Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is this not acknowledged by people who try using it?
This question stems from the overwhelming rhetoric I've heard from many people speaking out against Christianity. For example: Someone might say. . .Christians are some of the worst people on this earth, just look at the crusades!!!
The thing is, those people were not following what Christ said, and to an extreme that resulted in some horrific things. Logic follows, that those people were not true Christians. Don't get me wrong, I as a Christian am not exempt from doing "wrong" things. The difference is in being remorseful and turning away from those things before they turn into, lets say, mass genocide. Scripture is very clear on how you can identify a true believer.
Let me put it another way.
My friend goes around telling everyone she is currently an aerobics instructor. This friend is then observed by many people and is never seen teaching aerobics classes. Logic follows that she isn't one.
I've never heard of the, "no true scottsman fallacy," but I get the gist of what you mean by what you have written. To be honest, I think many people without Faith hold Christians to a very high standard. To a certain extent it is fair and to another extent it is unfair. It is fair in the sense when someone puts themselves out there as a religious leader, regardless of the Christian Denomination, only to find out they have fallen in some way. I mean the worst challenge of Faith, especially for those without Faith, is when someone who is supposed to exemplify Faith falls. It happens in all denominations.
Sometimes when it happens it happens because the person had other motives then Faith and helping people in their spiritual path, in that case they are probably worse than the average atheist because the average atheist just doubts (and there is really nothing wrong with that) this type of person doesn't believe, misleads, and in the end shatters Faith. Other times it happens because the more you get it, the more you understand it, the more you attempt to teach it, the more people begin to get it, the more whatever Evil there is out there will want you to fall. In both cases, when this happens, that thing exemplifying Evil called Satan laughs with glee...the only criticism I have of some atheists is that instead of feeling pity some have a tendency to unknowingly laugh with him not all but some.
What is the underlying logic behind the laughter? "You are no better than me," which is apparently what Satan told God and Satan tries to show man. The hope and the beauty is every statement implies it's contradiction for anyone to have to assert, "you are no better than me," is to imply, "there is a possibility you are better than me," because if they truly didn't think within these terms they ultimately would not care, it wouldn't be a question.
Now, for the average Christian, like you and me, it is at times an unfair standard. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to hold ourselves to a higher standard. We should. What the atheist needs to accept is that just like they are human so are we. The difference, the difference is as you pointed out we try, try, try to meet that standard. To a certain extent when we give up trying we potentially can slip into the habits of the atheist just with a sense of Faith. That's why I always tell people, "judge me for what I have done but also judge me for what I am doing and judge me for the person I am trying to become."
The only thing, I would caution you with the aerobics instructor example, is in that case maybe she truly wants to be an aerobics instructor. What would a friend do? Help her become one. The reality is that Christianity is not an either or but a level of degrees and when someone has the heart, the motivation to pursue it more fully being a friend is helping them do that. It's easy to submit to atheists and reject someone who is working on their Faith but faltering, but all that does is push her into their world and they get what they want. It is more meaningful when you don't care what atheists think and help that person in their religious path instead. Again, so long as they are sincere with sincere heart it is possible to help them on their religious path.
The thing is, those people were not following what Christ said, and to an extreme that resulted in some horrific things. Logic follows, that those people were not true Christians. Don't get me wrong, I as a Christian am not exempt from doing "wrong" things. The difference is in being remorseful and turning away from those things before they turn into, lets say, mass genocide. Scripture is very clear on how you can identify a true believer.
Hello jdaelectro.
I must disagree with your assertion; on the contrary, I see the "no true Scotsman fallacy" used frequently. There are a few reasons that your argument doesn't work.
1. You assume that there is a consensus regarding how a Christian should behave. This is patently untrue, and nowhere is that more apparent than the C-D Christianity sub-forum. If you don't frequent it, I would suggest you avail yourself. What you will find are endless threads spent arguing points of doctrine. It may be clear how a Christian should behave based on your reading of the bible, but that in no way guarantees that this will be a majority opinion, much less an objective method of assessing "true" Christianity.
2. Even if we could collectively agree on how a Christian should behave, we then need to set the error bars. How close to the model do you have to be in order to achieve and maintain your "true Christian" status? Who's going to decide which Christians make the grade?
