No True Scotsman Fallacy and Religion

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.

I agree. People who do not follow the entire religion, are not really following it. They just pick and choose parts that suits them and ignore parts that they dislike.

Though that is just my personal opinion.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

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.

Yes, it is.
...and no, too. It's natural to FEEL it; it's disapproved of to let it control your decisions.

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.

I think I explained that he did keep a lid on it.

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.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Assuming that any of his actions endangered people, when there is no record of anyone 'nearly getting hurt' in any record whatsoever, is clutching at straws. Do you have any historical documentation to suggest that anyone was in any remote danger? Was he close to hitting someone? Did he graze someone's arm?

The question of if Jesus was violent is very tangential, let's get back on topic, shall we?

Originally Posted by Twilight Joker

I agree. People who do not follow the entire religion, are not really following it. They just pick and choose parts that suits them and ignore parts that they dislike.

Though that is just my personal opinion.

The problem is that the Bible is self-contradictory.

For example, which matters more: Faith, or deeds?
I can cite passages that support one and condemn the other.

So you have to interpret the passage. Perhaps a compromise is what's needed (both sides argue against this, but it seems reasonable enough) but that's not in the book, so you're not, by any objective standard, following the religion.

See the problem? In order to have any sort of consistent Christian belief system you cannot follow the entire Bible.

I know someone who doesn't believe in God but considers himself a christian just because he is baptised. How can anyone be so illogical?

Originally Posted by newblenderbeer

I know someone who doesn't believe in God but considers himself a christian just because he is baptised. How can anyone be so illogical?

This was a common belief for a very long time.

Indeed, it lead to all sorts of fun situations, like children being baptized without their parents knowledge/consent and then being taken off to Christian schools because leaving a Christian to be raised by non-Christians would be a terrible crime.

From my understanding, a Christian is someone who prays for forgivness of his/her actions to Jesus (or God?). So a true Christian is not one that does not sin, but one that asks for forgiveness of them. Maybe we could start from there.

I haven't really followed the discussion so I hope it doesn't go irrelevant xD

Uhh...

...just to make an attempt at thread necromancy, with a very poorly worded argument:

The "No True Scotsman Fallacy", from what I'm reading, is seemingly used as follows:

" A: Faith is permanent. Once a Christian, you cannot lose your faith.
B: But Mark used to go to church, and then lost faith in Jesus.
A: Yes, but Mark was never a true Christian in the first place. "

This is all good and well, and if you read Wikipedia, it further elaborates that the reason the fallacy holds is because A has redefined their definition of Christian in response to B's counter-argument.

If this is so, then this means that our "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is slightly misused, no? As our definition becomes more concrete, the ability to apply the fallacy would become easier, as it is more obvious when a generalised description is contradicted in an argument.

But for something as vague as "Christianity", whose many subgroups and sects each hold their own definition of what a Christian is, the fallacy becomes far more specific, does it not? It's useless to counter someone who says "the Catholic Church is not a true church" with "No True Scotsman Fallacy" when they haven't defined what they believe a church is. If they said something like "a church made up of gay pedos is no church at all" (obviously a misinformed, biased and ultimately extrapolated view), we would be forced to prove that another church is also made up of "gay pedos", in order to enact the fallacy.

I think. ^^

On the other hand, if someone claims "Catholics and Latter-Day saints aren't true Christians because they're corrupt" and further adds, "a Christian must have faith in God", then obviously the fallacy can apply here. The Catholic Church also has faith in God; the person has to redefine their definition of "Christian" in order to stop their point from being void. Hence, this is definitely a valid application of the fallacy.

As you can see, I'm quite illiterate at these kind of things, and my rudimentary, time-wasting and rather mind-boggling essay on this is sure to confuse. I do apologise for such a hopeless attempt at thread necromancy, and bid you good day. ^^

LIFE IS GOOD!

~read~

Originally Posted by John

For example, which matters more: Faith, or deeds?
I can cite passages that support one and condemn the other.

