Critiquing: What if We Can’t Agree on the Definition of “Faith”?

October 2, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Definitions — Straw Man — Misleading Terms — Apologetics Tactics — Certainty

---

Introduction

The content discusses navigating conversations about faith, specifically addressing disagreements on its definition, effective use of apologetics, and the critique of the statement “Certainty is a sin.” This critique will focus on logical coherence, identifying any fallacies, biases, unsubstantiated claims, and providing methods to test the claims made.

---

Navigating Conversations on Faith

Claim Analysis:

• The speaker addresses how to handle disagreements about the definition of faith, emphasizing the importance of using terms correctly: “If you mischaracterize the view that you’re trying to critique, you are not critiquing the view anymore. You’re critiquing something else, a view that person doesn’t hold.”

Logical Inconsistencies:

1. Straw Man Fallacy:
   • The speaker accuses others of mischaracterizing their view of faith, labeling it a straw man. However, the suggestion to avoid the word faith and use another term, like “convictions” or “reasons,” is itself avoiding the core issue rather than addressing the critique directly.
   • Example: “Let’s talk about my convictions, not about my faith.”
2. Equivocation Fallacy:
   • The content shifts between definitions of faith without adequately addressing the specific context in which the term is challenged. This can confuse the conversation by not clearly defining the term upfront.
   • Example: “Faith means believing what you know ain’t so kind of deal. Well, okay, that’s not the faith I have.”

Using Apologetics Tactically

Claim Analysis:

• The speaker discusses using apologetics without seeming evasive: “Our approach is you’re asking some questions to get clarification. What do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion?”

Logical Inconsistencies:

1. Avoidance:
   • The strategy of asking questions to clarify rather than addressing the main question can be perceived as evasive, especially when it sidesteps direct answers.
   • Example: “I don’t have an answer that might be satisfying to you. And that’s the best I can do. Sorry about that.”
2. Cognitive Bias – Confirmation Bias:
   • The speaker assumes that the need for clarification inherently validates their position without considering that it may reinforce the perception of evasiveness.
   • Example: “By explaining it, at least it was more clear what we meant when we said that Jesus.”

Analyzing “Certainty is a Sin”

Claim Analysis:

• The content critiques the statement “Certainty is a sin,” arguing it is self-refuting and misapplied: “If the statement certainty is a sin is offered as a certainty, then itself refuting.”

Logical Inconsistencies:

1. Self-Refutation:
   • The critique correctly identifies the self-refuting nature of the statement but fails to acknowledge its broader context or intent.
   • Example: “If they mean to be, say that as a certainty, then they’re committing the sin that they’re implying no one should commit.”
2. Overgeneralization:
   • The argument extends the critique to all forms of certainty, without considering the context where certainty might indeed be problematic.
   • Example: “Certainty is never denigrated in the Bible that I can think of.”

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Claim Analysis:

• The content makes several claims that require substantiation:
  • “Faith is being corrupted by those who mischaracterize the biblical concept.”
  • “There are tomes upon tomes upon tomes that have been given as rationales for why belief in God is smart.”

Critique:

• Obligation to Substantiate Claims:
  • The speaker must provide evidence or references for these claims, rather than assuming their audience accepts them at face value. Unsubstantiated claims undermine the credibility of the argument.
  • Example: “There are tomes upon tomes upon tomes that have been given as rationales for why belief in God is smart.”

Testing Alleged Promises of God

Potential Methods:

• Empirical Verification:
  • Design experiments or observational studies to test the promises made. For example, if a promise claims improved life outcomes from faith practices, one could compare different groups over time.
  • Example: Longitudinal studies on the impact of religious practices on mental health.
• Historical Analysis:
  • Examine historical records for instances where claimed divine interventions align with documented events.
  • Example: Investigating claimed miracles and their historical documentation.

Mapping Degree of Belief to Evidence

Claim Analysis:

• The content stresses the importance of confidence in faith-based claims but often conflates belief with evidence: “Does God want us to have confidence? Does he want us to be clear about what we believe and to know what is true? The answer is obviously yes.”

Critique:

1. Evidence-Based Belief:
   • The degree of belief should proportionally match the degree of available evidence. Strong beliefs with weak evidence can lead to poor decision-making and false certainty.
   • Example: Wilberforce’s certainty about slavery being a moral harm is rooted in substantial ethical reasoning and empirical evidence.
2. Burden of Proof:
   • The burden of proof lies with the claimant, particularly when making extraordinary claims. This principle is crucial to maintaining logical coherence and avoiding the pitfalls of assuming truths without sufficient evidence.
   • Example: “Are they trying to insist that you can’t have reasons? Are they trying to stop you from giving? None of it makes sense to me.”

---

Conclusion

The content demonstrates logical inconsistencies, including straw man and equivocation fallacies, avoidance tactics, and cognitive biases. It also makes several unsubstantiated claims that undermine its credibility. By emphasizing the need for evidence-based belief and the burden of proof, one can foster a more logically coherent and persuasive discourse. The critique encourages a focus on substantiating claims and proportioning belief to the evidence available.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.