Faith, is it healthy?

[dangerdan]

The term ‘faith’ seems to have a fairly broad meaning in today’s language, but for the sake of this thread, I’m more considering the definition of faith to be –

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)

So is this faith healthy?

[ST88]

Ok, ok, hold on. I was probably a little vague with my ‘healthy’. Sorry guys. Me bad.
...
For example, I personally don’t think irrationality is healthy. But that’s just me. Some thoughts.

I think it all rests on the definition of "healthy." If, like you say, we are talking about psychologocal health, then there is nothing wrong with being irrational. In fact, as EI points out, having faith may actually increase the chances of being happy. And what's wrong with that? Shouldn't we all want to be happy?

However, if you're talking about "health" in a societal sense, then irrationality is a bad thing. Once faith enters you and becomes a part of who you are, you act on that faith. And because there is no evidence that can sway you to the contrary, you will act on that faith regardless of other evidence you are presented with. This is bad policy, folks. And it invites corruption.

I think this is the difference between Hope and Faith. With hope, you don't necessarily act as if the desired result is true. But with faith, acting like the desired result is true is required. Presented with the equation 2+2=X, we can Hope that X=5 or that X=771, or even that X=4. But we acknowledge that we don't know the answer (until we work it out). But with faith, we assume that X=5, 771, or -- yes -- 4, without the need for working it out.

And, in the end, what's wrong with believing that X=771? If we base our entire world view around it, then other things start to fall into place also. They won't necessarily make the same kind of sense as they do to the rest of us, but they will have a sense and a logic of their own nonetheless. And it will be good.

For myself, I am psychologically unable to make the faith leap, and so must work out the problem with toothpicks every time the question comes up. I have no quarrel with people who claim that believing X=771 makes them much happier and more satisfied in their lives than I. It's just something I am not able to do.

[dangerdan]

Let me guess Corvus, you just came off the back of a politically charged debate?

I do not believe there is any "psychologically unhealthy" unless it is destructive to the individual, which is seldom, or to other people, which occurs whenever a person with faith wants to impose behaviour on other people that I consider repressive, though they would probably argue similarly that, as a lefty my political views would do a great deal of harm too.

Really? What about multiple personality disorders?

Do you not deem this unhealthy?

[otseng]

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)

So is this faith healthy?

Let me respond by breaking it down into two questions:
1. Is a belief that does not rest on logical proof healthy?
2. Is a belief that does not rest on material evidence healthy?

For 1, not only would I say it's healthy, I would say it is necessary to live a healthy life. As someone quipped on this forum (I forgot who), proofs only deal with math and with alcohol. For everything else, there are no proofs.

Let's take an example. Suppose you are driving through a green light. The light is red (you assume) for the crossroad. Do you know with 100% certainty that the crossroad has a red light without seeing it? Perhaps the lightbulbs are not operational. Suppose you do happen to see that it is red. How do you know that the cars approaching the red light will stop? Suppose the car's brakes have malfunctioned. Or suppose the person is driving under the influence. You don't know with 100% certainty that the person will stop. But, with a certain element of faith, you drive through the light without worrying about the possibility of a collision. If you did not have faith, and required proof that the cars will stop, you will go through an unhealthy amount of anxiety.

For 2, I would say it is unhealthy. Suppose I am lying on my bed at night and think there exists demons under my bed that would snatch my soul when I go to sleep. Do I have any evidence for such a belief? No. But believing this would most likely cause some degree of insomnia and trepidation which would not be beneficial to my health.

[dangerdan]

Let's take an example. Suppose you are driving through a green light. The light is red (you assume) for the crossroad. Do you know with 100% certainty that the crossroad has a red light without seeing it? Perhaps the lightbulbs are not operational. Suppose you do happen to see that it is red. How do you know that the cars approaching the red light will stop? Suppose the car's brakes have malfunctioned. Or suppose the person is driving under the influence. You don't know with 100% certainty that the person will stop. But, with a certain element of faith, you drive through the light without worrying about the possibility of a collision. If you did not have faith, and required proof that the cars will stop, you will go through an unhealthy amount of anxiety.

Hmmm, the classic skeptic argument to show we have no certainty of anything (bar maths). Otseng, I didn’t know you were so skeptical…I’m impressed.

Ok, it’s a good point. I suppose it does say “logical proof”. Come to think of it, I wish it said “logical reasoning” instead of “logical proof”. As I feel this better describes the “faith” I with to discuss (darn it, I already set out the definition! hehehe). So yes, “logical proof” does generally mean a complete and certain conclusion.

But…

The above example you spoke of is using inductive reasoning based on empirical evidence. Hence satisfying the second part of the definition (about a belief based on evidence). Hence one could argue that it is not strictly using (the stated definition of) faith. For example, the driver has built up an inductive theory (mostly subconsciously) that when a light is green, she can go, and when a light is red, she must stop. Sure, it is lacking in 100% certainty, but one must admit that it is quite logical (though I do admit it’s not logical “proof”)

I think there seems to be confusion about the difference between uncertainty and faith.

[Corvus]

Let me guess Corvus, you just came off the back of a politically charged debate?

Hah. dangerdan, I see you are Australian, so I will tell you I am currently working in Sydney with the electoral commission. Remember those metre long forms we had to fill out, where you have the option of placing a single 1 in a top box, or numbering the boxes below the line from 1 to 78? I am entering those numbers into a computer 5 hours a day, sometimes having to squint to decipher poor handwriting. Conversation often revolves around politics. Plus 3 hours on a train. You can guess that by the end one has had quite enough, and it's a volatile mixture.

