No True Scotsman Fallacy

[Charlemagne_III]

The “No True Scotsman Fallacy” is a common error in logic by which people try to avoid blame for evil acts committed by members of the group to which they belong. It is “special pleading” that no true member of the group could be capable of such evil. The famous atheist Antony Flew (who became a theist before he died) identified the fallacy as such in his 1975 book Thinking about Thinking. That the fallacy exists in some contexts must be allowed. Some true Scotsmen certainly could be capable of heinous crimes, because the definition of a true Scotsman does not require that one be incapable of such acts. To be a true Scotsman one need only be a citizen of Scotland.
It is interesting that this fallacy should have been discovered by an atheist and applied so often by atheists to discredit the Christian claim that no true Christian, while waving the Christian banner, would engage in savage acts of wanton cruelty, destruction, and murder. Hitler is an example. Baptized a Catholic (though he was no longer Catholic during his dictatorship) some atheists will insist that his religion was at the root of his monstrous acts. In other words, as Catholics we cannot avoid Hitler’s scandalizing the Church by saying that no true Catholic could be so evil. According to Flew, this would be equivalent to saying no true Scotsman could be so evil, which is clearly illogical.
But Flew has grossly oversimplified the application of this fallacy. Whereas anyone can define a Scotsman as one who has citizenship papers, the atheist does not get to define who is a Christian as opposed to who is not. It is Christ alone who can define a true Christian, and here is his definition:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian.”

 

[friardchips]

It is Christ alone who can define a true Christian, and here is his definition:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian.”

Exactly. The reason every Christian needs to be careful in not becoming complacent.

Great explanation to the thread subject!

God bless!

 

[Zachary]

To be a true Scotsman one need only be a citizen of Scotland.

Christ alone who can define a true Christian, and here is his definition:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian.”

Right. Being Catholic isn’t just a matter of the place in which you were born. It’s something altogether different.

That’s what irks me about the media spin/coverage of the recent terrorist acts in Canada. They call them “lone wolf” attacks and say that “no ture Muslim” would ever do this. Then they show a clip of a “true Muslim”, usually a local iman, saying “I don’t know this guy…not true Muslim would do this.”

Again, there’s a difference between the “no true christian” and “no true Muslim” arguements as there is a gap in clarity in the teaching between one of the groups and the other.

 

[schaeffer]

Then there is the “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” issue.

Many Catholics include all baptized Catholics in the numbers when they want to show how large the Church is. Or when they want to argue with someone who claims they are no longer Catholic.

But when someone misbehaves, who is a baptized Catholic…we start hearing the “they are not REAL Catholics”…

If Baptism leaves in indelible mark, and one is part of the Church if they were baptized into the Church, then they are true Catholics, even if they don’t believe, or participate, or follow the doctrine of the Church.

One can honestly say however that they are not representative of the teachings of the Church, or that their choices have excommunicated them from fellowship with the body of the Church.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If Baptism leaves in indelible mark, and one is part of the Church if they were baptized into the Church, then they are true Catholics, even if they don’t believe, or participate, or follow the doctrine of the Church.

One can honestly say however that they are not representative of the teachings of the Church, or that their choices have excommunicated them from fellowship with the body of the Church.

The indelible mark of baptism means simply that the stain of original sin has been removed. It does not mean that you are always going to behave as a true Catholic should behave. I refer you back to post #1 and the fact that Jesus himself excommunicates phony believers.

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian.”

 

[inocente]

“I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian.”

I never knew you;
which must be understood consistent with the omniscience of Christ; for as the omniscient God he knew their persons and their works, and that they were workers of iniquity; he knew what they had been doing all their days under the guise of religion; he knew the principles of all their actions, and the views they had in all they did; nothing is hid from him. But, as words of knowledge often carry in them the ideas of affection, and approbation, see ( Psalms 1:6 ) ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ) the meaning of Christ here is, I never had any love, or affection for you; I never esteemed you; I never made any account of you, as mine, as belonging to me; I never approved of you, nor your conduct; I never had any converse, communication, nor society with you, nor you with me. The Persic version reads it, “I have not known you of old”, from ancient times, or from everlasting; I never knew you in my Father’s choice, and my own, nor in my Father’s gift to me, nor in the everlasting covenant of grace; I never knew you as my sheep, for whom, in time, I died, and called by name; I never knew you believe in me, nor love me, or mine; I have seen you in my house, preaching in my name, and at my table administering mine ordinance; but I never knew you exalt my person, blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; you talk of the works you have done, I never knew you do one good work in all your lives, with a single eye to my glory; wherefore, I will neither hear, nor see you; I have nothing to do with you.

