No. Rather, their faith would lead them to believe there's something wrong with the logical argument.

@Wayfarer

Example: William Lane Craig was asked a hypothetical: if he were taken back in time to the first century, and seen Jesus' body crucified, watched it rot for weeks on the cross and eaten as carrion, would he renounce his faith in the resurection. His response: no, he would assume he was being deceived because he "knows" Jesus was resurrected.

This is what faith looks like. — Relativist

Some who cannot change their belief, no matter what, is a problem for cognitive science to delve into, but I would say:

The belief is an emotional position, and emotions have a direct path into consciousness, sometimes firm and lasting, and at other times less so, bypassing rational logic.

We can recall back when we didn't practice detachment how some anger would persist, as also it's rather late then to detach.

The believer who can't be told a darn thing has possibly reached that point due to some brain wires so often firing together that they essentially wire together, and, there is no real logical introspection going on when their answer comes out.

Same with their teaching or preaching of it as if it is true, as intellectual dishonesty, although they would probably deny that too. It's a sad quirk of human nature, so jail time is not an option.

Some who cannot change their belief, no matter what, is a problem for cognitive science to delve into, but I would say:

The belief is an emotional position, and emotions have a direct path into consciousness, sometimes firm and lasting, and at other times less so, bypassing rational logic. — PoeticUniverse

Some beliefs have emotional components, others don't. Most of us have no emotional attachment to the 4-color theorem or Goldbach's conjecture, and this makes us perfectly willing to reject such beliefs.

Most of us who believe gods don't exist can willingly entertain their existence, because we have no emotional connection to its truth or falsity. But theists have that connection, and that makes the belief incorrigible.

no, he would assume he was being deceived because he "knows" Jesus was resurrected.
— Relativist

Oh my God. Faith sounds terrible!
Those people must be insufferable, just real douchers. — Fire Ologist

Weird reaction. I was just describing the nature of faith: it's is incorrigible belief. Additional context is also relevant:
1) God's existence is logically possible
2) Personal experience plays a role: many people believe they feel God's presence. This belief is itself incorrigible.
3) For many, it's an integral part of their world-view, not just a simple proposition that they affirm.

faith: it's is incorrigible belief. — Relativist

Sounds like a person with the ability to reason who won’t use reason when it comes to belief. It sounds like a mental problem.

So if a person of faith is reasonable in every other conversation besides faith (because faith isn’t reasonable), wouldn’t that person be at odds with their own faith? How is that tenable? What kind of inner life regarding their own beliefs would that be? How does one preach that, if one was so inclined to preach? Sounds terrible.

You are certainly accurately describing a lot of religious kooks and cult members. Incorrigible believing. Probably some mental problems. But does that accurately describe all people who believe anything that hasn’t been empirically/experientially verified yet? Are all such believers refusing to be reasonable?

does that accurately describe all people who believe anything that hasn’t been empirically/experientially verified yet? Are all such believers refusing to be reasonable? — Fire Ologist

We all believe things that haven't been verified, so I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to do so.

Philosophers convince themselves of all sorts of things that aren't verifiable or falsifiable. Their beliefs tend to be pretty tenacious.

Those people must be insufferable, just real douchers. — Fire Ologist

They are. Trying to talk to someone of genuine faith about something for which there is contrary evidence is one of the most trying tasks a human can undertake. The Lane Craig example is exemplary. LOL.

Am I really a doucher and I just never applied my reasoning to the situation? Banno thinks I can’t even reason - now I’ll have nothing left!! — Fire Ologist

If, in a conversation, you display bare denial of evidence which contradicts your stated belief, yep, you would insufferable and liable to being ostracised by those exercising sufficient reason. I don't think that's good, but it does tend to be what happens.

Is believing vital to the mix? — Fire Ologist

That is what faith amounts to. Belief in lieu of, or despite evidence. An educated guess doesn't require faith in anything but the means of education, as far as I can tell. Faith is not an educated guess. Faith is a commitment. Faith is something which you wholesale give your faculties over to, as a guiding principle chief among others. Lane Craig, again, shows this well.

Risk involves a lack of knowledge, an act despite the lack of knowledge, like belief despite any reasoning or evidence. — Fire Ologist

Risk, generally, involves reasoning. These are not related, as I see them.

I think belief, reasoning, knowledge are simultaneously at work in many of our actions, and a ‘faith’ is just another ‘science’ which is just another ‘story’, because it’s just another wording, which relies on beliefs, reasoning and knowledge to happen. You choose your beliefs, but we are all slaves to believing something. — Fire Ologist

Sorry to say, this sounds like pure prevarication. The first line up to "..,and" is apt. That seems obvious. But that doesn't give rise to Faith in many (if any) scenarios. Faith generally isn't required to motivation action. Beliefs about beliefs? An interesting area. Not one which impinges on these views of Faith, though. Though, I think it is clear, and inarguable, that Faith requires commitment to a concept in spite of xx, yy and zz. The others do not.