No True Scotsman Fallacy

[Charlemagne_III]

Antony Flew was a British philosopher and atheist until his conversion to theism shortly before his death. In his 1975 book *Thinking about Thinking *he introduced the fallacy called No True Scotsman. This is how he illustrated it.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton 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 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.”

In this forum many posters have insisted that Christians here use a variation of this fallacy which they call the No True Christian fallacy. Example: “No true Christian is a chronic liar.”

Do you agree that this is equivalent to the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Why? Why not?

 

[Edmundus1581]

Antony Flew was a British philosopher and atheist until his conversion to theism shortly before his death. In his 1975 book *Thinking about Thinking *he introduced the fallacy called No True Scotsman. This is how he illustrated it.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton 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 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.”

In this forum many posters have insisted that Christians here use a variation of this fallacy which they call the No True Christian fallacy. Example: “No true Christian is a chronic liar.”

Do you agree that this is equivalent to the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Why? Why not?

Interesting!

Note Hamish’s two statements:

1. “No Scotsman would do such a thing.”
2. “No **true **Scotsman would do such a thing.” (emphasis added)

His first statement having been proved wrong, objectively, he modifies it with the adjective “true”, which is almost meaningless. There are no objective criteria for distinguishing whether someone is a “true” Scotsman, from a “non-true” Scotsman.

If we rephrase this with “Christian” we get:

1. “No Christian would do such a thing.”
2. “No **true **Christian would do such a thing.”

The difference from Hamish’s “Scotsman” vs “true Scotsman” is that in Hamish’s case the first statement is more meaningful than the second, whereas here the second statement is more meaningful than the first. “Scotsmen” are primarily distinguished by their place of birth, whereas “Christians” are primarily distinguished by their religious faith.

The designation “Christian” can be applied very loosely. It may be someone who was baptised, someone who calls himself a Christian when asked about his religion but makes no effort to practice it, someone from a Christian country who has never actively disavowed the majority religion, etc. All such people could be labelled “Christian” in some circumstances, and have been so labelled. Hence in historical contexts we often hear of Christians distinguished from, say, Hindus, Muslims or others when many of those “Christians” were just Europeans with no professed religion.

However, “true” can be meaningfully applied to Christians in a way it cannot with “Scotsman”, as Christianity has tenets of belief beyond place of birth. The Ten Commandments immediately demand a standard of belief and conduct. No** true** Christian could deny the existence of God, or practice serial murder, adultery, theft or lying.

So, while there is some objective standard for** true** Christianity there is also some merit to your query. It is very easy to adapt “true” to one’s personal beliefs. For example, some Protestant Christians say that the Ten Commandments are superseded by “The Law of Love”, some “Traditionalist” Catholics say that a lapse from Catholic “Tradition” (as defined by them) renders one an apostate. Such people may well indeed be guilty of the “True Scotsman” fallacy in their opinions.

In summary, while “true Christian” is much more meaningful than “true Scotsman”, one should be careful in using it - especially in the context of disavowing association with a fellow religionist. It may be fair to use the example of the “true Christian” in exhorting oneself and others to do better, but less fair to use it to condemn or disassociate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Interesting!

Note Hamish’s two statements:

1. “No Scotsman would do such a thing.”
2. “No **true **Scotsman would do such a thing.” (emphasis added)

His first statement having been proved wrong, objectively, he modifies it with the adjective “true”, which is almost meaningless. There are no objective criteria for distinguishing whether someone is a “true” Scotsman, from a “non-true” Scotsman.

If we rephrase this with “Christian” we get:

1. “No Christian would do such a thing.”
2. “No **true **Christian would do such a thing.”

The difference from Hamish’s “Scotsman” vs “true Scotsman” is that in Hamish’s case the first statement is more meaningful than the second, whereas here the second statement is more meaningful than the first. “Scotsmen” are primarily distinguished by their place of birth, whereas “Christians” are primarily distinguished by their religious faith.

The designation “Christian” can be applied very loosely. It may be someone who was baptised, someone who calls himself a Christian when asked about his religion but makes no effort to practice it, someone from a Christian country who has never actively disavowed the majority religion, etc. All such people could be labelled “Christian” in some circumstances, and have been so labelled. Hence in historical contexts we often hear of Christians distinguished from, say, Hindus, Muslims or others when many of those “Christians” were just Europeans with no professed religion.

However, “true” can be meaningfully applied to Christians in a way it cannot with “Scotsman”, as Christianity has tenets of belief beyond place of birth. The Ten Commandments immediately demand a standard of belief and conduct. No** true** Christian could deny the existence of God, or practice serial murder, adultery, theft or lying.

So, while there is some objective standard for** true** Christianity there is also some merit to your query. It is very easy to adapt “true” to one’s personal beliefs. For example, some Protestant Christians say that the Ten Commandments are superseded by “The Law of Love”, some “Traditionalist” Catholics say that a lapse from Catholic “Tradition” (as defined by them) renders one an apostate. Such people may well indeed be guilty of the “True Scotsman” fallacy in their opinions.

