Video Transcript: Fallacies of Omission

Hi, I'm David Feddes and this talk is about fallacies of omission. fallacies of omission leave out necessary material in an argument or misdirect others from the missing information. So  something's left out whether accidentally or on purpose, and that makes the argument weak  or invalid. One form of omission is stacking the deck listing examples that support your case,  but avoiding any examples that don't. For instance, someone might say, Jesus disciples spoke  in tongues when the Spirit filled them on Pentecost. So did Cornelius' household, and  Christians in Corinth. This proves that all spirit filled people speak in tongues. Now, it's true  that all those people mentioned did speak in tongues. However, the Bible never says that  Jesus Himself spoke in tongues. When people in Samaria were filled with the Holy Spirit, the  Bible does not say that they spoke in tongues. There are various occasions where a filling  came upon people for a particular occasion. And they were empowered to preach or to do  something powerful and did not speak in tongues on those occasions. And so, choosing only  the examples of people who spoke in tongues when they were filled with the Holy Spirit is  stacking the deck. If you had a statement in the Bible that said all people must speak in  tongues. That would prove that all people who are filled with the Spirit must speak in tongues. But in this case, it's stacking the deck to pick those examples where people did and ignore  the ones where people didn't. Another example of stacking the deck news reports keep telling about pastors of independent mega churches who have fallen into financial scandals or sexual scandals. Clearly denominational ties help pastors to avoid pitfalls that ensnare independent  pastors. This is one I actually heard, and a lot of people agreed. And you might as you might  expect, it was stated on a denominational website. This leaves out the fact that many people  in denominations, many people who are part of a very strong church hierarchy fall into sin at  very high rates as well. And so to blame scandals, whether sexual scandals or financial ones,  on the fact that people are part of an independent church, rather than part of a denomination  does not prove very much. It's just stacking the deck, you're looking at the scandals that  happened among the independent churches and ignoring the scandals that have happened in the Catholic Church, or that have happened in evangelical denominations, or in Lutheran  denominations. You stack the deck to support the conclusion that you kind of already believed anyway. Another fallacy of omission is the No True Scotsman fallacy. And this involves  redefining things to exclude any counterexample. It's named the fallacy itself is named after  conversation in which you're talking with a Scotsman. And the Scotsman says, All Scotsman  are loyal and brave. And you say, Oh, what about Angus McGregor? He he is a traitor, and a  coward. Well then, Angus McGregor is No True Scotsman. you redefine it. Even he may be  wearing a kilt and playing a bagpipe and be born in Scotland. But if he's a coward, then he's  No True Scotsman. Here's some examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Socialism always  liberates and lifts up. Well, what about examples where it didn't socialism led to tyranny and  poverty in the Soviet Union in Cuba and Venezuela? That wasn't real socialism. Another  example, all Christians are peace loving. But the Crusaders were violent and cruel. Crusaders  were not true Christians. All Christians reject racism. What about Luther Luther was terribly  anti Jewish, then Luther was no true Christian. All Bible believers reject infant baptism. But  millions of Bible believers throughout history have baptized their babies. And they are no true  Bible believers. You see how once you give a counter example of the statement, they  immediately define that person in a different way then Luther couldn't been a Christian who  just happened to be racist as well. Somebody couldn't be a Bible believer who happened to  believe in infant baptism as well. It's an argument that just changes the definition. Whenever  an example is given that doesn't suit your side of the argument. Another fallacies arguments  from negative, showing that something is false and then reason it because that's false,  something else must be true. For instance, atheism is false. Therefore, Christianity is true.  Well, it may very well be that atheism is false. In fact, I'm quite certain atheism is false. But  the fact that atheism is false does not prove the truth of Christianity. There could be all sorts  of gods and goddesses. If atheism is false, rather than the one true God and showing the  falsity of atheism does not prove the truth of Christianity. Another example, cruelty to  homosexuals is wrong. Therefore, homosexuality is right. Now, it may well be true that cruelty to homosexuals is wrong. But that negative does not prove or even provide support for the  positive statement that homosexuality is therefore right. It may be wrong to be cruel to all 

sorts of people who do something wrong, or immoral, but cruelty is wrong. That doesn't mean the immoral behavior is right. Or this hypocrisy is wrong. Therefore, sinning openly is right.  