3. A Christian will act in accordance with the scripture...until he doesn't. That is to say that even if there was a consensus opinion (and I again stress that there is not), it would be unable to accurately predict "true Christians" because you wouldn't know who is going to stay on the "right path" and who is not. In short, an objective measure of what makes a "true Christian" would be capable only of postdiction, because the guy who is a "true Christian" today by all of your standards can go on a raping spree tomorrow...only then, after the acts are comitted can you decide that he is in fact not a "true Christian."
I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing the "true Christian" argument is actually a perfect example of the "no true Scotsman fallacy."
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"),[2] creating an implied tautology. It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements by adding "true" or "real" to the subject.
Contents [hide]
1 Examples
2 Origin
3 See also
4 References
Examples[edit]
A simple rendition of the fallacy:[3]
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
A cited example of a political application of the fallacy was asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[4]
Origin[edit]
The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton [(England)] Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen [(Scotland)] man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".[5][6]
I thought all you needed to do to be a Christian and be saved were "small, easy, things" like believing in Jesus and the Trinity, maybe even liking the four Gospels left by Ireneous and a bunch of Paul's letters, along with John's apocalypse. You would probably need some sort of grounding on the OT and Jewish religion having had been literally right "before", otherwise Jesus doesn't make sense too much.
All of this, the Crusaders and Popes shared. Is there another qualification? Following everything, even if contradictory, in Emperor Constantine's or King Jame's Bibles to the letter?
I must disagree with your assertion; on the contrary, I see the "no true Scotsman fallacy" used frequently. There are a few reasons that your argument doesn't work.
1. You assume that there is a consensus regarding how a Christian should behave. This is patently untrue, and nowhere is that more apparent than the C-D Christianity sub-forum. If you don't frequent it, I would suggest you avail yourself. What you will find are endless threads spent arguing points of doctrine. It may be clear how a Christian should behave based on your reading of the bible, but that in no way guarantees that this will be a majority opinion, much less an objective method of assessing "true" Christianity.
2. Even if we could collectively agree on how a Christian should behave, we then need to set the error bars. How close to the model do you have to be in order to achieve and maintain your "true Christian" status? Who's going to decide which Christians make the grade?
3. A Christian will act in accordance with the scripture...until he doesn't. That is to say that even if there was a consensus opinion (and I again stress that there is not), it would be unable to accurately predict "true Christians" because you wouldn't know who is going to stay on the "right path" and who is not. In short, an objective measure of what makes a "true Christian" would be capable only of postdiction, because the guy who is a "true Christian" today by all of your standards can go on a raping spree tomorrow...only then, after the acts are comitted can you decide that he is in fact not a "true Christian."
I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing the "true Christian" argument is actually a perfect example of the "no true Scotsman fallacy."
Thanks.
OK, this is funny. I actually had to look up the, "No True Scotsman," fallacy. Here is a link:
Sorry about that, I thought what the No True Scotsman fallacy meant was there is no such thing as a True Scotsman based on the impression from people who are not Scotsman believe a Scotsman should be, the fallacy being there are in fact True Scotsman regardless of the belief of non Scotsman. Again, I'm using this in the abstract so in terms of religion there are no True Christians because atheists believe a Christian should be a certain way, when in fact there are true Christians regardless of the beliefs of atheists.
Here is the best line in rational wiki describing it: The term "No True Scotsman" has since expanded to refer to anyone who attempts to disown or distance themselves from wayward members of a group by excluding them from it.
Gosh, I'm having such a rough time with this fallacy. It is not a traditional fallacy. The typical fallacy points out a flaw in logic in a clear cut way that once resolved leads to a new logical conclusion outside the fallacy. So for example, when it comes to Timothy McVay and the Oklahoma bombing most Americans would say, "no true American would do that." Are they necessarily wrong? When an American says, "no true American would do that," I mean, sure, literally he was an American Citizen but it seems the fallacy doesn't pick up the subtle implication of , "no true American who loves their country would do that." You see, I resolved the fallacy without having to resort to a new logical conclusion. Again, unless it can be proved that, that new statement is not logically true. I don't think this fallacy holds up as a fallacy. To me this is a fallacy of a fallacy.
