No True Scotsman Fallacy and Religion

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

I can see how, but that still leaves the issue of how Jesus totally raged all over these people using a temple as a marketplace.

What did he do?

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

I know what you're saying, but the idea is that a Christian who says "no TRUE Christian would do such a thing" can't make such a claim on the same basis, unless again he specifies which group of Christians he is talking about.

Moral of this story: Make no generalizations.

I can see how, but that still leaves the issue of how Jesus totally raged all over these people using a temple as a marketplace.

It's been a while since I've studied that passage, but I believe the whips were only used on the animals.

Originally Posted by Cody

It's true that everyone has their own interpretation of what a true Christian is - in the eyes of one person some of the values could be different. However, that is a completely different situation than the Scotsman one, because in that case they are taking a fact and then pretending that it means something else. In that case, the Scotman Fallacy doesn't apply to personal beliefs because it is a comparison of apples and oranges. The fallacy of denying fact is not relevant to a situation where no fact on the matter can be found.

Different, but very closely related.

Indeed, the No True Scotsman fallacy is very easy to apply when you can change the definition on a whim.

Based on the various criteria for what a true Christian is presented throughout the history of ZU, I am forced to conclude that they cannot exist.

A true Christian cannot murder, covet, hate, or, indeed, sin in any way. A true Christian also cannot be perfect (only God is).

At that point it's, well, rather easy to insist that anyone who does anything in any way wrong isn't a true Christian. By the definitions used this is correct. But then, since no one is a true Christian it's also rather meaningless (like asserting that no true unicorn would have four legs.)

Originally Posted by fratey

So the majority of US is actually Jewish?

My understanding is that you have to be born a Jew, so no.

Originally Posted by Rew

Belief is not the same as mere mental ascent. Faith/belief entails some degree of adherence to the principles of the belief system.

Actually, I'd disagree.

So, incidentally, would James. (In probably my favourite biblical quote ever): "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (2:19, NIV. Other translations agree with the meaning, but this one is the most biting.)

Ultimately it's up to the community of the faithful to decide who's an adherent and who is wayward. (I'll give you a hint: Most Christians would consider Hitler to be quite wayward at best. )

Most Christians at the time seem to have had no problem with him.

Mind you, most didn't know of the genocide, but I suspect that a sect or two would've welcomed him with open arms, regardless.


Of course, it's not clear if Hitler really believed or just paid lip service, he contradicts himself on the issue many, many, many times.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

The reason the Fallacy doesn't apply is this: You can't stop being a Scottsman (at least genetically, you could move to another country but thats beside the point). You can stop being religious. What makes you religious is only ones personal set of moral codes. Once you cast aside those codes you aren't following the religion anymore, so it could be said you are not a true member. Much like it is accurate to say that an AA member who got smashed the previous night is no longer a true AA member.

Couldn't have said it better.

Religion is based on following moral principles. If you break those moral principles you are no longer following the spirit of the religion. This means it is otherwise just lipservice, so you are not a true follower anymore.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Couldn't have said it better.

Religion is based on following moral principles. If you break those moral principles you are no longer following the spirit of the religion. This means it is otherwise just lipservice, so you are not a true follower anymore.

The counter argument to that is that if that's the case, then 99% of the world aren't true Christians, but TBH my response to that would be 'yup'. I doubt even I am a true Christian.

My response to the criticisms of those like Lysis and John is like this:

Apparently there are problems on both sides of this debate. On the one side, those of the non-Christians, you rightly see the competing claims of differing sects, thus making it nearly impossible to deduce who is a "true" Christian and who not. Therefore criticizing the religion is nearly impossible as well since any criticism could be easily cast aside saying, "That's not true Christianity." This is a valid point on your part.

However, the danger is to swing to the opposite end of the pendulum and deduce that anyone who claims adherence to the religion is fair game to judge the entire religion by. Here we come to the other side of the debate, those of us Christians who don't want to lumped in with other Christians who act contrary to our principles. More moderate or "liberal" Christians like me don't want to share the criticisms that fundamentalists and certain evangelicals and Catholics receive. Similarly, the more conservative Christians wouldn't want to be criticized based on things done by liberal churches. And all Christians don't want to be judged based on atrocities perpetrated by Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. And it's only fair that we ask not to be judged in this way (hence our extreme aversion to outsiders bringing in the No Scotsman Fallacy when we try to defend ourselves).