Hypocrisy sinning secretly and sneaking around doing bad things that's wrong. And therefore  it's right to do the bad things openly? No, doing bad things is wrong. And whether it's secret  or open, it's still bad, but you see how you take a statement about something being either  false or wrong. And then you take a different statement and claim that it's right just because  the other was wrong. That kind of argument is a fallacy. Another kind of fallacy is appeal to  ignorance appeal to what you don't know, to try to prove a matter that you want to show that, you know, Jesus never said that abortion is wrong. So, abortion must be okay. You're arguing  from something that was never said. To demonstrate that something can be said. Jesus didn't  say abortion is wrong. Does that mean abortion is okay? Jesus didn't say that strangling eight  year olds is wrong. Does that mean strangling eight year olds is okay. Jesus never said  homosexuality is wrong. And some will say that means therefore it's okay. Jesus never said  rape is wrong. Does that mean rape is okay? There's a lot of things Jesus didn't say at least  that are not recorded in the Bible. And that does not mean that anything Jesus didn't  comment on must either be okay, or must be wrong. You can't argue from silence. You can't  argue from ignorance or what you don't know that Jesus said. Another example of appeal to  ignorance. Archaeologists haven't found the Ark of the Covenant. So it probably never  existed. This has been a common one used by skeptics for a lot of years, where they'll say,  oh, people never found evidence of Noah's Ark. So it never existed. People have never found  evidence or documents from the era of King David. So he never existed. And then of course,  they did find inscriptions about King David. And so well maybe he existed after all. But the  point is, even before such evidence was found, there was arguing from lack of artifacts, that it couldn't be true. Well, you're appealing to ignorance, you're appealing to lack of things in the  archaeological record, when we actually do have some things in the written record about King David. So you, you can't appeal just because we haven't found something yet. That proves  that it never existed, a lot of things disappear over 1000s of years and can't be recovered.  And many times they are recovered. Years later, many said that the city of Troy never existed, that it was just a matter of myth. Until Heinrich Schliemann, the archaeologists found the city  of Troy. God is never mentioned in the Book of Esther. So it's author was a secular Jew, who  did not believe in divine intervention. That's an argument that's been made because the book doesn't mention God. Therefore, it's written by somebody who's godless, just a totally secular  Jew. While the Book of Esther may have had an author who was a little more subtle and didn't  have to mention God in every sentence, to give an indication of how God works through  various people and how his plans unfold in various lives, you really cannot just go by silence  about something in a document and say that and therefore, that person doesn't believe in  God. I could be giving a lecture on logic and on logical fallacies. And if I weren't trying to do it  for an audience of people who are involved in ministry, I might not be mentioning the kinds of examples of fallacies that come up in religion and Bible, I might give all examples of fallacies  that occur in the realm of science or discussion of history, or whatever. And when I finished  my lecture and I never mentioned God, would that mean, I didn't believe in God, or that God  was not the most important person in my life. No, it just means, I happen to be talking about  logical fallacies in a certain environment. So you have to understand that the appeal to  ignorance to what somebody didn't say, or what you didn't discover, is not proof of the point  you're trying to make. A hypothesis, contrary to fact, is another fallacy. It's using imaginary  examples, to prove something in the real world. For example, you only believe in Jesus  because you were born in a Christian setting. If you had been born in Algeria, you would be a  Muslim. Well, I wasn't born in Algeria. And you can't be certain what I would be, if I had been.  It might be likely it might seem that way to you. But you're making a hypothesis. That isn't  actually fact. Another example is very commonly used. If Jesus were on earth today, he would  surely support my favorite cause. If Jesus were on earth today, he would surely support open  borders, he would surely support unlimited immigration, he would surely support massive  programs to give money to people in poverty, Jesus would surely support gun control, Jesus  would surely do this or that he would, Jesus is going to support whatever cause I happen to  like, if he went on Earth today. That's a way of misusing WWJD, what would Jesus do? Well, are

you really so sure that you know what Jesus would do? Would Jesus be telling the government  to do this? Or would it be enforcing your personal agenda? That we don't know? Because  Jesus is not here on Earth, standing by your side telling me what he would do if he were on  Earth today. And your hypothesis, contrary to fact, isn't proving anything it's just use it  hijacking the name of Jesus to support what you want, by using the fallacy of hypothesis  contrary to fact, another fallacy is the complex question. So example, the complex question  involves assuming something negative about your opponent in the argument and then asking in that way, have you stopped beating your wife? Well, that kind of assumes you have been  beating your wife and no matter how you answer that question, you've got a problem. Why  are Pentecostals so much more spiritual than Presbyterians? Now, if you started to give the  reasons why Pentecostals are so much more spiritual than your granting, that they are more  spiritual than Presbyterian, but who said so? What makes you Christians leave your brains at  the door and believe nonsense without evidence? Sometimes atheists will say that man, you  Christians, just leave your brains at the door. Why do you leave your brains at the door and  believe all this crazy stuff without any proof? Well, that's just a complex question. It's  assuming that people do in fact, leave their brains at the door when they believe and there  may be very different reasons for believing in the truth of Christianity than just leaving your  brain at the door. But the complex question just puts the person on the spot and assumes the  worst. And then just makes that a part of the question where if they choose to answer at all, it will be granting the premise that you left your brains at the church door or that you're not as  spiritual as somebody else, or that you've been beating your