In traditional logic, syllogisms are set up with two presumptions followed by a "therefore." If A --> B, and B -->C, then A --> C. Faith doesn't employ this strategy. There is no syllogism to validate our faith. This makes faith inherently fallacious. I suppose you could call it begging the question, circular logic, or a leap of faith, but regardless it isn't logical or "reasonable" to a logician/rhetorician.
This isn't a problem though. If we acknowledge that our faith is fallacious by accepting that we are making a logical jump, we can still discuss it on equal ground with those who are skeptical. We can talk about believing without knowing. But we can't ignore the fallacy -- that would be blind faith. Faith isn't blind -- it's trusting. Although it may be slight, there's a difference between those two.
Lastly, we should embrace the fallacy. A statement made in a fallacy does not mean that the statement is false.
I would agree that faith is a fallacy, but I argue that it is a inductive fallacy rather than a deductive fallacy, so syllogism simply don't apply.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I can say that God exists and everything that exists has an identity, therefore, God has an identity. That syllogism is logically consistent, but is based on a presumption based on faith (God exists). The presumption is statement about reality that either is true or false. Its observational in nature.
You certainly would have more knowledge in that area than I. So if an argument is based on a faulty presumption, is it by definition an inductive fallacy?
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly no logician and this discussion could quickly get over even my head. But my understanding is the existence of God argument may be based directly on an inductive fallacy or may be based on further syllogistic arguments (which may be fallacious itself or logical but based on further inductive fallacies). Its difficult to know where the fallacy lies without learning a person's reasoning for their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of inductive fallacies is that they look at the specific and then make general statements based on them. Would that be a correct description? If so, what's the specific that people of faith use to derive what generalization? Sounds like a final exam essay question. :o
ReplyDelete