So, we come to a stalemate. How to resolve the conundrum?

As I saw in my exchange above with The Arbitrator, it seems the trick is not to generalize. For instance, if one is going to criticize Christianity, first recognize that the religion is way too broad and multifaceted to undergo simple unilateral criticisms all across the board (except for equally broad criticisms, like if someone just flat-out disagrees with a general belief in God, for instance). Whenever we're speaking of problems we have with Christians, the way we avoid problems is to specify which group. If it's the religious right you have a problem with, identify them. If it's the proselytizing evangelicals you're criticizing, criticize them instead of labeling the entire worldview that way. If the liberal Christians are too wishy-washy for you, or if Christian pacifism sounds like a dangerous pipe dream, then point them out specifically instead of assuming all of Christianity is that way.

Does any of that make sense?

Originally Posted by John

Actually, I'd disagree.

So, incidentally, would James. (In probably my favourite biblical quote ever): "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (2:19, NIV. Other translations agree with the meaning, but this one is the most biting.)

There is one thing I wanted to reply to more specifically. To be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. James is actually spelling out that anyone can mentally believe that there is one God. But it's one thing to believe (a la mental ascent) and another to actually participate in the belief system and be an adherent. After all, demons are not Christians! The "Good!" that James says here is a bit sarcastic, as if to say, "Well, good! But even the demons believe. Can you back it up with good works?"

So, James is actually agreeing with me. You can't just say you believe and be done with it. Belief must be backed up by actions.

Originally Posted by Rew

So, we come to a stalemate. How to resolve the conundrum?
.

Well, I guess I'll give it a shot.

Okay, so we have established all Christians believe that they have fallen short of God and thus all the moral principles of Christianity will at some time be violated by all. So no one can be said not to BE a Christian just because of their actions being reprehensible in the eyes of the rest of Christendom. Everyone ****s up at some point, in other words.

Also, the dilemma of one Christian being seen as the measure for the rest of Christendom even when a person seems to violate all of the rules and such is solved in this way: The best can be said is "That person is not following the ideal of Christian behavior at that moment in time." Because there is a general consensus on what is and is not acceptable in Christian behavior by the majority, Catholicism and (most branches of) Protestantism.

So, there may not be "true Christians," but there is certainly a "true behavior" at least for the most part. The big problem with this is because of antinomianism that there is a certain entitlement people have that God says they can do such and such and there is no real need for consensus.

Not to try and compare for any sake but for discussion, but there was a Buddhist Council not too long ago. When was the last time all of Christianity got together and decided on what is generally considered real Christian behavior and basic belief?

Originally Posted by Rew

However, the danger is to swing to the opposite end of the pendulum and deduce that anyone who claims adherence to the religion is fair game to judge the entire religion by.

Rew, the only one making generalizations is the one who invokes the No True Scotsman fallacy, not the one who calls it. It is certainly true what you are saying here: judging the entire religion by a single member or denomination is just as fallacious. That's not what anyone here is doing by calling out the fallacy.

but the No True Scotsman fallacy still applies to Christianity in the way I mentioned above. Anyone who believes they are a Christian can call themselves a Christian, so to say that someone is not a true Christian is logically unsound. To do so is to judge them by some nonexistent list of requirements that certainly most Christians don't actually meet.

so really, it looks to me like you're actually forming a straw man argument, another logical fallacy. You're allegedly arguing against calling certain arguments No True Scotsman fallacies, but your argument doesn't actually address that, it addresses a completely different issue about making generalizations, an issue which you are right about.

Originally Posted by Rew

So, James is actually agreeing with me. You can't just say you believe and be done with it. Belief must be backed up by actions.

Here's part of the problem, different definitions for the same word.

"Belief", to me, means, well, that you think that something is a certain way.
Apparently it means something different in the context of religion.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

What did he do?