Gill’s Exposition of the Bible

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then there is the “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” issue.

Many Catholics include all baptized Catholics in the numbers when they want to show how large the Church is. Or when they want to argue with someone who claims they are no longer Catholic.

But when someone misbehaves, who is a baptized Catholic…we start hearing the “they are not REAL Catholics”…

If Baptism leaves in indelible mark, and one is part of the Church if they were baptized into the Church, then they are true Catholics, even if they don’t believe, or participate, or follow the doctrine of the Church.

One can honestly say however that they are not representative of the teachings of the Church, or that their choices have excommunicated them from fellowship with the body of the Church.

Perhaps that is where the “true” in “no true Catholic” comes in. Essentially, what is being stated is that no Catholic “true” to Catholic teaching would act in such a manner. Hence, a “true Catholic” is one who, by definition, acts according to Catholic teaching.

Notice that Catholicism has ethical and spiritual guidelines as essential aspects of what it is, so to be “true” to Catholicism means that one is aligned to those teachings.

In the case of “no true Scotsman” unless one identifies certain expected MORAL behaviours as “Scottish” or essential aspects of what makes a person “Scottish,” then the definition is an open and morally neutral one - someone born in Scotland to a person of Scottish ancestry. There is nothing in that definition that has moral implications, unlike Catholicism or Christianity generally, where to be Catholic or Christian essentially means to be a follower of Christ and to morally live as he taught and the Church today teaches.

Hence, a “true” Catholic is one who is “true” and aligned to the teachings of Christ and his Church. Hitler was not a “true” Catholic in this sense and neither are dissenting Catholics such as politicians who formulate their own moral principles which contradict the teachings of Christ and the Church.

 

[schaeffer]

The indelible mark of baptism means simply that the stain of original sin has been removed. It does not mean that you are always going to behave as a true Catholic should behave. I refer you back to post #1 and the fact that Jesus himself excommunicates phony believers.

Yes, I understand that it does not mean one will behave as a Catholic should behave…that’s rather obvious.

But who gets to make the call “true”?

Or are you explaining that “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” is not true, or that the average Catholic in the pew can declare who is or isn’t a “true” Catholic. Or the above average Catholic in the pew can declare who is or isn’t a “true” Catholic. Or do we have to go to the Bishop to get the declaration of whether or not someone is a “true” Catholic.

Or do we have to wait until the judgement and hear who Jesus excommunicates?

I am saying this because my entire life I have heard “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” and that one cannot “worm” out of that.

Who gets to decide if a baptized person gets to wear the merit badge declaring them “true”?

 

[on_the_hill]

There also exists an element of “protecting our own,” when a member does do something bad. This is particularly evident when the group feels it is besieged with criticism.

No true Scotsman would do X, and we know MacDougal is a true Scotsman. Therefore MacDougal didn’t do what he’s accused of.

 

[schaeffer]

Hence, a “true” Catholic is one who is “true” and aligned to the teachings of Christ and his Church. Hitler was not a “true” Catholic in this sense and neither are dissenting Catholics such as politicians who formulate their own moral principles which contradict the teachings of Christ and the Church.

This makes sense, but what is the line of demarcation?

If one is striving, but failing miserably, are they not true because of their failures?

As I asked above, who gets to award the label “true” to their fellow Catholic?

I was also taught that the indelible mark of baptism, and indeed all the sacraments, is something deeper and more significant that merely being born in a certain country of of a certain ancestry.

I agree that it is an important delineation between baptized or nominal Catholic, and one who strives to practice the fullness of the faith, but because “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” certainly is a tradition if not an infallible teaching, there ends up being confusion.

Also there are those who give the appearance of being practicing Catholics (and Scottsmen) as they attend Mass, go to confession etc, yet also participate in serious sin.

Do Catholics essentially have the option of pointing the finger at one another and declaring whether the person in the pew beside them is true or not true?

Or is that something that only Christ himself has the authority to do?

 

[Della]

Yes, I understand that it does not mean one will behave as a Catholic should behave…that’s rather obvious.

But who gets to make the call “true”?

Or are you explaining that “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” is not true, or that the average Catholic in the pew can declare who is or isn’t a “true” Catholic. Or the above average Catholic in the pew can declare who is or isn’t a “true” Catholic. Or do we have to go to the Bishop to get the declaration of whether or not someone is a “true” Catholic.

Or do we have to wait until the judgement and hear who Jesus excommunicates?

I am saying this because my entire life I have heard “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” and that one cannot “worm” out of that.

Who gets to decide if a baptized person gets to wear the merit badge declaring them “true”?