If you're talking about the whole faith/deeds/grace thing, then a lot of people don't seem to realise that all three happen to be contained in the Bible, and all three are specifically stated to be absolutely vital. Would it not be sensible to assume that, instead of one passage being right and the others being wrong, all three are correct and necessary?

If a "Christian" is to someone who believes in, follows, and adheres to all teachings of Christ (or at least does his best, with some degree of success, to not carry on an especially depraved lifestyle) , then it certainly stands to reason that someone who fails to do this would not be a true "Christian."

The reason why this fallacy exists is because whether or not someone is a "true Christian" cannot stop him or her from self-identifying as a Christian, or even others from identifying him or her as a Christian. So to say that someone is "not a true Christian" is not an adequate defense against the blanket (and true) statement that "Christians often really aren't such good people" (however accurate or inaccurate the statement may be).

Originally Posted by John

For example, which matters more: Faith, or deeds?
I can cite passages that support one and condemn the other.

The simple answer is that neither matters more. Faith will be accompanied by works - if you believed that Christ proclaimed the truth, you would believe that you should do good works as he commanded and act accordingly, would you not?

So to some extent the belief that works are unimportant would have to be cast down, but by the same token Christians believe that our works alone are insufficient without a degree of faith. A dichotomy is to be expected, then, in order to accomplish both ends.

Originally Posted by Tiroth

If you're talking about the whole faith/deeds/grace thing, then a lot of people don't seem to realise that all three happen to be contained in the Bible, and all three are specifically stated to be absolutely vital. Would it not be sensible to assume that, instead of one passage being right and the others being wrong, all three are correct and necessary?

That is the common answer, yes, and while there are passages that specifically endorse faith over works (or vice-versa) and that condemn the other as being useless, it does seem like the best compromise.

However, that's missing my point, which is that your beliefs will then contradict part of the book. It doesn't matter if they're reasonable or not. I am simply trying to show that part of the belief is subjective. If that's the case, then a hard-and-fast standard cannot be made. So the equivalent of the no true Scotsman fallacy will be used all the time.


A further issue is, of course, that these people are only "not Christians" when they do bad things. If they then turned around and saved a few lives then that would be a shining example of how good Christians are.

An inverse Scotsman fallacy, if you will.

Originally Posted by John

That is the common answer, yes, and while there are passages that specifically endorse faith over works (or vice-versa) and that condemn the other as being useless, it does seem like the best compromise.

To use a different example: I may say graphics themselves don't make a good game, but that doesn't mean that I've never absolutely fallen in love with a game for its graphical style. Contradictory? Yes. True? Also.

To use a different example: I may say graphics themselves don't make a good game, but that doesn't mean that I've never absolutely fallen in love with a game for its graphical style. Contradictory? Yes. True? Also.

I'm not sure about this, but your two statements are slightly irrelevant to each other, no? I mean, to say that "graphics themselves don't make a good game" does not necessarily mean that a good game cannot draw people toward it on the sole basis of its graphics. Furthermore, this is then not necessarily contradictory, as we cannot gauge the "goodness" of a game that a person enjoys solely on the basis of graphics.

The preference of a game simply based on graphics doesn't necessarily mean that the game itself is bad. Personal preference on a game as opposed to whether or not the game is actually made well would be two different topics in a sense. To be truly contradictory to each other, would we not have to assume that a game you've "fallen in love with" has no potential to be a good game whatsoever, but has great graphics?

~read~

Originally Posted by The Readeemer

I mean, to say that "graphics themselves don't make a good game" does not necessarily mean that a good game cannot draw people toward it on the sole basis of its graphics.

By the same time, to say "faith without works is dead" does not necessarily contradict that "faith, not works" is what saves; just that "faith without works is dead."

By the same time, to say "faith without works is dead" does not necessarily contradict that "faith, not works" is what saves; just that "faith without works is dead."

But doesn't this present a direct contradiction? "Faith, not works" holds the direct implication that faith does not need words, or furthermore, it is faith that sustains people spiritually, not works. Then "faith without works is dead" instead correlates to "faith cannot exist without deeds" which causes a contradiction to our first statement.

~read~