Can Doubt be taught?

Heber13,

Great topic. To complete your thought about “Doubting Thomas”, here was Jesus’ response to him recorded in John:

Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” — John 20:29 (NRSV)

One thing to take away from that is that doubt is not a sin, evil or wrong, but it is good to have faith, and that any doubt we might have is well served by looking for the up-side.

Doubt without a desire to find hope is just cynicism.

One way that we could introduce the idea that doubt is natural and OK, is to talk about the things we don’t know. What will it be like in the next life? What will it be like to be “together” in the eternities? How will God treat the good, but unbelieving? We don’t really know answers to all questions. Mormon doctrine always leans in the direction of trying to answer these unanswerable questions. But are we really better off if we think we know? Does it matter if we dont’ know? What are some of the things we do know? Surely, we know what it means to be “good”. That’s not even that hard. What if we have different beliefs? What if one person thinks of baptism and cleansing sin and another person thinks of it as making a commitment to God? Will God bless one and curse the other? Does it matter if our beliefs are not the same as the person sitting next to us? Etc… Etc… Etc.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but these are the thoughts I had from reading your post.

I think it is important to learn about doubt in dealing with the world. I have studied sociology and statistics, and from these I have learned how we cannot blindly believe any source. The news does not report the truth, scientific studies do not report the truth, etc. All things that we read or are taught have someone’s bias involved or are misrepresented. For example, even someone studying volcanoes is only using limited observations to make generalized statements about all volcanoes, and their observations have their own biases and such. Yet we would read an article they write about volcanoes and believe that is must be true because they studied it and the volcano just is what it is. The laws of science are called laws because they so far seem to describe reality, but they have not (and really cannot) been proven true. They are theoretical only, because no one can examine every item to verify that the law is true in every case.

So, as someone learns about how to be skeptical of things they hear and read, they will also probably apply their scrutiny towards the church as well. This is what happened with me I think. Knowing how to critically evaluate things from the media or at school are important to learn, and that is what could be taught. I don’t know if it would be good to purposefully teach to doubt a religion though. But that will come after the other, and then it will be their own discovery and they can figure out how they want to do that. Unfortunately, many people never bother to learn to doubt the news or what they were taught in school, so they also do not get to the point of considering the validity of their religion either. As difficult as the experience can be, I am glad to be going through it and not just accepting things because someone said so.

Good thoughts everyone.

Here is a good definition I liked:

Doubt [noun]:

a feeling of not being certain about something, especially about how good or true it is:

– I’m having doubts about his ability to do the job.

– If there’s any doubt about the rocket’s engines, we ought to cancel the launch.

– The prosecution has to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

– This latest scandal has raised doubts about his suitability for the position.

[verb]

to not feel certain or confident about something or to think that something is not probable:

– I doubt whether/if I can finish the work on time.

Source: Cambridge Dictionaries Online

The first important part of the definition is that it is a feeling. The second important part is that it is something where we are not certain.

Therefore, I can believe the Church is true, but have feelings of doubt because I’m not certain of everything, and therefore still have questions. I do not have to put it all black and white and say I either believe or I doubt.

All things are just on a scale, with certain disbelief on one end, and certain belief on the other extreme. Doubt seems to be when you are leaning away from certainty, trust or faith is leaning towards certainty. I think it can go from believing with certainty (“I know”) – to believing with doubts – to not believing with doubts – to being certain you don’t believe in something without doubts.

Questioning is neutral. You can question and increase belief, or question and increase doubt, depending on the questions and the person’s approach that leads to feelings of belief or doubt.

I’m not really sure you’re asking if doubt can be taught, or if you’re asking whether questioning can be taught.

I’m asking more if doubt can be taught for the good of the person, or in other words, should doubting be taught so we can doubt responsibly? Or should we ignore it like the plague and only teach our kids to believe, and if they doubt, smack their hands. Doubting is bad or negative…don’t teach it. That’s my question…is that beneficial for our kids to learn to doubt? Is that what the church should do for its members? Or does that lead them to dangerous waters?

I think it is important to learn about doubt in dealing with the world.

I agree..journeygirl. So is it also beneficial for religion?

any doubt we might have is well served by looking for the up-side.

This is interesting…so perhaps it is not doubt…but the intent of what to do with the doubt. Would you say, then On Own Now, that it IS important to teach how to doubt productively? If we don’t teach doubt because we treat it as a negative always, then are we leaving the kids to be on their own when they may have natural feelings of doubt, yet never get guidance on how to make it a positive thing? Can it be taught?

any doubt we might have is well served by looking for the up-side.

This is interesting…so perhaps it is not doubt…but the intent of what to do with the doubt. Would you say, then On Own Now, that it IS important to teach how to doubt productively? If we don’t teach doubt because we treat it as a negative always, then are we leaving the kids to be on their own when they may have natural feelings of doubt, yet never get guidance on how to make it a positive thing? Can it be taught?

Well, I wouldn’t quite put it as “how to doubt productively”, but that’s kind of it… I would teach that doubt is OK and natural, and to use it as a way to build up. But I wouldn’t encourage either doubt (or skepticism) as an approach to religion. I think religion/spirituality are optimistic and believing by nature. There is nothing wrong with doubt and there is nothing wrong with faith either.