By “once Catholic always Catholic” no one means that Catholics cannot sin gravely. If we couldn’t we wouldn’t need confession.

Rather it means that when one is baptized Catholic one is a member of the family of God–something that cannot be abolished. God recognizes that person as one of the family due to his baptism. However, like any family member, he may turn out to be a bad person. That doesn’t disconnect him from the family, but he may not be welcome unless and until he mends his ways. Not a perfect analogy, but while it is true that only God can judge the heart, one who deliberately engages in a sinful life cuts himself off from God’s family, but if he should decide to repent and return to full fellowship with God and his brothers, the door is always open. If Hitler had repented, even after all the horrors he’d committed, he would have been welcome to at confession. No one is beyond God’s mercy until he takes his last breath, and even then only God can judge the person’s last thoughts and desires.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Right. Being Catholic isn’t just a matter of the place in which you were born. It’s something altogether different.

That’s what irks me about the media spin/coverage of the recent terrorist acts in Canada. They call them “lone wolf” attacks and say that “no ture Muslim” would ever do this. Then they show a clip of a “true Muslim”, usually a local iman, saying “I don’t know this guy…not true Muslim would do this.”

Again, there’s a difference between the “no true christian” and “no true Muslim” arguements as there is a gap in clarity in the teaching between one of the groups and the other.

The problem here, it seems, is the Q’uran itself does advocate in places the forcible conversion or death of infidels because they are infidels. So the behaviour of terrorists is consistent with the Q’uran. It also advocates the position of the moderate Muslims in other places, so both the extremist and moderate views are “true” to the teachings of Islam. The foundational writings of Islam are inconsistent which allows inconsistent views to be derived from them. In this sense, both views are “true” Muslim views.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This makes sense, but what is the line of demarcation?

If one is striving, but failing miserably, are they not true because of their failures?

As I asked above, who gets to award the label “true” to their fellow Catholic?

I was also taught that the indelible mark of baptism, and indeed all the sacraments, is something deeper and more significant that merely being born in a certain country of of a certain ancestry.

I agree that it is an important delineation between baptized or nominal Catholic, and one who strives to practice the fullness of the faith, but because “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” certainly is a tradition if not an infallible teaching, there ends up being confusion.

Also there are those who give the appearance of being practicing Catholics (and Scottsmen) as they attend Mass, go to confession etc, yet also participate in serious sin.

Do Catholics essentially have the option of pointing the finger at one another and declaring whether the person in the pew beside them is true or not true?

Or is that something that only Christ himself has the authority to do?

The line of demarcation is, in its final form, the line that divides the “sheep from the goats” - those who sit at the right and those at the left - and God will make that fine distinction. However, the fact that finely drawing the line requires the omniscience and omnibenevolence of God, it does not mean that “gross” determinations cannot be made by mere mortals. Some things just are obviously wrong and obviously right even to those who want to hedge their bets. In the case of fine distinctions, difficult to make, it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution, no?

 

[livingwordunity]

The problem here, it seems, is the Q’uran itself does advocate in places the forcible conversion or death of infidels because they are infidels. So the behaviour of terrorists is consistent with the Q’uran. It also advocates the position of the moderate Muslims in other places, so both the extremist and moderate views are “true” to the teachings of Islam. The foundational writings of Islam are inconsistent which allows inconsistent views to be derived from them. In this sense, both views are “true” Muslim views.

The critics of Christianity like to look for violent verses in the Old Testament. But most of these are story telling and dependent on the historical context. The direct commandments in the OT that say that the penalty is death for this or that, Jesus gave the answer to that when he was asked whether or not a woman should be stoned to death.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do Catholics essentially have the option of pointing the finger at one another and declaring whether the person in the pew beside them is true or not true?

Or is that something that only Christ himself has the authority to do?

Christians and Christ both have that option. Christ made it clear to us that this is how he will judge. He will spew the lukewarm from his mouth. They are not true Christians.

Our own judgments must be made according to judging justly and wisely he who behaves like a true Catholic. Hitler did not behave like a true Catholic, and one needs only common sense to judge him accordingly. But the judgment of men by men is never final, as Della pointed out, because the wayward Catholic can return to the fold and behave again like a true Christian.

Since Christ did not teach torture of men by men, the tortures of the Inquisition were conducted not by men who lived in the true spirit of Christ. Those in the Crusades who fought only for personal glory and spoils of war or out of pure homicidal fury likewise were not fighting in the true spirit of Christ and dishonored the cross on their chest.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The line of demarcation is, in its final form, the line that divides the “sheep from the goats” - those who sit at the right and those at the left - and God will make that fine distinction. However, the fact that finely drawing the line requires the omniscience and omnibenevolence of God, it does not mean that “gross” determinations cannot be made by mere mortals. Some things just are obviously wrong and obviously right even to those who want to hedge their bets. In the case of fine distinctions, difficult to make, it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution, no?

