Inconsistent Comparison Fallacy

Inconsistent comparison 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 regress, 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. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Inconsistent Comparison Fallacy occurs when different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison. Generally, different elements of two or more objects or phenomena are compared, but not consistently, in order to arrive at a statement about one of them. If phenomena A is the focus, one of its features is compared to a similar feature of B. Then another of its features is compared to a similar feature of C (not B). Then, a statement is made from this inconsistency.

Examples of the Inconsistent Comparison Fallacy

Sandra: "OK. Let's compare faith to science. Science has facts and evidence. Faith is just belief with no evidence."

Roxy: "Are you defining 'science' as a method and 'faith' as the kind of faith God speaks about through the Bible?"

Sandra: "Science is both a method of inquiry and also a body of knowledge. We can go with the faith like the Bible talks about."

Roxy: "It sounds like you may be making an inconsistent comparison. You are focusing on the belief aspect of faith and the evidence aspect of science."

Sandra: "How so?"

Roxy: "As a body of knowledge, science is a system of beliefs, which are taken on faith. Secular science is based assumptions that are taken on faith. Assumptions have zero truth value. This all ties in with the problem of Agrippa's Trilemma.

Sandra: "I've heard of Agrippa's Trilemma, but I didn't understand it. It seems to blow out all of reason, logic, and science. It just would make all of those impossible."

Roxy: "Agrippa's Trilemma is only a problem if we artificially rule out Divine revelation. Agrippa was a skeptic. It's good to be skeptical of many things. I am skeptical of claims that are in conflict with what God is telling me through revelation.

Sandra: "Well science is stronger than faith."

Roxy: "Faith comes when God speaks. God speaking is the evidence. To a scientist who is looking at the Creation and acknowledging the Creator God, God speaks through the Creation. Truth unfolds. When God speaks, He speaks truth, and faith, a supernatural belief in what God said, comes as a free gift. God never twists the reality of observation when He speaks through scientific method. He doesn't speculate. When people add assumptions to what God is saying, this merely clouds the issue. God never twists the reality of the words that He wrote through apostles and prophets. He is absolutely honest and cannot lie. Faith is the only way we can know anything about anything, and, even then, we have to be ready to allow the Holy Spirit to correct us as needed. We don't know anything as we ought to know."

Sandra would like to compare the belief aspect of following Christ to the evidence aspect of scientific method. She still wants to have the body of knowledge, but doesn't realize that it is faith. It is not real faith, but it is just make-believe. Real faith has substance. Real faith is a gift from God that comes when God speaks. Because of Agrippa's Trilemma, it is impossible to actually know anything through science. It is possible to build wonderful things so long as we can test them and make sure they will work. It is not possible to test speculations, stories, and assumptions about the past, so science can't go there except by Divine revelation as a basis. It is not possible to test the spiritual realm so science can't make any comment on it unless Divine revelation is the basis.

Sandra is ignoring the evidence part of God-given "faith" and ignoring the make-belief "faith" part of science. Science must be based on assumptions that are taken on faith (make believe) or else on Divine revelation that creates the faith (supernatural, imparted belief in reality) of God. God speaks. If we acknowledge Him, God's faith comes and causes us to believe whatever God just said. Faith gives access to grace, and grace acts on what God just said.

The inability to know anything by human reasoning would hold for philosophy. It certainly cannot comment on the past or the spiritual realm unless Divine revelation is the basis. It cannot rationally comment on reality, truth, or morality unless Divine revelation is the basis.