Imagine being in a marriage seminar (secular or church). It would be wrong for the instructor to say that having a fight between spouses is bad and shows you don’t love each other. It would also be wrong for the instructor to encourage you to have fights, because that is how you strengthen your marriage. Instead, I would say that the instruction ought to be: “Look, you will have disagreements. Sometimes you will look at the other person and think, ‘how can your brain work that way’. Don’t worry about it. disagreements will happen. It doesn’t make you a bad spouse and it doesn’t make your spouse a bad spouse. This is just part of adjusting. What you need to do is figure out how to make this an opportunity to .” The instruction should rightly teach that arguments need to stay within reasonable boundaries, and should give tools for how to deflate tension, come to resolution, compromise, put the love that you have for each other on a higher plane than winning this argument, etc, etc. I think I’d put teaching doubt in the same kind of category. Acknowledge that doubt is natural and expected, and provide tools for working through it or living with it.

I will never “teach doubt” – but I teach the need to accept uncertainty and limited knowledge, and the subsequent need for inquiry and searching, all the time.

I know it’s not the exact same thing, but I’ve seen cynicism destroy people’s lives – and it is ugly. I prefer to teach things related to doubt in a positive, solution-oriented way – so my approach is to acknowledge the universal nature of doubt / uncertainty / ambiguity / non-understanding / whatever and “teach” positive approaches to deal with and gain from it. In other words, I teach about the unavoidable existence of doubt (and its ability to encourage growth), but I actively teach constructive, productive ways to negate its potentially harmful effects.

Especially in matters of religion, that allows me to teach in a way that doesn’t dismiss statements like, “Doubt not; fear not” – or anything else that casts doubt in a negative light. I can say, “Yes, doubt (a foundational attitude of disbelief) can keep someone from the benefits of faith (a foundational attitude of belief).” After all, the entire scientific model is based on a willingness to believe that research of the unknown can produce new knowledge – and, at the heart, that is a vital, non-religious application of the core concept of faith (the substance of the hope that leads to pursuing the unseen).

I would teach that doubt is OK and natural, and to use it as a way to build up. But I wouldn’t encourage either doubt (or skepticism) as an approach to religion. I think religion/spirituality are optimistic and believing by nature. There is nothing wrong with doubt and there is nothing wrong with faith either.

On Own Now…I think you really nailed it. Doubt does not need to be taught as something we seek out or encourage, but shouldn’t we talk about it in church a little more openly in a humble way that it may exist since we are not perfect?

Perhaps the comparison I am thinking about is that I grew up in a family where we did NOT discuss negative things or mistakes. We ignored them and focused on the positive only. I think it led to many problems in my family that we had to work through later in life, when we found out others actually had affairs, WOW problems, depression, and other issues that were just swept under rug and never addressed in my family. Ignoring it or trying to pretend we don’t have problems doesn’t help us address them. Doubt can be one of those.

With my kids…I don’t want to encourage WOW problems, or doubts about church…but I want to provide a healthy environment we can talk about it if we need to.

The ideal isn’t to teach one of the extremes; the ideal is to teach the perfect concept.

This is profound. We can try to teach the perfect concepts (like having certainty of gospel principles), but perhaps need to clarify that we aren’t there yet so there is less guilt when we don’t yet measure up…we are working towards the ideals, and therefore need to be patient as a person has doubts, or has sinned, or doesn’t have the perfect family life (divorce, etc).

But I am not sure it is productive to just say, “Don’t doubt” as if something is wrong with me if I have doubts, or “Be perfect”, unless we are trying to tell them to try not to doubt or try not to let fears take over…but work through them when they come up. I think there is an important distinction there for people as they internalize things.

The commandment to be perfect is not the same thing as “you must now be perfect”. Similarly, the teaching to “doubt not, fear not” is not the same thing as it as unacceptable to have doubts or fears. Therefore, it might be better to openly address doubt in church or in our families, and give permission for people to not be perfect in certainty, so they can address it and work through it in the positive way Ray is talking about.

Heber13, when I say I try teach the “perfect concept”, what I mean is that I try teach the “complete, whole, fully developed” concept – not an idealized concept or a partial, extreme concept.

For example, love can’t be taught “perfectly” without addressing the existence of hate and disappointment and long-suffering and forgiveness and repentance and atonement and any number of other things. It can’t be framed in terms of never feeling anger or even hatred; it has to be taught as a complete, whole, fully developed concept – and that isn’t easy, so partial concepts usually get taught, instead.

Another example is tithing. As I have said here in other threads, I believe the perfect concept of tithing is as part of a covenant relationship in which the payer supports the Church by contributing, and the Church supports the payer by providing buildings and education and other things – but also including fast offering support, if necessary. If someone commits to pay tithing, I believe the perfect concept includes the Church making it possible for the payer to continue to live at a minimally acceptable level of security in times when there is need after paying tithing. Without that reciprocal support, I have no problem whatsoever with members paying for basic living expenses and only tithing on what is left. In other words, I don’t see tithing alone as a perfect concept; I see it as part of the perfect concept of consecration and communal support. Since that’s a much harder concept to understand and teach, it gets taught much more rarely than the more extreme, partial concepts that abound.

Please, everyone, let’s not let this turn into a thread about tithing. I use it here only as an example of how doubt shouldn’t be isolated and taught as a distinct concept. I believe it ought to be taught as a part of the perfect concept of eternal progression, not in isolation or in opposition to other parts of eternal progression, like faith, hope, uncertainty, etc.