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?

[otseng]

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”.)

I'm afraid I would have to agree that "Bugabo" is unhealthy.

And of course, I would not classify Christianity as a "Bugabo".

[ST88]

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”.)

Bugabo wouldn't be unhealthy unless it caused someone to act unhealthily. I don't think we can say that unhealthy=wrong or that healthy=right.

Many artists were diagnosed with various mental afflictions in their lifes (and sometimes posthumously). Robert Lowell, a manic-depressive beat poet, was given lithium at one point in his life, and you can see the effect in his poetry -- he went from unstructured free verse to closed-off sonnets. Dostoevsky suffered from epilepsy. Hemingway experienced a hereditary form of depression. Now, dangerdan, I know you took the later position in this thread that you were not talking about physical health, but mental conditions would seem to be fair game, since they are a part of world view. Would the art of these individuals have been created without these conditions? That is, is it possible to be unhealthy and still contribute to society?

I don't think that belief, even blind faith, is unhealthy unless it is coupled with "unhealthy" action. If I believed that aliens from Tralfamadore were controlling our thoughts, and I did not in any way act any differently than if I did not believe that, how could that be considered unhealthy?

[nikolayevich]

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”.)

I'm afraid I would have to agree that "Bugabo" is unhealthy.

Although, Bugabo does sound friendly...

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

Hmmm, all this agreeing is kind of…weird.

You guys are doing a great job of defining terms and speaking on a level where you can see each other's position.

Forgive me if I digress a little. I've thought it over some more and have some additional input on some of the concepts of the thread question.

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.

I think to suggest that people with faith are unhealthy, and on a level with the mentally ill, one must avoid that everyone lives by a number of beliefs (things which others around them will see as uncertainties) whether one likes it or no. It is not possible to live life without accepting some things as true though not verifying all aspects of the same. We all make decisions daily which are not based on "proven" knowledge, but rather reason and in many cases -- in practicality not just hypothetically -- estimation.

Hopefully with age comes wisdom and those who care about the truth of the matter in any case will move away from unconfirmed beliefs, trusts, faiths, toward more things which are increasingly stable in our mind.

No existing world view is exempt from holding fast to some things which are perceptively unsure, whether religious in title or not. We can say that we will of course reject anything which contradicts our current understanding (crucial to scientific method after all) and that therefore there is objectivity, but I posit that despite all our best attempts, we will always have some number of unconfirmed or unseen ideas which are necessary to be true to sustain our overall world view.

I know that non-theists don't like to say that they have "faith" but perhaps if we take the definition as discussed of "blind faith" as what is agreed should be rejected, the word "faith" itself should be less of a hang up.

Yes, the theist claims a belief in something which is not seen by everyone and therefore there can be no denial that they do have something that we can place in the category of faith. The theist can certainly be indicted for believing something when others around say it is foolish, or perhaps that they are by way of these beliefs... mentally ill.

Of everything we believe, it is rare that any experience of real knowledge we have stems from pure reason and objectivity. Everyone likes to think that they are able to look at a situation and see the truth of the matter but of course we cannot all be right, as many of the things we each lay claim to are mutually exclusive in truthfulness.

Therefore, as we all live by some kind of belief system which is not seen to be true by others, we would have to include everyone as potentially unhealthy. It is certainly within the realm of possibility for everyone to become unhealthy, however, perhaps we could agree that some forms of belief are more unhealthy than others. This I would agree is very true.

[dangerdan]

Would the art of these individuals have been created without these conditions? That is, is it possible to be unhealthy and still contribute to society?

This is an important pragmatic argument, and I can very much see the point you are making. But I would still answer “yes, it is still possible to be considered unhealthy and contribute to society” (though I would say, incidentally, it would be an exception rather than a rule). Take the classic pained artist, and one of my personal favorites, Van Gogh. I would say that he painted some beautiful paintings that I quite enjoy looking at, but by no means I would consider him “healthy” for a second! Was he valuable? Yes. Was he mentally healthy? Heck no.

We of course should not imperialistically and arrogantly try to stop people from demonstrating “blind faith” if they wish to do so.

I don't think that belief, even blind faith, is unhealthy unless it is coupled with "unhealthy" action. If I believed that aliens from Tralfamadore were controlling our thoughts, and I did not in any way act any differently than if I did not believe that, how could that be considered unhealthy?