So, for example the most basic fallacy is the false dilemma. Proponent says either this or that is true. That's a fallacy because it fails to recognize the truth that there are other options and limits the argument to two.
I was originally confused by your response because I've never heard anyone supporting a fallacy. The statement, "that fallacy is true," is an oxymoron.
The argument is used whenever objections to such things as the Crusades asexamples of Christian behavior are brought up. What is really funny is that frequently the same people who say you can't separate "Christians" from people who actually try to follow the things that Jesus taught are the ones who when they see "unChrist-like" be havior will say something like "Some Christian you are!" I think the basic conduct expected of Christians is fairly well understood and disallowing the "No true Scotsman" argument is only grasping at logical straws to support their condemnation of behavior they know is not appropriate to a follower of Jesus.
When an American says, "no true American would do that," I mean, sure, literally he was an American Citizen but it seems the fallacy doesn't pick up the subtle implication of , "no true American who loves their country would do that." You see, I resolved the fallacy without having to resort to a new logical conclusion.
It's still a fallacy, which means you haven't really resolved it. Why couldn't an American who loved his country bomb a government building? Unfortunately, this country does have a lot of militia groups who would tell you that they'd commit acts of domestic terrorism precisely -because- they love their country and want to take it back from the monlithic federal government.
Do these militiamen automatically get branded as America-haters because they express their "love" through violence? While you and I may not agree with their methods, their motives are well intended.
It's still a fallacy, which means you haven't really resolved it. Why couldn't an American who loved his country bomb a government building? Unfortunately, this country does have a lot of militia groups who would tell you that they'd commit acts of domestic terrorism precisely -because- they love their country and want to take it back from the monlithic federal government.
Do these militiamen automatically get branded as America-haters because they express their "love" through violence? While you and I may not agree with their methods, their motives are well intended.
You are right...he is literally an American and he did it so a True American can do it. On a happier note, I think I just created my own fallacy which I like better...I kid, I kid...well, I'm not trying to throw the OP under the bus, I really am not, but the OP may not know that the last lines of his post is committing this fallacy. That's fine. It's not a big deal. I had to wrap my brain around it. Well, learned something new that is always a plus.
Or maybe I'm not understanding what the OP means. Is anyone else a little confused by it or am I the only one? I could be experiencing cognitive dissonance which is fine. If anyone or the OP can elaborate that would help.
Last edited by Artifice32; 07-30-2014 at 11:25 PM..
The fallacy is usually applied in discussions with ex Christians where current believers feeling overwhelmed a believer could lose their faith dismiss the event with "Oh you were probably never a true Christian to start off with". Quite a few have used that phrase or inference against me here.
Then we proceed to tell them just how uber dedicated we were , me being a praise and worship leader (sought after in the town I live in - at the time) committees served on and so forth and then one gets the argument you never had a true relationship.
It used to offend me at first till I realised it was the truth. One cannot really have any real relationship with an imaginary friend.
Evangelicals will coerce new converts to regularly attend a "bible believing" church, get involved etc. yet when one offers this as "what I did" it tends to not qualify for some reason. The same people will not raise objections to the evangelist's suggestions in this regard post his alter call.
You really cannot be a successful Christian if you maintain your individuality and/or rational thinking; in this respect I was doomed to become an atheist.
It is precisely this fallacy that set me off in search of "truth" as what I observed in the church and behavioural patterns outside the church, these so called "children of god" were no different to the so called unsaved and unwashed; many time a tad worse than their heathen counterparts. Mention this, and you just never found the right church to start off with. Well the only ones I did not sample in my town were the JWs and the RCC. They ALL turned out to be the same. You are not supposed to be too inquisitive.
The fallacy is a survival tool and the bible even has built in apologetics following this theme; this is why they have no compunction of using the fallacy.
1 John 2:19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that [a]it would be shown that they all are not of us.
The basic idea of 1 John's 2:19 is "No True 'of us' fallacy"
it is that everything a Christian does and believes does not really qualify them as Christians...
an in-group, out-group mentality. The basic idea of tribalism.
It would apply to Jews demonstrating that Christians were never really "of them." But Christianity was and is a heresy of Judaism, more apt to the tastes of the descendants of the Europeans and those they happened to conquer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
