Faulty 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 logical fallacy of faulty comparison occurs when two unrelated entities are compared, creating a false impression about one or both of the entities that were compared.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Faulty Comparison

“God wouldn’t break the laws of nature by doing a miracle.”

The word, law, in the sense of a natural law, is descriptive, telling what can be observed about how things are. God is the enforcer of this regularity and order. He can do something different sometimes if it’s His will to do so. What we call natural laws just show the nature of the invisible God, His orderliness and faithfulness. The legal system is saying things like, “It’s against the law to steal, and if you steal, the penalty is such and so. The term, natural law, is not comparable to civil laws.

"We know that evolution and billions of years are facts of science. This is the same science by which we can make cars and trains and busses. You believe in cars, trains, and busses, don't you? Then believe in evolution and billions of years."

There is a huge difference between stories about the past that cannot be verified or observed and operational science in the present which can be verified and observed. When they are compared without pointing out the vast differences between them, this is the fallacy of faulty comparison. It is even more deceptive when someone implies that because operational science can be done on something in the present, that the stories that are told to explain the observations are as valid as the observations themselves. Stories are not the same as operational science.

Fallacy Abuse

Roxanne: "In my walk with Jesus Christ, I sometimes don’t hear Him as I should or respond to His Voice as I should. You are into science. You should relate, since science never purports to know anything for certain, but is always uncovering new information. In a similar way, what I now know in Christ is incomplete and likely to have errors. The work of the Holy Spirit is to correct me and nurture me until I grow up fully into Christ."

Sandy: "That is the logical fallacy of faulty comparison. You’re saying that religion might be wrong about a few things but that science has been wrong about some things too. You are trying to compare a method of knowledge, that is, science, to a system of belief, that is, faith. Faith is not revising itself based on new evidence. Science is. Even when religion revises itself, the revisions are based on human interpretation. Science is all about improving and getting ever closer to the truth. In some cases, science even completely throws out theories when they are found to be wrong. Therefore, it is the logical fallacy of faulty comparison to compare religion to science."

Roxanne: "I didn’t say anything about religion first of all. Second, everything that you just claimed for science is true of the walk with Jesus Christ. And some of the things where you claimed science to be different are not different at all. Would you care to hear why I think this is true."

Sandy: "Go for it."

Roxanne: "Christ is the Truth, and in Him is hidden all knowledge, which He reveals. He is the only reliable method of knowledge, and He reveals through the Bible, through science, and many other means. Faith is a free gift of supernatural belief and trust that we receive when we hear the Voice of God and acknowledge it. For that reason, your comment about faith doesn’t make any sense. You may have had a different meaning for faith that I do, though. My understanding of God is constantly being revised based on new evidence that God gives. I hope that scientist easily revise their thinking, as you said. They should hold onto theories loosely. So should Christ-followers. You said that, even when religion revises itself, the revisions are based on human interpretation, like science blames the material world when they get it wrong, or do they blame human interpretation? If you define science as a method of observing the created world, that’s a good definition. You say that science is all about improving and getting ever closer to the truth. My walk with Jesus Christ is all about improving and getting ever closer to the truth. He is the Truth. You say that science, I’m sure you didn’t mean to personify science, but you meant scientists, even completely throw out theories when they are found to be wrong. That is what they ought to do. And so should followers of Christ. Therefore, it is NOT the logical fallacy of faulty comparison to compare a progressive walk with Christ to the progressive work of a scientist."

Sandy defined science, which was good. Then she had science doing things as if it were a person, and this was in conflict with Sandy’s definition. Sandy launched an attack against religion without defining religion. What is the religion that Sandy personifies here, and what is the interpretation to which Sandy refers? Interpretation of what? At any rate, realizing that someone is using poor logic is smart. Attacking someone for using poor logic doesn’t open up lines of communication. It might be OK to point out where something fails, but care must be taken. Sandy obviously didn’t know what faith is or that nature of a spiritual walk with Christ, yet she went on for some time.

Tip: Don’t get nitpicky over the errors of others. They may not be in error at all and you may end up being the one who is uninformed. Sometimes, it is good to ask questions rather than attack.