wife. Then there's a burden of  proof fallacy. And the burden proof fallacy is saying I'm right, unless you can prove, unless you can prove I'm wrong, and you're wrong. unless you can prove you're right. You're the one  who's got to prove it. I am the one who knows that I've already won the argument unless you  can show otherwise. A couple of examples. If you think that churches should not allow godly  gifted women to be pastors and elders, the burden of proof is on you. Another person might  say, if you think the church should abandon its biblical stance over the past 2000 years that  senior pastors and elders should be men, the burden of proof is on you. And so you have  people with different views of women as pastors and elders, thinking that the burden of proof  lies on the other side, because one accentuates the godliness and the giftedness of women  and says now you got to prove otherwise. And the other one accentuates how the Bible has  been understood for millennia and says now, that's the way it's been understood, you got to  prove otherwise. But both sides may be committing the burden of proof fallacy. And they may  both need to be able to listen to the others case a little bit more carefully, and make their own case, based on more evidence than just say, you got to prove it. I'm right until proven wrong.  And then there's the fallacy fallacy. And that fallacy fallacy is this, if someone uses a flawed  argument to make a point, their point must be false. A many true statements are argued  poorly. If we notice a fallacy and see that an argument doesn't support the conclusion. We  can't assume that the conclusion is false. Otherwise, we're committing the fallacy fallacy. You  see what I'm talking about? Something can be true, but somebody did a really poor job of  marshalling the evidence for it, or did a really poor job of putting together the argument to  demonstrate it. But even though the argument is flawed, or really shoddy, the conclusion  might be true, might be false. But you can't just dismiss something entirely, because  somebody made a lousy argument for it. Otherwise, you're falling into the fallacy fallacy. And  you have to be ready to look at it on its own merits in case somebody else could provide a  better argument for it. occam's razor is not so much dealing with logical fallacies. It's dealing  with the fact that overly complex explanations tend not to be accurate. All things being equal, the simpler theory is more likely to be correct. That's a rough version of occam's razor. And so you can multiply all kinds of complicated things to explain a rather simple item. But then the  really elaborate theory is more likely to be wrong. That's how occam's razor argues and  occam's razor is not a fallacy. It's it's a tendency that most of us have in our thought, and  maybe a correct tendency to not let things get over complicated when a simple explanation  will cover the facts. People in dealing with the Bible sometimes don't apply Occam's Razor  very much. Some will say the Bible contains many hidden codes and numbers that most  readers don't see. But I can decode those hidden codes and numbers for you. And so what 

looks like a document that is speaking in human language is really something that is likely to  consider from modern spy craft where all sorts of secret codes are embedded in it. Well,  probably not. If you see fat books about secret codes that most ordinary readers of the Bible  never saw. Probably because they weren't there occam's razor says Don't overcomplicate it,  those hidden meanings probably aren't meanings at all. Here's another example Jesus will  come secretly at the rapture, then he'll come openly for all to see a few years later, and he'll  reign on Earth for 1000 years. And then after that 1000 years, he'll judge everyone and bring  in the new creation. So you have three different comings of Jesus, that if you were to just read the New Testament, you'd hear Jesus talking about, I'm coming again, I'm coming quickly.  We're looking forward to our Lord's coming. We're looking forward to his appearing. And then  people pieced it together to say actually, there's this coming, then this coming, then this  coming. And occam's razor might say are you Sure? Are you sure that there's multiple  Comings and that you're not making it more complicated than it really is? So those are some  of the ways that we deal with reasoning and logic as we deal with these things. And I know  some of the examples I've given might be controversial. You might think that some of the  examples I mentioned don't fall into the realm of fallacy. But please do consider when you're  doing your writing, when you're doing your speaking to seek good arguments. Charles  Spurgeon was sometimes called the prince of preachers. He was a great preacher with a great mind and a great ability to make his point. And in one of his sermons, there was a note in the  margin. Argument, weak, shout louder. I'm encouraging you to make your argument stronger  not just to shout louder when your argument is weak not to resort to fallacies or weak means  of reasoning, when you can support your arguments and things that you're trying to  communicate a lot more strongly. So when you write papers, when you write articles when  you write sermons, when you write blogs, even when you're writing an email, whatever form  of written communication you use, and whatever form of spoken communication you use,  whether you're talking with someone who's not a believer in Jesus, and you're trying to  persuade them, whether you're talking with a fellow Christian and and you have some  disagreement, and you're trying to arrive at the truth or to persuade someone else or be open to their persuasion, be alert to the kinds of fallacies that exist. The weak arguments that don't actually have much validity, but that can seem to be persuasive, until you look beneath the  surface. So seek to be people of truth and honesty. People of accuracy, someone whose word  can be trusted, and who knows how to marshal a sound argument and make a good case.