In summary, while “true Christian” is much more meaningful than “true Scotsman”, one should be careful in using it - especially in the context of disavowing association with a fellow religionist. It may be fair to use the example of the “true Christian” in exhorting oneself and others to do better, but less fair to use it to condemn or disassociate.

Bravo! Could not have said it so well myself.

The mere fact of being baptized does not make you a true Catholic. Doubtless through history people have been baptized for convenience or opportunism rather than for conviction.

All Catholics are sinners. That does not stop them from being true Catholics.

The only thing that stops them from being true Catholics is the repudiation of the beliefs they are required by the Church to have if they claim to be true Catholics.

Even then, they can be cured of heresy.

 

[Aloysium]

How about:

Matthew 25: 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How about:

Good point. True Catholics can go to heaven or to hell.

Being a true Catholic is not synonymous with being true to Christ. We all sin, and we all can be saved, but only if we repent. Matthew 25 reminds us what happens if we are not true to Christ’s commands to love one another.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . True Catholics can go to heaven or to hell. . . is not synonymous with being true to Christ. We all sin, and we all can be saved, but only if we repent. Matthew 25 reminds us what happens if we are not true to Christ’s commands to love one another.

There is an objective truth about what it means to be a true Christian. Although those who do not believe in God see social networks of culture, philosophies, prejudices and alliances, there is at work something greater, involving the relationship between the person within the community church, and God. This involves action, not merely ideas. There is a standard to which we try to adhere in our behaviour. No true Christian would consider another person as anything but a brother or sister. That said, we are sinners and we wrong one another. In that event we try to right the wrong and appeal to God’s mercy, knowing of His love for us and the sacrifice He made in Christ to free us from sin. Perhaps a true Christian is a work in progress, striving to be Christ-like.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Perhaps a true Christian is a work in progress, striving to be Christ-like.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Perhaps a true Christian is a work in progress, striving to be Christ-like.

I’ve always said there is no such thing as a “Good Catholic.”

A “Good Catholic” is not something that you are. A “Good Catholic” is something that you strive to be.

My :twocents:

 

[inocente]

In this forum many posters have insisted that Christians here use a variation of this fallacy which they call the No True Christian fallacy. Example: “No true Christian is a chronic liar.”

Do you agree that this is equivalent to the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Why? Why not?

It’s a fallacy when used to add conditions on the hoof. For instance:

Poster A claims: Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
Poster B: Some Catholics have lost their faith.
Poster A: Ah yes but they they were not True Catholics.

Poster A claims: Christians don’t lie.
Poster B: Some Christians do.
Poster A: No True Christian is a chronic liar.

Poster A keeps modifying his original claim ad hoc to avoid being refuted.

 

[EnosJadon]

In this forum many posters have insisted that Christians here use a variation of this fallacy which they call the No True Christian fallacy. Example: “No true Christian is a chronic liar.”

Do you agree that this is equivalent to the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Why? Why not?

Generally, all that one needs to do to see the “No true Scotsman Fallacy” at work is to remind the members of this forum that Hitler was a Catholic.

 

[Vonsalza]

Generally, all that one needs to do to see the “No true Scotsman Fallacy” at work is to remind the members of this forum that Hitler was a Catholic.

Richard Overy; ‘’The Dictators Hitler’s Germany Stalin’s Russia’’; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004.pp.287: “During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, ‘National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Generally, all that one needs to do to see the “No true Scotsman Fallacy” at work is to remind the members of this forum that Hitler was a Catholic.

A Catholic who repudiated his Catholicism and gave orders to one of his generals to kidnap the Pope Pius XII.

 

[MPat]

Generally, all that one needs to do to see the “No true Scotsman Fallacy” at work is to remind the members of this forum that Hitler was a Catholic.

I think we can find use for this example. Contrast it with a different (perhaps more common) one: when an atheist, right after claiming that atheism is not anything other but “a lack of belief in God” and that theism leads to violence, is told that Stalin and Mao were atheists, and denies that (mentioning “personality cult” or something).

In “Hitler” example the word “Catholic” had several meanings: “baptised as Catholic”, “holding beliefs that Catholic Church holds”, “sometimes trying to act as Catholic Church asks us to” etc. In that case “not a true Catholic” means “not a Catholic in a relevant sense, although a Catholic in a sense that is not relevant”. There is no fallacy here, just a clarification.

On the other hand, the “Stalin and Mao” example generally happens after the atheist has already claimed that atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in God and that no other meaning is legitimate. After that we can have no clarification as in “Hitler” example. Thus we have a clear fallacy - a self-contradiction.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

On the other hand, the “Stalin and Mao” example generally happens after the atheist has already claimed that atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in God and that no other meaning is legitimate. After that we can have no clarification as in “Hitler” example. Thus we have a clear fallacy - a self-contradiction.

I have never understood why atheists insist there is a difference between believing there is no God and a “lack of belief in God.”

If you lack a belief in God you clearly have no relationship with God because you think there is no “there” there.