No True Scotsman Fallacy and Religion

Anyone who frequents a serious discussion board will have heard about the No True Scotsman fallacy from any thread relating to Christianity - every time someone mentions that someone else is not a true Christian because of their actions, several people instantly respond with "LOL TRUE SCOTSMAN". However, I don't think that this fallacy is actually relevant to systems of belief revolving around a set of core values.

For those uninitiated in arguments over religion, here is the original fallacy:

"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."" - Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)

At first glance things seem to match up to also include religion, but first we have to look at WHY this is considered a fallacy. The reason that this man is obviously wrong is because he took something as unchangeable and genetic as a country of birth, and ascribed nonexistent rules to it. Another example is labeling a human as "inhuman", as if to suggest that the person is no longer a true human because of their actions, which is genetically ridiculous.

But now let's look at this fallacy when it talks about a belief, let's say feminism:

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a feminist, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about the "Brighton Wife Beater." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No feminist 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 a feminist whose brutal actions against his wife make the Brighton wife beater seem almost gentlemanly."

For him to then declare that the wife-beater is not a true feminist makes perfect sense - there is no fallacy here. Someone who completely disregards the core values of a belief cannot be said to be a true believer of it. Take any other belief and do the same and you will get the same result - a vegetarian that eats meat, an environmentalist that burns down forests, or even a Nintendo fanboy that refuses to play anything but Sony games. They are violating the core principles of their beliefs, and thus it is perfectly possible for someone to be not be a true vegetarian or a true feminist.

Religions such as Christianity also have their own core sets of beliefs that define them as a religion. Christianity is not something you are born with, so how then is the No True Scotsman fallacy relevant in this situation?

Originally Posted by Cody

Religions such as Christianity also have their own core sets of beliefs that define them as a religion. Christianity is not something you are born with, so how then is the No True Scotsman fallacy relevant in this situation?

Those who say that, say, church A aren't real Christians because they don't follow a specific belief or sin in some way (like person A who says that person X isn't a true Christian because they agree/don't agree with gay marriage), in 99% of cases, sin in some way, or don't follow a specific belief of the Bible either.
I refer to this phrase:
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

I think it applies because of many people's tendency to pick-and-choose when it comes to what rules they follow in their religion.

One person might view a particular type of behaviour as being morally reprehensible as a result of their religious upbringing, whereas another person who belongs to the same church, but interprets their religion in a different light, sees nothing wrong with it.

Originally Posted by fratey

Those who say that, say, church A aren't real Christians because they don't follow a specific belief or sin in some way (like person A who says that person X isn't a true Christian because they agree/don't agree with gay marriage), in 99% of cases, sin in some way, or don't follow a specific belief of the Bible either.
I refer to this phrase:

There are cases where someone is just being petty about someone else making a mistake, but many times perfectly valid points are overlooked because of being automatically categorized as No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Take, for example, a thread about whether Christianity has been good for humanity or not. If the discussion continues long enough, there is a 100% chance that somebody will bring up that "HITLER was a Christian too" thing, because of Godwin's Law, a law as powerful as the law of gravity. No matter who you ask, the atrocities he committed are completely opposed to the core values of a Christian, and as such, stating that he is not a true Christian would be a fairly sensible thing to say.

The problem here is that there is no actual definition of what a Christian is.

Declaring belief in Christ is, apparently, not enough.

Frequently the statement is made that a person could not be a true Christian because their denomination does not agree with someone else's.

So there's no solution until a definition that everyone can agree with is found.

Originally Posted by Cody

There are cases where someone is just being petty about someone else making a mistake, but many times perfectly valid points are overlooked because of being automatically categorized as No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Take, for example, a thread about whether Christianity has been good for humanity or not. If the discussion continues long enough, there is a 100% chance that somebody will bring up that "HITLER was a Christian too" thing, because of Godwin's Law, a law as powerful as the law of gravity.

Just like people will say "Jeffery Dahmer was a homosexual too". In fact, that happened yesterday in a thread here.

Originally Posted by Cody

No matter who you ask, the atrocities he committed are completely opposed to the core values of a Christian, and as such, stating that he is not a true Christian would be a fairly sensible thing to say.

In fact, Christianity is a very individual religion that has transited to big organization - no one can really tell but Hitler himself.

Originally Posted by John

The problem here is that there is no actual definition of what a Christian is.

Declaring belief in Christ is, apparently, not enough.

Frequently the statement is made that a person could not be a true Christian because their denomination does not agree with someone else's.

So there's no solution until a definition that everyone can agree with is found.

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.

Hmm...I'm not so sure about that.

I think one could insert Christian for Scotsman in a similar scenario.

For instance:

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Christian, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about a man (whose religious faith has not been mentioned) who stabbed his doctor. Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Christian 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 the stabbing murder of a doctor, who regularly administered abortions for women who requested it, by a Christian. 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 Christian would do such a thing.""

Yes, that may be incorrect, but it's not a True Scotsman Fallacy, since the idea of the True Scotsman fallacy is that something is initially treated as a fact then when it goes wrong the definition of it is changed. In this case, the man does not change his definition of Christian to suit the new facts, he simply has a different definition in the first place of what a Christian (something with no agreed-on definition) is.

