Of all the words in the English language, ‘faith’ is among the most confusing, and
the reason for this is because there’s a least five active definitions used in everyday
life, and people unfortunately rarely realize which definition they’re using at a particular
time… This, is Arguments from Faith – Debunked.
The single greatest bit of advice that I can give to someone who has been presented with an Argument from Faith, is to get the proponent
to first very clearly declare which definition of the word ‘faith’ they’re using, and
to then help them put their argument into a syllogistic form. The reason for this, is
because the word ‘faith’ means many things to many people, and if we want to effectively
communicate with one another (which is the very point of rational discourse), then we
simply must make sure that we first understand each-other, by ensuring that we’re using
the same language and definitions. And so, let’s start by putting a few of the most
relevant definitions on the table. A first is, ‘a particular religion’ – as in,
‘he has a Christian faith’ or ‘my faith is Hellenic Polytheism’. A second is, ‘a
strongly held belief’ – as in, ‘I have a strong political faith’ or ‘I have faith
that Floyd Mayweather will defeat Conor Mcgregor’. A third is, ‘belief in the reliability,
truth, or ability of something or someone’, which is actually the definition of the word
‘trust’ – as in, I have trust (I mean, faith) in the scientific method’ or ‘I
will walk across this bridge because I trust (I mean, have faith) that it will support
my weight’. And while we’re on the topic of ‘trust’, a fourth definition is, ‘trust
or confidence in a person or thing’ – as in, ‘I’m putting my faith in you’ or
‘I have faith that the fire alarm will go off in the event of a fire’. And a fifth
is, ‘belief without sufficient evidence (and often in the face of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary)’, or, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, ‘the excuse people give when they
believe something and don’t have a good reason’, or, as Aron Ra puts it, ‘the
belief that if you believe something hard enough then reality will somehow change - that
you can wish things to happen’ – as in, ‘I know that Xenu exists because I have
faith’ or ‘I have faith that when I die I will be consciously reunited with my loved-ones’.
Now we could continue to list more definitions, but, honestly, there’s no need – the point
has been made; there are many definitions of the word ‘faith’, and people frequently
use them interchangeably, which makes them extremely susceptible to committing Equivocation
Fallacies… and that, good Sirs and Ladies, is the primary flaw with Arguments from Faith…
they quite simply are the embodiment of the Equivocation Fallacy. An Equivocation Fallacy
occurs when an argument alternates between two or more different definitions of a word
or term throughout its premises in order to achieve its conclusion, and thus it renders
the conclusion invalid. For example; Trees have branches; My bank has branches all over
the world; Therefore, my bank is a tree. In this case, during premise one we are using
a definition of the word ‘branch’ that is ‘a part of a tree which grows out from
the trunk or from a bough’, whereas in premise two we are using a definition of the word
‘branch’ that is ‘one of the offices or groups that form part of a large business
organization’, and hence, we can’t conclude that my bank is a tree, because in doing so,
we’re equivocating the word ‘branch’. Now in the case of Arguments from Faith, the
Equivocation Fallacy isn’t always as easy to spot, and that’s why I recommend that
you help the proponent put their argument into a syllogistic form. For example, if a
proponent was to assert that ‘you have faith in science like they have faith in god’,
you could layout their argument as follows: Alice has faith that science works, like;
Robert has faith that god exists, and; Therefore both Alice and Robert have faith. From here,
you can point out that they are (either consciously or unconsciously) using a definition of ‘faith’
that is ‘belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of something or someone’ during
premise one, but a definition of ‘faith’ that is ‘belief without sufficient evidence
(and often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary)’ during premise two, and
hence, their conclusion is invalid. There bank isn’t a tree. Now it’s worth nothing
that, in response to this, they might insist that you’re wrong, and that they’re actually
using exclusively the first definition throughout their entire argument, but if they do this,
all you have to do is explain that people (including them), believe in the reliability,
truth, and ability of science because it consistently produces effective results and because it’s
based on objective, verifiable evidence, and then simply point out that their belief in
god isn’t based on such rigorous objectivity – and that if they insist that it is, then
they must provide such evidence, because, if they can’t, then despite their protestations
to the contrary, they are believing in a god without sufficient evidence. Moving on, let’s
look at another Argument from Faith – a proponent might say that you have faith that
the earth is 4.5 billion years old, in just the same way as they have faith that the earth
is less than 10,000 years old – which syllogistically would go as follows: Alice has faith that
the earth is 4.5 billion years old, like; Robert has faith that the earth is less than
10,000 years old, and; Therefore both Alice and Robert have faith. Now as you’ve likely
noticed, within this argument they’re conflating the method that you used to arrive at your
conviction, with the method that they used to arrive at theirs – by simply labelling
both methods ‘faith’. Now, assuming that you can’t personally present the evidence
or articulate how scientists have determined the age of the earth, it would be fair to
say that you have ‘trust’ or (to use their deliberately confusing word) ‘faith’ that
the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but the reason that you have trust in this claim is
because it has been heavily peer-reviewed by scientists from all over the world and
from countless fields of study… or in other words, it’s a claim that’s entirely predicated
on the extremely and demonstrably reliable scientific method. While, conversely, they
have trust or ‘faith’ that the earth is less than 10,000 years old ‘without sufficient
evidence and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary! Or in other word, their claim
is entirely predicated on the extremely and demonstrably unreliable religious method.
And finally, I want to very briefly tackle a particular definition of ‘faith’ that’s
sometimes used by Christians. In Hebrews 11:1, faith is defined as ‘the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen’, and what makes this definition extra tricky
is that its proponents often commit an Equivocation Fallacy with just the word ‘seen’, and
so you’ll have to ask them politely to define it. If they define it to mean, ‘to discern
or deduce mentally’, then they’re unwittingly redefining the word ‘faith’ to literally
mean ‘understand’, which is a disingenuous and confusing move that can be best exposed
by presenting them with several sentences with the word ‘understand’ replaced with
the word ‘faith’. For example, ‘I understand that one plus one equals two’ becomes ‘I
have faith that one plus one equals two’ or ‘I understand how evolution by natural
selection occurs’ becomes ‘I have faith that evolution by natural selection occurs’.
But if they define it to mean ‘perceive without vision’, then technically they have
faith that the oven is hot, that certain food is spicy, and that their farts don’t stink…
they’re doing everything they can to avoid the incontinent truth that they are believing
without sufficient evidence. Now just before we recap, I want to quickly announce the winners
of the two books that me and Cosmic Skeptic are giving away as a thank you for listening
to our conversations, as well as the winner of my patron of the month. Mike , you’ve
won The Moral Landscape (I hope it improves your well-being); Squat001, you’ve won Free
Will (and you had no choice). And Jared Yelton, you’ve won, of all things, a Christmas book
in July – ‘The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas’. Congratulations all, and thank you all so
much for your support! Anyhow, to recap, Arguments from Faith are flawed because; They commit
an Equivocation Fallacy. And the proponents of Arguments from Faith are flawed because,
despite their protestations to the contrary, they are believing in things without sufficient
evidence (and often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary)… they are playing,
like it or not, a bait-and-switch word-game. As always my fellow apes, thank you kindly
for the view, and I’ll leave you with this overwhelmingly powerful argument to consider.
My faith tells me that you have faith in me having faith that you’ll faithfully subscribe
to my faithful channel. A channel that’s faithfully faithful to faithful faith!