Optimistic faith without gullibility

"You're very gullible." --Todd
"No Todd, I'm OPEN." --Cathy

As I was watching TV today, this quote struck me. The former was said because Cathy had mentioned occasionally consulting psychics, and wanting to have her cards read. Perhaps the writers were going for sarcasm, but I choose to take it as a very real debate on one of those fine lines that we tread in life. Cathy is a self proclaimed optimist, while Todd is a hard science MD who chooses "realism" over either the sunny side up or dark clouds abound ways of thinking. Some might say that realism is a nice happy medium between optimism and pessimism. In truth, I think that everyone is realistic in their own sense of reality, and that those who go with "realism" as a philosophy simply do it to either justify or temper their inclination to either extreme.

But where are the lines between reality and blind faith? Openness to being closed off? Optimism vs. Pessimism? Are any right? Is moderation always the key?

Optimists are by nature hopeful people who tend to be open to more possibilities than the average person. Many optimists are people of faith, because many religions preach hope... or pretend to. Interestingly enough, this is not a reverseable truth. You cannot say that most people of faith are optimists, nor that most people of science are pessimists. The reason? Neither science nor faith lends itself to optimism or pessimism. Pessmistic people of faith will always find the dark gloom of the religious doctrine. Optimistic scientists see excitement in the power of knowledge and it's progression.

But back to the original question, where is the sweet spot between the two? Many will say that it can be found, and those people who find it become the average and "realistic" middle. Of course, this is completely inaccurate. Though it is true that the average person is neither an optimist or a pessimist, this is neither realistic nor some great sweet spot. We are so often inclined to want everything in moderation, and to find the balance and the middle that we sometimes forget that we're not supposed to. Look at being smart. Is there a medium point we should hit? Of course not. Dumb is bad. Smart is good. The smarter the better. Of course we often overlook the fact that there are traits like that even when they would help us a great deal.

So first to tackle the "realism" issue, which is nicely illustrated in the original quote. Todd believes in only what can be proven. Cathy, it seems believes in a great deal, or at least the "possibility" of a great deal. Interestingly enough, in the end, according to history, Cathy will prove right... by science. That's right. The great tool of "realism" is historically that which proves people of faith correct. Let me note here that I am not using faith in a purely religious term. Lots of "religious" people have no faith, and lots of people of faith choose no religion. The people of faith that I refer to are those that somehow inherently know and believe that there is more out there. Of course we time and time again prove that this is true. Thousands of years ago those who had faith in great laws of the universe that governed all living things were men of faith. They may said these laws were governed by gods or by "magic" but it was the men of faith who believed that they existed.

I also would say that true people of faith, do not fight against science and facts. They simply believe that there are MORE facts that we don't know. Those who say that knowledge removes faith are those who are seriously lacking in... well... faith. It is totally plausible, and EFFECTIVE to believe the facts as fact, and to believe that there is more to it than we know. Some of the things that "realists" reject have strangely been around for a very very long time. Why is it that even in an age of mass information and science can we still sometimes be shocked at accuracy of "alternative" ideas and methods? Perhaps there is a reason these things seem to work a great deal. Perhaps we just aren't yet ready to figure out the science behind it all. Maybe our "reasons" for why something works isn't dead on, but maybe it works just the same. People of hope and of faith inherently understand this. People who destroy these ideas with no more proof than those who believe in them are only hindering their own possible knowledge.

On to the second issue of optimism vs. pessimism, this one should be as clear as the smart vs dumb argument, yet somehow it's not. When we're young we are born optimistic. We are called naive, and this is a derogatory statement. Innocent is slightly nicer, but in effect the idea is the more you know about the world, the more pessimistic you should be. Now most people would argue that we don't actually want people to be "pessimistic," just more realistic (there's that word again). People who are optimistic in love are "hopelessly romantic." Hopeless again such a derogatory term, and yet we use it in this context all the time. People who trust are suckers, people who don't run in fear are ignorant. You are allowed to be optimistic only until you fall flat on your face, have your heart broken, your trust betrayed, etc. and suddenly "know better."

So why is this bad? Shouldn't we temper the hope and light with some solid "protection" that a dash of pessimism can provide? NO. Why? What makes this seemingly reasonable idea bad? Because pessimism kills us and optimism gives us life. We are born optimistic for a reason. Science has proven time and time again that a good outlook on life increases your ability to fight disease, lengthens your life, and makes you a healthier person. Optimism provides for this in a way that pessimism never can. This is why there has never been a scientific study proving pessimists live longer. Ever. Yet time and time again the reverse is true. Despite all the "protection" and "safety" that pessimism and through it "realism" provides, those who choose this don't live as long as the optimists. Do optimists make mistakes? Do they trust when they shouldn't? Do they put themselves in harms way without always realizing it? Yep! Of course what is often forgotten is that so does EVERYONE. Who in this world, no matter how much "realism" they spout hasn't made errors in judgement, or taken the unsafe path? No one. This is the truth. We're all gullible at some point. We all assume we know more than we do. Pessimism doesn't protect you. No one has the ability to be infallible, and therefore any amount of protection will be imperfect. By choosing optimism, you create a happier situation to live in when trouble isn't on the horizon rather than living in darkness. Further, optimism gives you the strength, hope, and IDEAS to get back up again when you've been knocked down. An optimist is like a rubber ball. It'll hit the ground, but it will always bounce back. Realism is like a lead ball. When it falls, it finds it hard to ever move again, because it traps itself in the "reality" it finds itself in. Pessimism is more like an egg. It has this amazing shell that protects it. Unfortunately, that shell can't hold forever, and when it finally breaks, the soft insides just spill all over.

Everyone can choose what they will. I have always chosen to believe in more than what I know, and to know in my heart that things in truth are bright and good. The sun is always shining, even if we can't see it. Looking only at the darkness will only blind us to the light when it comes back out again.