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?

[nikolayevich]

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?

The above statement doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence. Is it unhealthy?

Firstly it should be noted that reason is imperative to one arriving at any kind of meaningful faith. Faith is a willingness to place trust, not without evidence or defensibility, but beyond the point which material means can attain. Everything must point in that direction to go there. It can be likened to trusting in someone close to you to look after your child. You cannot logically prove they will not harm the child, nor can you submit material evidence to confirm safety. However, you can make reasoned judgment based on personal experience, your limited knowledge of that person (no knowledge of anyone you know can be entirely exhaustive), and then, once you have thoroughly confirmed as far as is possible that this person is trustworthy, you may then entrust your child to them. By no means is faith in God without the use of the brain. But it must also be the heart.

One problem is that arguing whether or not something -- unmeasurable by definition -- is unhealthy, would be difficult to be determined in any measured way.

In addition, if mentally or socially "healthy" is based on any kind of norm, we know that some 3(+/-) billion people have some kind of faith, so it would be difficult to prove it to be unhealthy by any global standard.

Actually, I think one of the oddest things of all, is that most everyone has faith in some world view. They often assume that since they don't believe in God, they don't arrive at similarly unprovable conclusions.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

I have to reject that definition of "faith." That definition is always preceded by the adjective "blind." One cannot rule out reason a priori when defining faith.

I simply consider faith as choosing to believing in some object (God, an idea, belief, event, etc.) when one could choose to not believe in it. That presupposes that there exists several options/explanations to choose relating to that object.

Faith is choosing to believe in something when other possible explanations exist. Faith is necessary in any circumstance when multiple explanations to something exist. Faith is the result of choosing one of several possible explanations through the process of abduction. Even the most likely or evident explanation requires faith.

For example, Baggini and Fosl in Philosopher's Toolkit use abduction in the following case:

A man is found in a cabin in a remote forest, with all the doors and windows securely locked from the inside, hanging dead from a noose. A suicide note lies on the table nearby. What would best explain this set of facts?...
Abduction is a process of reasoning used to decide which explanation of given phenomena we should select, and so, naturally it is also called 'argument to the best explanation.'
...
Unsettling as it seems, some philosophers have even argued that for every possible body of evidence there will always be a variety of explanations consistent with it...Whether or not their claim is true, however, in cases where we do face a set of alternative explanations, our task as good reasoners must be to decide which one of those explanations best fits the evidence. That's where abduction comes in.

Now Baggini and Fosl pose several different explanations for the facts of the man in the cabin example above.

1.) Suicide
2.) Man was rehearsing a drama about suicide, locked the doors for privacy, and accidently hanged himself.
3.) CIA had secretly developed teletransporters, killed the man, set things up to look like a suicide and left without using the doors.
4.) Demonic spirit living in woods magically appeared in room, killed him and vanished.
etc. etc.

All the explanations account for the facts, but which is the best? We conclude that suicide is the most reasonable explanation.

Bottom line though: our conclusion takes faith based on our reason and logic (philosophy). It's wrong to try to make faith and reason mutually exclusive.

Now as far as faith and health are mutally concerned, David Myers in Exploring Social Psychology wrote:

First, actively religious North Americans are much less likely than irreligious people to become delinquent, to abuse drugs and alcohol, to divorce, and to commit suicide. Thanks in part to their lower rates of smoking and drinking, religiously active people even tend to be physically healthier and to live longer.

Myers references numerous studies I provided below. He goes on about many other areas in life where faith creates longer living, happier people.

Myers continues:
In later life, according to one meta-analysis, the two best predictors of life satifsaction have been health and religiousness.

The following were references in Myers' book:
Batson, Schoenrade & Ventis - Religion and the individual: A social psychological perspective
Koenig - Is religion good for your health? The effects of religion on physical and mental health.
Matthews and Larson - The faith factor: An annotated bibliography of clinical research on spiritual subjects

Maybe not across the board, yet, but studies have shown that people of faith are more likely to be happier and healthier. I don't know if that means anything to ya'll. I can only personally vouch for my own happiness and well-being since being born again.

As the old proverb goes, "the heart can't believe what the mind rejects."

[proverbial student]

But it must also be the heart.

Does this mean you believe in enlightenment by the Holy Spirit? I understand the brain part - the thinking part, but I also look to the spiritual side of our being. There are two parts, physical and spiritual. Just curious.

As to the original question, to me, faith can only be healthy if it is questioned. If one believes blindly, either that person is a very enlightened individual or would believe anything, right?

Reason being that as in the story in Acts of the Apostles and Gamaliel and even Jesus Christ remarked about it, there are and always will be imposters. Look at the Waco tragedy, the Jim Jones tragedy, Tony Alamo, the Mhoonies...people are looking for a fix and sometimes have faith in those who take advantage of them. In these situations, blind faith is NOT healthy at all. Again, I think one must question their faith daily and pray for enlightenment by the Holy Spirit to "see" the Truth.

[ST88]

Now as far as faith and health are mutally concerned, David Myers in Exploring Social Psychology wrote:

First, actively religious North Americans are much less likely than irreligious people to become delinquent, to abuse drugs and alcohol, to divorce, and to commit suicide. Thanks in part to their lower rates of smoking and drinking, religiously active people even tend to be physically healthier and to live longer.

Myers references numerous studies I provided below. He goes on about many other areas in life where faith creates longer living, happier people...

