Scotsmen

[avevale_intelligencer]

Last night, in response to a friend who linked to the Wikipedia article on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in connection with the terrorism in Norway (apparently perpetrated by someone who is described as a "conservative Christian"), I posted this:

"A Scotsman is a person of Scottish extraction; no more, no less. One can be a Scotsman and be anything. One cannot be a Christian and, say, worship Kali, or Cthulhu. Someone who describes himself as a Christian and worships Cthulhu or Kali, or commits acts of terrorism, or does something else incompatible with the teachings of Christ, is therefore by definition no true Christian, and the fallacy is not a fallacy. Q.E.D."

I should not have done that there, and I apologised this morning, but I think (I hope) that I've successfully demonstrated that the NTS fallacy does not apply here. It doesn't matter if the person who commits an act of terrorism considers himself a Christian, or goes to church, or donates to Christian charities when he's not blowing people up. It doesn't matter if he's dim enough to believe that every word in the Bible is literally true, except when it would stop him blowing people up. It doesn't matter if he has a triple-certified, scrambled, privacy shielded genuine hot line to something that calls itself God, and from whom he got his orders to blow people up. He is not a Christian, because he does not live as a Christian should, and his God is not the Christian God.

I added:

"(Cue long boring derailment discussion about the precise meaning of "I come to set brother against brother" and so on and so interminably forth...)"

because that's usually what happens; having failed to refute my argument, the next step is to prove that Christ actually was a terrorist because he turned over some benches and talked about swords and That Proves It. We then move on to the Inquisition, the Pope's inaction during the rise of Hitler, the fact that he (H) claimed to be a Christian, the oft-trumpeted wrongsayings of the current Catholic establishment and so (as I said) on. None of which affects my argument, and I'm not interested in going through all that again. I know enough Christians who express their faith in their lives to know that the distinction I've made is a valid one, and that the fallacy does not apply in this case.

Not disabling comments. Please don't make me regret it.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

All this assumes that there actually was a person called Jesus Christ (actually, if he existed at all, he was Yesua bar Yosef or a variant depending on transliteration) and that the current Gospels actually record what he said (even more doubtful, as there are other Jewish - and other sources - saying much the same thing) and that those churches which call themselves 'Christian' - a word he could never have used - actually follow those teachings.

Also, I think you have misunderstood the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. However, I am not going to argue about it. (Though I have met a lot of Irish people who maintain that people who have lived in Ireland for hundreds of years are not 'Irish'.)

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I don't think I've ever met a Christian who doesn't do things incompatible with the teachings of Christ: for example, very few Christians give up all their possessions to feed the poor.

[grey-lady.livejournal.com]

Of course, a complication to the picture is the fact that many such descriptors as 'Christian' depend on self-classification. I describe myself as American (but if I gave up my passport, would I still be American?), British (I have a passport to prove it - but is that enough?), a Minnesotan (although I haven't lived there for 14 years, does that mean I can't be?). Despite the fact that they all seem evident to me, they could all be argued by others. Am I a vegetarian if I only eat meat on rare occasions? If I called myself a Rastafarian, would that make me one?

I'm not arguing with you - just expressing some of my own thoughts that were generated by the same post.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Your argument appears to me to boil down to "but it's different for Christians; Christians really are good!"

So my first question would be how far do you extend that presumption of goodness? Is it the case that Muslims really are good? That Buddhists really are good? That Hindus really are good? That Atheists really are good?

And my second question is this--given that to be Christian (Religious?) you have to be so good you won't commit or support atrocities even if the rest of the crowd is doing it (so we toss out the Inquisition, as I presume you would wish) how do we tell the Real Christians (Religionists?), whom I gather we should trust, respect, and defer to, from those scoundrels who merely profess Christianity (Religion?) but will, some years down the road, commit or support an atrocity, like those (presumably not True?) Muslims sprinkling rose petals over the one of their number who murdered some politician for being insufficiently supportive of Islam?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

My argument doesn't need boiling down. It's nothing to do with "it's different for Christians." It's up there, and I stand by it. I would also say that there are "true" and "untrue" Muslims (and yes, I'd agree that those you mention would fall into the latter category), and Buddhists (would you argue the point that no true Buddhist would eat a fish?), Hindus and atheists. It's absurd to judge an entire group by a label which can be appropriated by anyone.

How do we tell true Christians from untrue Christians? How do we recognise a homicidal maniac? The only way is by what they do, how they live. I know that doesn't sort all the nasties handily into a box with a label, but that's just the way things are.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Okay so you think that to be a True Christian one has to be good.

