There is a logic fallacy…

...that is used as a propaganda technique that I am finding way too often. It is called “The Fallacy of Assumption.”


This is when you make a statement but leave out the beginning foundation; the supporting assumption.


For example:


I can’t wear dresses because I look awful in light blue. Now you might argue with me that I don’t look that bad in blue, that I could buy a white shawl to put around it so the blue won’t reflect on my face, that I should wear them anyway because my hubby likes dresses, all sorts of reasons to go ahead and wear them.


Of course what you would REALLY do would be to tell me to buy a purple dress. Or a red one. Or a white, pink, yellow, or any other colored one.


You see, what I did was to leave out the foundational assumption of “there is no such thing as a non-light blue dress.” This example was obvious.


What is not so obvious are the examples from our everyday lives.

• There are no rules
• There is no right or wrong
• “Proper” roles are decided by society
• What is “right” for you may not be right for me
• Set your own standards
• Find your own path
• Follow your heart
• Look out for number one
• Survival of the fittest
• If it feels right do it
• Live for today
• Have fun while you can
• You are what you wear, drive, live in or vacation
• He who dies with the most toys wins
• We are more advanced today
• We know better now

These are all statements based on the assumption that “There is no God.”


The fact is that we all have a “World View” or an assumption about the nature and founding of the universe. What our assumption is in this area colors every other area of our lives, even when we don’t realize it.


Let’s imagine you are writing a history textbook, for example. If you believe there is a God you would tell the story of George Washington winning the battle of Yorktown something like this:


“Washington knew he needed to conquer Yorktown in order to win the war and he had to do it fast. But the town was in a bowl-like area, surrounded by hills on three sides and the ocean on the fourth. There was no way to get the army and its artillery onto the surrounding hills without being seen from the city. They had many soldiers on the ships in the harbor and cannons in the city itself. There is no doubt the British will attack and win before he could possible be in a position to fight back. He had hired Lafayette (a French Admiral/pirate) to come blockade the harbor and keep the soldiers on the ships, but he isn’t there yet.


George Washington was a praying man. After much prayer and contemplation, he felt he needed to go ahead and attack the city and trust God for the outcome.


The night the American forces arrived, a pea-soup thick fog rolled into the city. This fog was so thick, no one in the city could see the hills or even hear the sound of fox holes being dug and cannons set up. Soon Washington had his forces in place for the attack. But he now had a new problem. He couldn’t see where to shoot at! The fog was in the way and, of course, he didn’t want to waste ammunition and lives bombing civilians while the British unloaded their ships and came charging up the hill. He wanted to hit the buildings that housed British officers (And Lafayette still hadn’t shown up) What should he do? As I said, he was a praying man.


A wind came up just then and not only blew the fog away, but blew the British ships out of the harbor before they could unload their troops, and kept them their until Lafayette did show up.


Imagine the surprise on the British faces to look at the hills that morning and see a whole army had sprung up there over night!


Washington and his troops fought the battle and won, thanks to the One who controls the Weather.”


How would you write this story if you do not believe there is a God or if you are trying to be “neutral?”


“Washington knew he needed to conquer Yorktown in order to win the war and he had to do it fast. But the town was in a bowl-like area, surrounded by hills on three sides and the ocean on the fourth. There was no way to get the army and its artillery onto the surrounding hills without being seen from the city. They had many soldiers on the ships in the harbor and cannons in the city itself. There is no doubt the British will attack and win before he could possible be in a position to fight back. He had hired Lafayette (a French Admiral/pirate) to come blockade the harbor and keep the soldiers on the ships, but he isn’t there yet.


The night the American forces arrived, a pea-soup thick fog rolled into the city. How lucky can you get? This fog was so thick, no one in the city could see the hills or even hear the sound of fox holes being dug and cannons set up. Soon Washington had his forces in place for the attack. But he now had a new problem. He couldn’t see where to shoot at! The fog was in the way and, of course, he didn’t want to waste ammunition and lives bombing civilians while the British unloaded their ships and came charging up the hill. He wanted to hit the buildings that housed British officers (And Lafayette still hadn’t shown up) What should he do?


Luckily, a wind came up just then and not only blew the fog away, but blew the British ships out of the harbor before they could unload their troops, and kept them their until Lafayette did show up.


Imagine the surprise on the British faces to look at the hills that morning and see a whole army had sprung up there over night!


Washington and his troops fought the battle and won.”


These two stories are almost identical. But the first gives credit to God for Washington’s victory, telling us that God wanted America to win the war. The second credits “luck.” The first teaches a child to be diligent to trust God no matter what the odds are against him. The second teaches a child that Washington was a lucky man. Some people are and some aren’t (like the British commander in the city.)


Can you see how the basic assumption underneath each story affects the child that reads it?


Let’s try science:


The chimpanzees left the trees ten million years ago. We don’t know why they left the trees, but it was probably to find food. They are more susceptible to enemies on the ground, though.


or


God designed chimpanzees to live on the ground. We don’t know why but it was probably to give them a bigger range of food choices. Or maybe it was to give predators a bigger range of food choices.


The first assumes evolution. The second Divine design. The first teaches the random cruelty of “natural selection.” The second about a Designer that even cares for the un-lovely.


How about this:


I don’t want to waste my life being a housewife and changing diapers. I want to do something important!


Or


I can think of nothing more important than bringing up Spiritual Warriors for God.


The first statement says raising children is unimportant. The second, very important. The first assumes that your fancy career is the most important thing in the world. The second, God’s kingdom and your children’s place in it.


We can afford to live in a 2500’ house and drive two new cars, but we can’t afford private education.


Or


We would like a bigger house and newer car but we just can’t afford it because we only have one income. Wann’a go to the homeschool curriculum fair with me?


The first says your house and cars are more important than your child’s education. The second, that education is more important. The first assumes how you are measured materialistically is the supreme measure. The second, your children’s education is most important.


We need to learn to evaluate each and every decision we need to make in the light of our World Views. If we truly believe in a Creator God, we should really start acting like it.