Not contesting the actual studies that produced this data, we could also use abduction to explain the results. Why would having religious faith make you healthier? It appears as though the given explanation is the right one, that people who have faith are generally happier. And shiny happy people holding hands are generally healthier than their dour pessimistic counterparts. Medicine has suggested a link between state of mind and survivability of certain medical conditions. The happiness created by faith would explain this. But I would dispute that it is the faith itself in favor of the resultant happiness. I would contend that just because faith is easier to measure than happiness we would have results like these. If the relative measurable "happiness" scale could be applied to non-religious people, I would tend to think that the results would be identical.

Similarly, I think the results for alcohol abuse rates & smoking rates, etc. would be lower for those who participated in religious activities vs. those that did not, if only because participation in such activities encourages communication. It would make sense that a family that discussed these issues in an environment of openness and emotional generosity would tend to have fewer of these problems than one that did not, regardless of faith. (I'm assuming that this exists in religious families, since I have no direct experience with this -- but I imagine it does.)

In either case, faith is not necessary, only the results that it brings. These are just states of mind which can be achieved outside of faith.

[dangerdan]

The above statement doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence. Is it unhealthy?

I don’t understand? Material evidence of what is on dictionary.com? You can go and check it out if you don’t believe me.

Or do you mean the question does not rest on logical proof or material evidence? If that is what you mean, my response is that it is a question (ie - is faith healthy?), not a belief system.

One problem is that arguing whether or not something -- unmeasurable by definition -- is unhealthy, would be difficult to be determined in any measured way.

I know.

I have to reject that definition of "faith." That definition is always preceded by the adjective "blind." One cannot rule out reason a priori when defining faith.

I didn’t write the dictionary.

Faith is choosing to believe in something when other possible explanations exist. Faith is necessary in any circumstance when multiple explanations to something exist. Faith is the result of choosing one of several possible explanations through the process of abduction. Even the most likely or evident explanation requires faith.

I think what you are referring to is inductive reasoning. Maybe not abduction (what is abduction? Isn’t that where you kidnap someone?). Not faith. Inductive reasoning is where you build up a single overarching theory to explain many particular events. Like a scientific theory. That is aaaaall good. But this is quite different to faith. Faith generally means that you should be certain that X will happen. Inductive reasoning doesn’t.

Further, inductive reasoning is meant to be perfectly reasonable. Faith generally carries nuances that you believe something even when it is unreasonable, wouldn’t you say? Well, that’s what the dictionary seems to say anyway.

[ST88]

I think what you are referring to is inductive reasoning. Maybe not abduction (what is abduction? Isn’t that where you kidnap someone?). Not faith.

Apologies in advance for being didactic. And please correct me...
Abduction is the process of creating a hypothesis from a given set of data. Its use is quite appropriate for the example given.

Induction is similar, but the two are kind of inverses to each other. Induction starts with a particular case, then it gives a bit of evidence in that case to come up with a rule about that case. Abduction starts with a rule, then it shows a bit of evidence and asks you to come up with a hypothesis about the evidence based on the rule.

So if EI presents a case where:
A) Faith is shown to be more effective at making people happier than non-faith. (rule)
then we are given:
B) EI has faith. (evidence)
we may believe that:
C) EI is happier than most people. (hypothesis)

The hypothesis doesn't necessarily have to mathematically descend from the first two lines, it is instead a prediction or a best guess about the evidence according to the rule.

And I think that this still passes the test that dangerdan set out in the definition of faith, because the above is not a logical proof. We have to make the conclusion based on what we believe to be true. Our world view will necessarily color the hypothesis -- my prior knowledge of EI's writings informed my conclusion, for example.

Where we may get into trouble is by hypothesizing that:
C) EI will be generally healthier than most people

This, I think, is partly true because of the way we may treat EI, or the way EI treats himself. If he has faith, maybe he doesn't need extreme ressucitive(?) measures to keep him alive. Maybe he takes more chances when he goes out rock climbing than he otherwise would. These are extreme examples. But consider how an insurance company should rewrite their actuarial charts based on this information. Should people who have faith pay less of a premium? Be put ahead of others on an organ donor list? Could they be able to eat more fatty foods without fear of athrosclerosis?

[dangerdan]

Ok, ok, hold on. I was probably a little vague with my ‘healthy’. Sorry guys. Me bad.

I’m not talking about someone’s body fat or cholesterol level or heart condition. I was referring to ‘healthy’ in respect to whether it is physiologically healthy for someone to have faith (which I did strictly define for the sake of the argument). ‘Healthy’ is obviously a very broad term, with no succinct definition, which is why I’m just tossing it out there and asking if people regard faith (with the definition provided) to be a healthy thing to have.

For example, I personally don’t think irrationality is healthy. But that’s just me. Some thoughts.

[dangerdan]

Oh, and by physiological, I mean psychological.

Oh man, what’s happening to me today!

[Corvus]

Ok, ok, hold on. I was probably a little vague with my ‘healthy’. Sorry guys. Me bad.

I’m not talking about someone’s body fat or cholesterol level or heart condition. I was referring to ‘healthy’ in respect to whether it is physiologically healthy for someone to have faith (which I did strictly define for the sake of the argument). ‘Healthy’ is obviously a very broad term, with no succinct definition, which is why I’m just tossing it out there and asking if people regard faith (with the definition provided) to be a healthy thing to have.

For example, I personally don’t think irrationality is healthy. But that’s just me. Some thoughts.

I think it depends on the situation. I doubt a religious person's actions are any more irrational than that of a non-religious person, except when the people they vote for is taken into account. 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.

We have seen cases of people driven mad by their beliefs - the priest who shot a doctor at an abortion clinic, for example - but for the most part, as you have probably seen from this forum, Christians are people with good intentions, and aren't all angry little men, like Jack Chick.