Again, to bring up the example of multiple personalities. Do you consider someone with multiple personalities healthy so long as they don’t hurt anyone or themselves?

I think to suggest that people with faith are unhealthy, and on a level with the mentally ill, one must avoid that everyone lives by a number of beliefs (things which others around them will see as uncertainties) whether one likes it or no.

Again, just to clarity, I do not mean to say people that demonstrate blind faith are about the same as people with multiple personalities. Some of my good friends and family are Christians. The only reason I brought up the topic of multiple personalities was to show that it can do no physical harm to themselves or others but almost everyone would still deem it unhealthy.

[Overcomer]

It is impossible to live life without faith. Everybody has faith in something, faith in themselves and their abilities, faith in others, faith in science, faith in logic and reason, faith in the government, etc.

The important thing isn't faith itself but who or what each of us places our faith in. It's the object of faith that's important. Faith, in and of itself, isn't the problem. The problem is that some people put their faith in the wrong things.

[bernee51]

It is impossible to live life without faith. Everybody has faith in something, faith in themselves and their abilities, faith in others, faith in science, faith in logic and reason, faith in the government, etc.

There is faith...to have reliance or trust in.

And then there is faith...belief in religious doctrines, god etc, or a spiritual apprehension of divine truths.

I think the two are mightily different.

Having 'faith' that a plane won't crash is in a different league to having 'faith' in the existence of a creator god that has some special purpose in mind for his creation.

Faith, in and of itself, isn't the problem. The problem is that some people put their faith in the wrong things.

you are right there. Faith is not the problem it is how it has been used to dominate others and maintain power through fear.

It is somewhat akin to terrorism in that regard.

[nikolayevich]

Having 'faith' that a plane won't crash is in a different league to having 'faith' in the existence of a creator god that has some special purpose in mind for his creation.

Only if you say so.

Faith, in and of itself, isn't the problem. The problem is that some people put their faith in the wrong things.

you are right there. Faith is not the problem it is how it has been used to dominate others and maintain power through fear.

It is somewhat akin to terrorism in that regard.

I agree. Anywhere that religion is manipulated to control and oppress people, it is exactly as you describe it. It often begins with demagoguery and ends in disaster.

[dangerdan]

bernee51 wrote:

Having 'faith' that a plane won't crash is in a different league to having 'faith' in the existence of a creator god that has some special purpose in mind for his creation.

Only if you say so.

But surely nik you must agree. The reason we think a plane probably wont crash is due to fairly hard and direct statistical analysis. I think we’ve come to the conclusion that the brand of faith set out in this thread’s definition is commonly termed “blind faith”. Though I think it’s a blurred line where “blind faith” stops.

[scorpia]

There is faith...to have reliance or trust in.

And then there is faith...belief in religious doctrines, god etc, or a spiritual apprehension of divine truths.

I think the two are mightily different.

Yet the latter is still requires form of trust IMO. You may have a friend that you may trust. Then there is the faith in God or deities. You could, for argument's sake, believe in God, and solid proof in his existance (for arguments sake), but even if the knowledge of that proof of there, you may still not have faith in God, and trust what he says, like trust in the fact that he forgives all sins.

If it is okay I'd like to stretch this argument a bit;
A faith in God or deities may or may or may not be healthy, but what about faith in yourself? Surely that is healthy and required. People can say 'A God that can do so and so? What a load of bull, that couldn't possbly be so.', yet when it comes to yourself, is it not better to believe rather than to say 'I can do so and so? What a load of bull, that couldn't possibly be so.'

[dangerdan]

If it is okay I'd like to stretch this argument a bit;
A faith in God or deities may or may or may not be healthy, but what about faith in yourself? Surely that is healthy and required. People can say 'A God that can do so and so? What a load of bull, that couldn't possbly be so.', yet when it comes to yourself, is it not better to believe rather than to say 'I can do so and so? What a load of bull, that couldn't possibly be so.'

You have raised a very good point. An interesting article was written on http://www.philosophersnet.com/ about it called “rational irrationality” (sorry I can’t find the proper link, I think they’ve gotten strict on subscription articles). It talks about irrational self confidence. To be totally honest with you, I haven’t made up my mind yet about this subject yet.