In the conversation from which this thread was derived (see here, #303,#305, #307 and #309) we were talking about variations in people that call themselves Christian. The daily lives of some of the people in consideration may be similar with the differences of interest being their moral evaluations on certain visual material and their reactions to it. If we grant that God is the final decision maker on whether or not some one is a Christian doesn’t by itself help a person determine whether not someone is a Christian or whether or not something is within Christian boundaries.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the conversation from which this thread was derived (see here, #303,#305, #307 and #309) we were talking about variations in people that call themselves Christian. The daily lives of some of the people in consideration may be similar with the differences of interest being their moral evaluations on certain visual material and their reactions to it. If we grant that God is the final decision maker on whether or not some one is a Christian doesn’t by itself help a person determine whether not someone is a Christian or whether or not something is within Christian boundaries.

No, but there are sufficient obvious teachings about what constitutes being Christian or Catholic that following those obvious ones will keep anyone in safe territory. It is the individuals who want to test the fine lines who are placing themselves in jeopardy. It seems to me that safely and tenaciously following the obvious rules is quite a simple matter (at least from an intellectual standpoint - a bit more challenging when it comes to consistently acting on those rules.)

Formulating the crucial rules that derive from Christianity is not a difficult matter. Sincerity and integrity fill in the remaining gaps. Self-deception is always a danger to be reckoned with - but that is part of the refinement process of becoming a complete and good moral agent. Church teaching and the Holy Spirit are always accessible, as well.

If someone is looking to excuse behaviour, test the waters or mitigate their feelings of guilt then it is always possible to nit pick regarding the teachings, but it seems to me, at least, that they have already put themselves into dangerous waters by taking issue and making things questionable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the conversation from which this thread was derived (see here, #303,#305, #307 and #309) we were talking about variations in people that call themselves Christian.

I didn’t catch any direct connection FROM this thread TO the one you are referencing above. The OP made no reference to it.

However, the point still stands that a “true” Christian, unlike a “true” Scotsman entails following or being “true” to certain identifiable moral and spiritual teachings. A “true” Scotsman implies nothing about following a moral belief system unless one is proposed as part of Scottish cultural heritage.

A “true” Scotsman, as far as that goes, is someone born in Scotland to a person of Scottish heritage. A “true” Christian is one aligned with or “true to” the spiritual and moral teachings of Christ. A “true” Catholic is one who is “true to” and lives by the moral and spiritual teachings of the Catholic Church. It does make sense to distinguish a “true” Catholic from a dissenting one or who has merely been initiated into the Church by having received Sacraments of Initiation.

 

[Della]

I’m afraid one cannot say that an unfaithful Catholic isn’t a “true” Catholic because trueness of identity for a Catholic isn’t behavior, it’s baptism. Anyone who was baptized Catholic is a Catholic no matter what he may say or do. We can say he’s an unfaithful or bad Catholic but we cannot say he is not a Catholic anymore than we can say our brother is not our brother because he is a serial killer. He’s still related to us, he’s simply not a good person. Catholics can be as bad or worse than anyone else–if we do not avail ourselves of God’s graces. Still, the indelible mark of baptism makes us Catholic no matter what.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Still, the indelible mark of baptism makes us Catholic no matter what.

Yes, baptism opens us up to all kinds of sanctifying grace and manifestly increases our chances of salvation. However, baptism does not guarantee us that we will be true to the grace and favor we have received. That is a choice we must make, and if we repudiate that source of grace, we are repudiating Christ himself. No true Christian, though he falls a thousand times, repudiates Christ. A self-styled Christian who lives as a pagan is not a true Christian.

As I pointed out in another thread, Jacques Maritain echoed Christ’s definition of a true Christian in his book The Range of Reason. “There are practical atheists who believe that they believe in God (and who perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds. Out of the living God they have made an idol.” In other words, some people who call themselves Christians are lying to themselves, because no true Christian would behave in such a manner.

Hitler was adept at invoking God’s presence among his advancing armies, but it was all a lie. Privately he is reported to have sworn to destroy all religions as worthless. He did not fool most of the Catholics in the largely Catholic provinces of Germany, who voted against him as unworthy, though he managed to fool many of the Protestants who heavily favored him with their votes in the Protestant provinces.

He made an idol of himself and worshiped the idol.