Critiquing: What Questions Could I Ask Someone Who Doesn’t Seem to Have True, Saving Faith?

May 22, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Faith Definition — Questions to Ask — Conviction Test — Living as Example — Grandfather’s Faith

---

Introduction

The content from “What Questions Could I Ask Someone Who Doesn’t Seem to Have True, Saving Faith?” dated May 22, 2023, from the #STRask podcast by Stand to Reason, centers on methods for questioning the authenticity of someone’s faith and when to stop engaging with individuals who deny key elements of faith. In this critique, we will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, identify any logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and discuss unsubstantiated claims. The analysis aims to be thorough and clear, supporting critiques with direct quotes from the content.

---

Logical Inconsistencies

The content frequently shifts between assumptions and conclusions without providing sufficient logical connections. For instance, the statement, “If you’re living in sin and it makes you feel closer to Jesus, you are not regenerate because the Holy Spirit wouldn’t allow that,” presents an unsubstantiated claim. The reasoning relies heavily on the assumption that emotional discomfort is an indicator of spiritual authenticity without empirical evidence to support this link.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The content demonstrates confirmation bias by selectively interpreting evidence to support preconceived beliefs. For example, the hosts discuss behaviors inconsistent with their understanding of faith, such as living with a girlfriend, as indicators of inauthentic faith. This selective scrutiny overlooks other potential interpretations of the individuals’ experiences and motivations.

Fundamental Attribution Error

There is a tendency to attribute others’ actions to their character rather than situational factors. For example, “A Christian, a regenerate Christian loves the Lord and they love them, love the Lord with their mind and their heart,” implies that those who do not exhibit certain behaviors are not true Christians, without considering situational influences on behavior.

Logical Fallacies

No True Scotsman Fallacy

The content often falls into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, as seen in statements like, “If this couple is just following their feelings, they are not regenerate because the Holy Spirit wouldn’t allow that.” This fallacy redefines the criteria for a “true Christian” to exclude counterexamples, protecting the initial assertion from falsification.

False Dilemma

The content also presents a false dilemma by suggesting a binary between true faith and inauthentic faith based on observable behaviors. For instance, “If they’re living with their girlfriend, it’s inconsistent because it’s possible that this person really does want to follow Jesus and maybe doesn’t even know what they’re doing,” fails to consider a spectrum of faith experiences and degrees of understanding.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious, requiring evidence to support their validity:

1. Emotional Discomfort as a Sign of Authentic Faith: The claim that true Christians cannot enjoy sin due to the Holy Spirit’s conviction is presented without empirical backing. The hosts state, “When you become regenerate, really, you can’t enjoy sin anymore.”
2. Behavioral Consistency as Faith Indicator: The assertion that inconsistent behavior indicates a lack of true faith lacks substantial evidence. The hosts suggest, “If they are regenerate, living with each other is not going to make them feel closer to Jesus.”

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

It is crucial to substantiate claims, especially those involving significant personal and spiritual judgments. Unsubstantiated assertions can mislead and create unfounded beliefs. For instance, the content’s reliance on subjective experiences and anecdotal evidence necessitates more rigorous empirical validation to support their conclusions about faith and behavior.

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate the promises or assertions about spiritual experiences and faith authenticity, one could adopt a more empirical approach:

1. Behavioral Studies: Conduct studies that examine the correlation between declared faith and behaviors, considering various situational factors.
2. Psychological Assessments: Use psychological tools to assess the emotional and mental states of individuals claiming different levels of faith and their experiences of guilt or conviction.
3. Longitudinal Research: Implement longitudinal studies to track changes in faith and behavior over time to observe patterns and deviations.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is essential to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. The content frequently makes definitive claims without proportionate evidence, leading to potential overgeneralizations. For instance, the conclusion that certain behaviors unequivocally denote inauthentic faith lacks comprehensive evidence. By mapping beliefs more accurately to evidence, one can avoid cognitive biases and logical fallacies, leading to more reliable and nuanced understandings.

Conclusion

The content from “What Questions Could I Ask Someone Who Doesn’t Seem to Have True, Saving Faith?” presents several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. To enhance the logical coherence of the arguments, it is crucial to substantiate claims with empirical evidence, avoid logical fallacies, and align the degree of belief with the degree of evidence. A more rigorous approach to evaluating faith and behavior can lead to more reliable and respectful engagements with differing beliefs and experiences.

---

Thank you for reading this critique. Feel free to discuss the arguments further in the comments section.