I do not believe there is any "psychologically unhealthy" unless it is destructive to the individual, which is seldom, or to other people, which occurs whenever a person with faith wants to impose behaviour on other people that I consider repressive, though they would probably argue similarly that, as a lefty my political views would do a great deal of harm too.

Really? What about multiple personality disorders?

Do you not deem this unhealthy?

That was spontaneous. I once new a person with multiple personality disorder. Every one of her personalities were annoying, but she wasn't a danger to herself or to society, and her condition was controlled through medication. Of course not all people who suffer from this are the same, and for many of them, yes, the complex can have particularly unhealthy effects due to not being able to properly function in society. This results in depression or emotional upset that cripples the individual.

I don't see how faith and multiple personality disorders are related. Faith in itself is not unhealthy. What is unhealthy is an excessive conviction that results in a harmful action.

[otseng]

Otseng, I didn’t know you were so skeptical…I’m impressed.

I don't mind being labeled as a skeptic.

The above example you spoke of is using inductive reasoning based on empirical evidence. Hence satisfying the second part of the definition (about a belief based on evidence). Hence one could argue that it is not strictly using (the stated definition of) faith. For example, the driver has built up an inductive theory (mostly subconsciously) that when a light is green, she can go, and when a light is red, she must stop. Sure, it is lacking in 100% certainty, but one must admit that it is quite logical (though I do admit it’s not logical “proof”)

Yes, it is logical to assume approaching cars will stop. However, this fails the second part of faith that you provided - "belief that does not rest on material evidence". Material evidence (my light is green) is present and a belief (driving through the green light will not result in a collision) is based on that evidence. So, this kind of faith, blind faith, is not involved in my car example. Now, if she drove through a red light, perhaps that would be considered blind faith.

I think there seems to be confusion about the difference between uncertainty and faith.

How would you differentiate between the two (based on the definition that you have already provided)?

[dangerdan]

Hah. dangerdan, I see you are Australian, so I will tell you I am currently working in Sydney with the electoral commission. Remember those metre long forms we had to fill out, where you have the option of placing a single 1 in a top box, or numbering the boxes below the line from 1 to 78? I am entering those numbers into a computer 5 hours a day, sometimes having to squint to decipher poor handwriting.

Oh man, the senate papers…

I’m really not happy about the senate result, quite scared actually, but this is not the place to discuss it I suppose.

I don't see how faith and multiple personality disorders are related. Faith in itself is not unhealthy. What is unhealthy is an excessive conviction that results in a harmful action.

I just meant to bring it up to show that multiple personality disorders don’t physically harm anyone else (in most cases), and don’t physically harm the individual (in most cases), but most psychologists (and laypeople) would still say that it is unhealthy.

[dangerdan]

I don't mind being labeled as a skeptic.

Sure, as long as one applies the same level of skepticism across the board to all of one's belief systems.

Yes, it is logical to assume approaching cars will stop. However, this fails the second part of faith that you provided - "belief that does not rest on material evidence". Material evidence (my light is green) is present and a belief (driving through the green light will not result in a collision) is based on that evidence. So, this kind of faith, blind faith, is not involved in my car example. Now, if she drove through a red light, perhaps that would be considered blind faith.

Great, so we agree that the red light example is based on experience, though not 100% logical “proof”.

How would you differentiate between the two (based on the definition that you have already provided)?

This is from dictionary.com for uncertain -

un·cer·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrtn)
adj.
Not known or established; questionable: domestic changes of great if uncertain consequences.
Not determined; undecided: uncertain plans.
Not having sure knowledge: an uncertain recollection of the sequence of events.

Subject to change; variable: uncertain weather.
Unsteady; fitful: uncertain light.

There is nothing here that says anything about “belief”. Belief, wouldn’t you say, generally implies nuances of conviction (conviction in the manner you hold the opinion in question).

Uncertainty openly recognized the exceptions to the rule. In fact, the inconsistencies in the rule are the focus. Faith, one might argue, would imply that the exceptions should be glossed over. The inconsistencies are immaterial.

[otseng]

Sure, as long as one applies the same level of skepticism across the board to all of one's belief systems.

That is perhaps another topic for debate...

Great, so we agree that the red light example is based on experience, though not 100% logical “proof”.

Of course.

Belief, wouldn’t you say, generally implies nuances of conviction (conviction in the manner you hold the opinion in question).

I would agree with that.

But, back to the original question, I think blind faith (faith without any material evidence) is not healthy, whereas faith (without any logical proof) is necessary to be healthy. Do you think this is a valid statement?

[dangerdan]

I’d agree with that statement (though I think there are possibly better words than “faith” to describe a belief in something without logical “proof”, but I already set out the definition, so I’m cool with it in this context.)

I’m glad we can agree that “blind faith” is not healthy.

Hmmm, all this agreeing is kind of…weird.

In order to cure this thread from dastardly acquiescence , if I can, could I throw something else into the mix –
Suppose there was a term called “Bugabo” with the definition being – “A firm, convicted, unchanging belief in something in the light of clear inconsistencies even when there are other options with less inconsistencies”…..would you call this “Bugabo” unhealthy? (Note - I’m not talking about Christianity here, just a term called “Bugabo”.)