Logical Fallacy Lesson 7: Appeal to Faith
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL7ATF

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 132, Logical Fallacy Lesson 7, Appeal to Faith

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
And Now LFL7: Appeal to Faith

Appeal to faith is probably the bottom of the bottom of logical error. Even worse than bald assertion, I'd say. Appeal to faith is trying to use belief, alone, to try and prove something. Here is the common documentation of the fallacy:

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

Of course, there is a second definition of faith, which is just strong belief in something, which may or may not rest on evidence. However, typically when the word "faith" is used, it means blind faith. It most definitely means it in religion. Religion is, of course, like a lot of fallacies, a good example of this logical error.

Faith can technically be treated just as a bald assertion, although they are different. Consider evidence one and the lack of evidence a zero. Bald Assertion would be a zero, for it gives no reasons behind the proposition. Appealing to faith is a negative one. It isn't nothing, like the bald assertion, they are saying something, but not only does it hold no value or reason, it holds reason in contempt. It's saying this issue doesn't require evidence or logic to support it, or worse, it's above evidence or logic to support it and REQUIRES this level of stupidity to understand it.

"You can't know God without faith!"

I'll actually give them that one.
In the same since I'll admit to a crazy man I'd see the pink elephants too, if I were insane along with him.

Faith, actually stating you don't need, or even stating you cannot have logic or evidence is a logical fallacy in its own merit. It, itself, is admitting it is without logic, and is therefore admitting it is illogical. Which, of course, means the one who actually asserts faith is admitting to being an idiot. Whether or not they'll admit what they're admitting, I do not know. They are, after all, clearly insane, and probably have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

The fact is an appeal to faith doesn't just miss on furthering one's side of a debate, but it is literally throwing in the towel. Debates are competitions of logic and evidence. If you say you are without it, then you are folding. You are giving up the debate. You lose the argument. Completely. It is the worst fallacy you can possibly make if you actually want to be the victor in an argument. Not only that, but you pretty much prove you are the intellectual inferior to the person you are suppose to be debating, because faith (being without logic), is, of course, what it is. Being without logic. You are clearly stating your own stupidity, and proving it very well I might add.

It is so easy to prove this a fallacy because it is admitting it is one. But now I should probably explain how faith holds no value outside of debate included.

Logic is everything. Without it you do not know what is real or not. Without it, you could believe something that is wrong. And if you're wrong, then your faith just wasted and thus ruined your entire life. You fought for wrong, you thought wrong, you lived in vein, you did nothing good, and all you ever did was lie to yourself to your grave. Good job. You probably taught your children, family and friend to do the same. Not one were you worthless, but you were probably very harmful. Belief without reason is extremely dangerous, and the more of it you hold, the more danger you will be. Take 9/11 for example. More faith and less reason did those terrorists hold. Religious wars, Hitler's include, the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, yatta yatta yatta... Insanity is what insanity is. Sorry if that comes to a shock to some of you, but what else could you possibly expect? You actually think stupidity, in any way, shape, or form, would be a good thing? It's not.

I'm not surprised you didn't notice, once you are, in fact, stupid.

But you see, a lot of these idiots are too far gone, their minds given completely up. They say they separate their worlds of faith and reason, but it still means they waste a lot of time on nothing but regress instead of progress, insanity instead of reason. And it still means they are dishonest enough to try and answer questions they don't yet actually know the answers to. Which, of course, will lead to a lot of trouble when someone DOES answer the questions correctly. Like Galileo, Copernicus, of Darwin. And so the ever so innocent "I separate my worlds of reason and faith" proves to be not so innocent after all. Not just in their life time, but how they preach it and spread it so it hurts the future. It's disgusting.

But do not expect someone insane to understand this. They'll argue it.
Even though, in the process, they'll admit they already lost the argument. You can't win the debate if you've already thrown in the towel with an appeal to faith - clearly stating reason has nothing to do with it. Which clearly states you lose the argument, once an argument is a cross of reasoning.

Faith. Selling of the soul for comfort.
Faith. Sacrificing the mind for nothing.
Faith. Threat of imagined hell.
Faith. Bride of imagined heaven.
Faith. Cowardice.
Faith. Lying to one's self and others.
Faith. The virtue of a slave.
Faith. Only praised by tyrants.

And, of course, it's a logical fallacy. And it'll admit that in its definition.

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 132, Logical Fallacy Lesson 7, Appeal to Faith