As has been pointed out, there is no no fixed definition of what a 'true' Christian is. The definition will be different for everyone. When someone says that no true Christian would kill a person, they refer to Christians that adhere to the speaker's sense of Christianity. Everyone thinks that they have the correct interpretation of the rules. And so the No True Christian is not a fallacy per se; merely subjective, and should be treated as such.

Ah yes, thank you, Cody! I've been saying this for a long time. You can't so facilely apply the "No Scotsman fallacy" to something as complex as a religious (or even secular) worldview.

Originally Posted by Astarael

Hmm...I'm not so sure about that.

I think one could insert Christian for Scotsman in a similar scenario.

For instance:

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Christian, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about a man (whose religious faith has not been mentioned) who stabbed his doctor. Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Christian 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 the stabbing murder of a doctor, who regularly administered abortions for women who requested it, by a Christian. 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 Christian would do such a thing.""

...And I would agree. I don't know of any sect of Christianity that condones murder, so the "true Scotsman fallacy" would not apply here. McDonald would be correct.

Originally Posted by Rew

...And I would agree. I don't know of any sect of Christianity that condones murder, so the "true Scotsman fallacy" would not apply here. McDonald would be correct.

Since when can't murderers be Christians?

That whole "Thou shalt murder" thing comes to mind.

Of course there's a lot of debate within Christianity on what constitutes murder (some more radical pacifist Christians like me would consider killing troops in war or the death penalty murder, even though most non-pacifist Christians might disagree). However, I think all but the most fanatical would agree that killing even an abortion doctor in cold blood would indeed be murder. It's incumbent on the more sensible Christians to call out those who act fanatically in ways that are contrary to the faith (like blowing up abortion clinics).

Trouble is, the people who commit crimes such as killing doctors who provide abortions still identify themselves as Christians, even if their actions are apparently in direct conflict with the command "thou shalt not kill". Being Christian has never stopped certain people from committing murder.

And on a different scale, there are people who call themselves Christians, and yet are against providing rights for same-sex couples, thus apparently contradicting the commands "love thy neighbour" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - but they still manage to justify their beliefs (bigotry, really) with other, obscure quotes from the Bible (primarily based on mistranslations, it seems).

Originally Posted by fratey

Since when can't murderers be Christians?

Since murder is against even the most basic Christian belief, and a person committing it is not following Christianity - ergo, not Christian. He could repent later, but that's later. At the time of the act, he is outside the boundaries of Christian behaviour, and is not being Christian. But as I said, my definition is as subjective as the next.

Originally Posted by Astarael

Trouble is, the people who commit crimes such as killing doctors who provide abortions still identify themselves as Christians, even if their actions are apparently in direct conflict with the command "thou shalt not kill". Being Christian has never stopped certain people from committing murder.

And on a different scale, there are people who call themselves Christians, and yet are against providing rights for same-sex couples, thus apparently contradicting the commands "love thy neighbour" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - but they still manage to justify their beliefs (bigotry, really) with other, obscure quotes from the Bible (primarily based on mistranslations, it seems).

And all of this underscores the complexity of religious belief--and further proves my point that you can't simply say that everyone who claims adherence to a belief system is rightly a representative of everyone else within that belief system. If the most looney person in a village claimed to be part of a religious system and acted in ways contrary to most of that religion's teachings, then of course the rest of those within that religion have the right to say that he/she isn't an accurate representation.

It's not fair to those religious groups to deny us the right to distinguish who's in and who's out. Otherwise, it leads to terrible generalization when anyone who claims to be part of the body can represent the whole.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Since murder is against even the most basic Christian belief, and a person committing it is not following Christianity - ergo, not Christian. He could repent later, but that's later. At the time of the act, he is outside the boundaries of Christian behaviour, and is not being Christian. But as I said, my definition is as subjective as the next.

Then it is possible saying that a true Christian would be able to murder, however he would do something that breaks one of the more basic rules. This means that according to some interpretations, he isn't Christian during that time, or is a heavy sinner. He could easily be a true Christian while debating about it (ergo, after the incident).

Originally Posted by fratey

Then it is possible saying that a true Christian would be able to murder, however he would do something that breaks one of the more basic rules. This means that according to some interpretations, he isn't Christian during that time, or is a heavy sinner. He could easily be a true Christian while debating about it (ergo, after the incident).

Debating about something isn't the same as repentance, which would be required to be a 'true' Christian again. Repentance involves being genuinely sorry for what you've done and the pain you've caused.

If you believe in the Christian god, and in the story of Christ, you're a Christian. Those are the only requirements of Christianity. Hitler may have not followed the teachings of the Bible, but the same is true of most Christians.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

If you believe in the Christian god, and in the story of Christ, you're a Christian. Those are the only requirements of Christianity. Hitler may have not followed the teachings of the Bible, but the same is true of most Christians.

If you are disinterested in even the most basic tenets of Christ's teachings, then I would disagree.