Regarding the first question, does it follow that to be a True Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Athiest one has to be good? Or is that only true of True Christianity?

Regarding the second question, given that True Christianity is undetectable, how does it change things to know that among Christians there is a set of people out there with this nice but undetectable characteristic?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, by the standards of the belief system. No.

I didn't say it was undetectable. And it doesn't change things. Things are the way they are. Whether it would change your view of things I couldn't say, but I doubt it, since (when you're not arguing with me) your view is much the same as mine. You know there are good Christians as well as I do. You have good Christian friends, and probably good Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu friends.

In fact, you knew what I was going to say in response to all these questions.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

If you answered the question of whether you believe to be a true Hindu/Buddhist/Atheist, etc you have to be good, I'm afraid your answer was so brief I wasn't sure what it referred to. I apologize for being unable to interpret it; please try again, more specifically? Though I care about all of them, the Atheist question actually applies to a group I profess to be a member of, and so I'm particularly interested in your answer to that.

I didn't say it was undetectable. I agree. That was me that pointed that out. I maintain that whether or not a person is planning an atrocity in the near future (or would support an atrocity if everyone else in the crowd was going along with it, which is a much greater number) is frequently undetectable until the atrocity has actually happened.

Basically my point regarding the second question is, there are two (among many) groups of people: People Who Profess Christianity (PWPC) and People Who Are Actually Good (PWAAG). These groups can overlap, but do not depend on each other. Your claim is that only PWPCWAAG, a subset of both PWPC, and PWAAG, should be considered Christians, and that people who call the shooter Christian are badmouthing PWPCWAAG. My claim is using Christian as shorthand for PWPC is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially since PWPC is detectable and PWAAG is not, or at least not reliably. And furthermore, this is common usage. "Christian" as meaning solely PWPCWAAG generally is invoked only after something like this happens. And the result of skipping back and forth between the two definitions is of course the presumption that PWPC are (unlike non-PWPC) all good until proven otherwise, which I think is unfair.

Furthermore I'm pretty sure almost nobody who uses "Christian" to mean PWPC seriously denies that PWPCWAAG actually exist (I certainly don't, and didn't in my previous replies, and don't understand what made you think I did), so your ardent defense is unnecessary, and indeed, to the degree it implies that someone in particular actually holds that silly position, both unkind and impolite.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

You spend a lot of time explaining why the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply to certain groups, and every time, you're wrong.

You consistently miss the point of the fallacy completely, while demonstrating it beautifully.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well asserted. What should I say? "You've obviously missed the point of my argument, and incidentally proved my original contention"? That sounds impressive.

But maybe I'll actually try and answer you.

I've now read the Wikipedia article six times and I'm satisfied that I've understood it, and my argument stands. The assertion that no-one who understands, respects and lives as far as possible by the teachings of Christ would choose to commit wholesale murder in his name is not unreasoned and is in fact accurate, unlike the assertion that "all Scotsmen are loyal and brave" or any other generalisation composed for the occasion.

It is in fact not a generalisation but a particularisation; it separates a subgroup within the main group according to certain characteristics. There are good and bad Christians, just as there are good and bad members of any other group, and it would be lunacy to contend otherwise. Why then is a sentence describing the behaviour of "good Christians" automatically a fallacy? Answer: it isn't.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

The assertion that no-one who [...] lives [...] by the teaching of Christ would choose to commit wholesale murder in his name is [...] accurate

No, it's merely something that you have chosen to believe is true, despite oodles of contradictory evidence.

Why then is a sentence describing the behaviour of "good Christians" automatically a fallacy?"

You're not trying to describe this man as a bad Christian, you're trying to remove him from the ranks of "Christian" altogether.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

""The assertion that no-one who [...] lives [...] by the teaching of Christ would choose to commit wholesale murder in his name is [...] accurate"

No, it's merely something that you have chosen to believe is true, despite oodles of contradictory evidence. "

I'm intrigued as to what these oodles of contradictory evidence consist of. The only evidence that seems relevant to me is the teachings in question. If the teachings condone murder, then a person living by the teachings may commit murder. If the teachings condemn murder, than a person living by the teachings may *not* commit murder, and thus anyone claiming to live by the teachings while also committing murder is either mistaken about the content of the teachings, or a hypocrite (a particular sub-species of liar), or delusional.

So the argument boils down to this: What do the teachings of Christ in fact say about committing murder (either specifically in his name, or more generally)?

