| Appeal to False Faith |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Appeal to False Faith
|
Logical Fallacy of Appeal to False FaithAppeal to false faith is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of appeal to faith occurs when someone uses make-believe faith (not the same as biblical faith) as a premise to support a conclusion rather than using true premises. It is a misuse of biblical faith, which is legitimate. Biblical faith comes by hearing the word (Greek: rhema = utterance) of God. When God speaks and we acknowledge Him, biblical faith comes. So there is ample room for equivocation on the word, faith, since the same word is used for both make-believe and God's imparted faith. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to False Faith / Appeal to Make-Believe
Sandy is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to faith. Generally, a conversation like this will result in Sandy using every other fallacy to defend his position before letting it out of the bag that he is depending of faith, since people who believe in the self-refuting philosophy of scientism use the word faith as a weapon against anyone who knows Jesus Christ, as well as those who follow earth spirits or have rationalized faith in some sort of god. In fact, Sandy would probably rather cut off communication than admit that he is committing the fallacy of appeal to faith.
It is possible to have real faith and to fail to give God the glory for it. Rocky is speaking of a rationalized faith here; however, he may also have real faith. He may actually know Jesus and have a relationship with Him. In today's society, Rocky should have realized that he was being challenged by a skeptic. The skeptic would probably have a specifically cynical definition of faith meaning make-believe rather than biblical faith. Rocky's answer allows equivocation on the word, faith. He would have been better off answering the question with something like this: "My evidence is that God tells me this and I believe God." Now, Sandy can answer Rocky and tell Rocky that he isn't experiencing what he is experiencing, but Sandy can only do this by being irrational.
Sandy has a make-believe faith in naturalism and is committing the fallacy of appeal to faith/make-believe. An axiom is an assumption that someone pretends is not an assumption.
Rocky: "True faith in God comes by God speaking and imparting His supernatural belief and trust into a human being. It's an ongoing experience that I have. God explains many things to me in a reasonable way, but things that the natural senses can't detect, like the history of the Universe or some details of the spiritual realm."
Sandy has a make-believe faith in the tenets of Atheism and has committed the fallacy of appeal to make-believe/appeal to faith. He uses summary dismissal because he would rather break off the discussion than to admit that he is making it all up, though. Atheists use this logic: Any faith is make-believe faith; therefore, any faith is make-believe faith, except for their own make-believe faith. They exclude themselves. Otherwise their own comments would be disqualified since they are made-up stuff. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionProof by Fallacy Evidence Surrogate Error in Observation Misrepresenting the Facts Distorted Evidence Unverified Evidence Hysteron Proteron Unsubstantiated Inference Assuming Facts Not In Evidence Wishful Thinking Appeal to Worldview Slippery Slope Limited Scope Mind Reading Shoehorning Confirmation Bias Sacred Cow Fantasy Projection Group Think Context Imposition Psychologist\'s Fallacy Amazing Familiarity Stolen Concept Weak Inference Proof by Theoretical Stories Anecdotal Evidence Dismissing All Personal Testimony Rewriting History Proof by Model Proof by Assumption Personal Incredulity Argument by Lack of Imagination Argument by Imagination Capturing the Naive Argument from Personal Astonishment Special Pleading Variant Imagization Self-Exclusion Unintended Self-Inclusion Ad Personam Proof by Repeated Assertion Cherishing the Zombie Argumentum Ad Lapidem Understatement Tautology Declaring Victory Assumption Correction Assumption Questionable Criteria Summary Dismissal Thought-Terminating Cliche Truism Perfectionist Fallacy Worst Case Scenario Fallacy Unwarranted Extrapolation Untestability Subjectivist Fallacy Bizarre Hypothesis Least Plausible Hypothesis Extravagant Hypothesis Privileging the Hypothesis Canceling Hypotheses False Appeal to Heaven Inaccurate Models Hedging Politician\'s \"We\" Appeal to Nature Experimenter Bias Crucial Experiment Hearsay Ad Hoc Rescue Hindsight Bias Fallacy of the Beard Argument from Fallacy Inflation of Conflict Infinite Regress Reification Personification Slothful Induction Superstitious Thinking Meaningless Question Proving Non-Existence Argumentum ad Imaginibus Statement of Conversion Outdated Information Argument by Laziness Alien Fallacy Quantum Physics Fallacy Fallacious Abstraction Appeal to the Unknown Grasping at Straws Pragmatism Fake Hope Appeal to Intuition Appeal to Mystery Argument from Design Untestability Imaginary Evidence Monopolizing the Question Fallacy of Antecedent Faulty Predictor Pretentious Antecedent Pretentious Premise Recently Viewed |
