.

Inadvisable as science is advancing and surpassing old scientific thought continually.

Yes, far better to come up with something 1400- 5000 years ago (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and stick to it rigidly, despite loads of evidence that it's nonsense.

Yes, far better to come up with something 1400- 5000 years ago (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)

The age of an idea/knowledge/concept doesn't necessarily correlate with intrinsic validity. People can be wrong now just as easily as people could be wrong in the past. Let's face it we are not talking about stuff that is testable by the scientific method.

despite loads of evidence that it's nonsense.

Evidence? How can you find evidence for something (a spirit) that doesn't exist in the material sense? There could only be material evidence in terms of physical manifestation but even then it is only possible to examine the nature of that material scientifically, not any spiritual aspect to it's presence. Although 'spontaneous' phenomenon can be quite interesting...

There is actual evidence that much of the stuff written in holy books is not possible. You cannot turn water into wine. We understand how atoms and molecules work, and it can't be done.

We know that snakes can't talk, and that the Genesis story is nonsense. Holy books are full of stuff that is contrary to the evidence.

Lifecraft, when interpreting narrative it helps to think beyond the literal. Communication includes more than just spoken language, for example. You might find this clip interesting.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=iEALi7ZEbCo&feature=youtu.be

We, as human beings are amazing and can intuit and process more information than we actually consciously acknowledge sometimes.