I remember reading/being read a specific passage when I was in school about how Jesus went to a temple in his youth that was being used as a market place and basically rioted, tipping over stalls etc. I don't think he directed any physical harm at any person other than maybe pushing them out of the building but I still consider throwing things around willy-nilly a form of violence.

Originally Posted by John

Here's part of the problem, different definitions for the same word.

"Belief", to me, means, well, that you think that something is a certain way.
Apparently it means something different in the context of religion.

"Faith" would probably be a better word.

Originally Posted by Rew

There is one thing I wanted to reply to more specifically. To be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. James is actually spelling out that anyone can mentally believe that there is one God. But it's one thing to believe (a la mental ascent) and another to actually participate in the belief system and be an adherent. After all, demons are not Christians! The "Good!" that James says here is a bit sarcastic, as if to say, "Well, good! But even the demons believe. Can you back it up with good works?"

So, James is actually agreeing with me. You can't just say you believe and be done with it. Belief must be backed up by actions.

Yes. Basically what the passage is saying is this: Just thinking you are a Christian does not make you a Christian. It also must be obsevable that you live as close to how a perfect Christian (in other words, Jesus) would live as you can. This means that even if Hitler said he was a Christian, his actions in no way resemble Christ's, so he doesn't apply.

By the way, where is this whole "Hitler was a Christian" thing coming from? There really isn't any historic evidence to suggest it (that I know of). In fact, he encouraged an athiest state.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

I remember reading/being read a specific passage when I was in school about how Jesus went to a temple in his youth that was being used as a market place and basically rioted, tipping over stalls etc. I don't think he directed any physical harm at any person other than maybe pushing them out of the building but I still consider throwing things around willy-nilly a form of violence.

Well I wouldn't (violence is when you hurt people), but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Well I wouldn't (violence is when you hurt people), but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Well the point is he's letting his anger get the best of him. Plus he could easily have hurt someone as a consequence of his actions, which is reckless to say the least.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Well the point is he's letting his anger get the best of him.

If it had gotten the better of him, he would have done a lot worse, like actually attack people (or even worse than that if you believe he had divine powers). All he did was clear a holy area of illicit materials and practices.

Plus he could easily have hurt someone as a consequence of his actions, which is reckless to say the least.

You're really clutching at straws here.

Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. Sounds violent to me.

Originally Posted by erinys

Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. Sounds violent to me.

He drove the animals out with a whip.

To clear up a few things, here is the passage:

Originally Posted by Mark 11: 15-17

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Well the point is he's letting his anger get the best of him.

The temple is a holy place, and he comes in to find people selling things there. It would be like someone selling t-shirts in the middle of a cemetary or a veterans memorial. So yes, it would make him angry.

Originally Posted by erinys

Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. Sounds violent to me.

Please note, no whip is even mentioned. It mearly said he flipped thier tables over.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

The temple is a holy place, and he comes in to find people selling things there. It would be like someone selling t-shirts in the middle of a cemetary or a veterans memorial. So yes, it would make him angry.

So your first reaction is to flip your lid, rather than as many would hold Jesus to have taught, go over and peacefully protest it all. Also I believe anger or wrath is disapproved of in Christianity.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

If it had gotten the better of him, he would have done a lot worse, like actually attack people (or even worse than that if you believe he had divine powers). All he did was clear a holy area of illicit materials and practices.

Through the use of force, which generally goes against many interpretations of his teachings. The fact that he did not keep his anger under control, and acted upon it forcefully, is how he let it get the best of him.

You're really clutching at straws here.

Considering that recklessness sufficient grounds on which to convict people of assault (ABH or GBH), battery, and manslaughter, the law must really be clutching at straws these days to put people away.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

He drove the animals out with a whip.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Please note, no whip is even mentioned. It mearly said he flipped thier tables over.

Originally Posted by King James Version Bible

Jhn 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

Jhn 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

Jhn 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (KJV)

When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. (NKJV)

Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and oxen, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables. (NLT)

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (NIV)

Originally Posted by erinys

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (KJV)

When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. (NKJV)

Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and oxen, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables. (NLT)

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (NIV)

I can boldface too.