Someone else has commented on the difficulty of establishing (a) whether there ever was such a person and (b) if so, what specifically he taught, as opposed to what was attributed to him later. This is a problem that applies to a greater or lesser extent to any other teacher in history of course (though currently much less so to, say, Richard Feynman than to Aristotle), but if for the sake of argument we assume the most widely accepted definition of the phrase "the teachings of Christ" - i.e. the teachings as recorded in the four gospels known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as found in any mainstream translation of the New Testament (or if you prefer, as found in the Koine Greek of the earliest sources)... Do you then still have a problem with Zander's assertion?

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for taking so long to reply. I haven't been ignoring the question, I've been on vacation and then dealing with personal emergencies.

========================================

Yes, of course I still have a problem with the assertion. The assertion is, effectively, that one is only a Christian if they consistently live in a Christlike manner. However, since Christ himself said* that all men are sinners, the logic being used says that there are no Christians anywhere.

* Well, it says it in the Bible, which is allegedly the divinely inspired word of god, and so I suppose that Trinitarians believe that Christ said it directly.

For the non-Trinitarians in the audience, Jesus directy said a lot of things that I imagine aren't true of everyone who calls himself a Christian. Ever been worried about where your next meal is coming from? Well then whoops; you're not a Christian, 'cuz the man instructed you to "not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'" For that matter, have you ever lain awake at night fretting about what the next day might bring? You were violating the words that instructed you to "do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." (all quotes ESV)

It's pretty much a fundamental Biblical doctrine that all men are sinners. By definition that includes all men who call themselves Christian. To say that the people who commit *this* particular sin which one finds particularly heinous aren't *really* Christians because Christians don't do that is a classic example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

But there you're jumping to a completely different part of the debate. I was asking about the specific assertion I quoted, which doesn't mention the word "Christian" at all (and thus can usefully help to tease out the points of the discussion on which you and Zan might be in agreement from those on which you disagree).

For convenience, here's the quote again:
""The assertion that no-one who [...] lives [...] by the teaching of
> Christ would choose to commit wholesale murder in his name is [...]
> accurate"

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Oh, well, I guess that's what happens when one goes away for several weeks and then tries to reconstruct a conversation from memory. :)

The problem is that many people have committed murders in Christ's name while remaining completely true to the teachings of Christ as they understood those teachings.

I have a degree in literary theory; I know well how extraordinarily easy it is to tease alternate meanings out of text if one wants to, or to find meanings that suit one's preconceived notions.

My husband tells me that in one of his honors English classes in high school, two students did a brilliant presentation explaining how John Lennon's song Imagine showed Lennon's support for the Vietnam War.

There is no One True "teaching of Christ"*, if indeed such a person ever existed. There are only countless interpretations of what he really meant. Ever seen the movie Life of Brian?

* And there's a whole lot more to be said on that subject, but this doesn't seem to be the place for it.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"I have a degree in literary theory; I know well how extraordinarily easy it is to tease alternate meanings out of text if one wants to, or to find meanings that suit one's preconceived notions. "

[NODS & GRINS] ...And I'm a guy who stills considers himself an Evangelical, despite having completely reversed his understanding of various bits of the Bible from (a) the mainstream Evangelical view and (b) the view he himself held when he first took up that label. =:o}

Yep. Biblical interpretation is a minefield. And that's something most of the teachers at *every variety* of church I've been in have been at pains to point out, while firmly stating what their specific view was, detailing why they thought it was right, and even (on occasion), opining on just how mad those other people down the road must be to believe *their* crazy version... =:o?

(Edited to removed the bit where I had capslock on [BLUSH])

[batyatoon]

There are good and bad Christians, just as there are good and bad members of any other group

Except you seem to be asserting that there can't be any such thing as a "bad Christian", because anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Christ isn't really a Christian at all.

[howeird]

I tend to agree. The only thing keeping me from standing up and cheering your post is the question of whether someone else is qualified to say what faith/religion another person follows.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I agree with your other commenters here.

People interpret 'Christian beliefs' very differently from one another, and I don't think anyone gets to say 'if you believe that you're not a Christian', and non-Christians certainly don't get to say it.

Making a judgment that someone shouldn't use a particular word to describe themselves is really ... extreme? invasive? Not something ever to be done lightly, and arguably not something to be done at all. I would argue 'not something to be done at all' when it comes to a word as open to different interpretations as 'Christian'.

I know Christians who don't believe in God, Christians who worship pagan deities, Christians who believe they have a duty to take violent revenge when someone wrongs them, Christians who believe it's a sin to forbid same sex couples from marrying, Christians who believe it's a sin to allow them to marry.

There are Christians who believe that the 'teachings of Jesus' are what they have to live by; Christians who believe that the teachings of St Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are equally important; Christians who believe they should live by what they think the Holy Spirit is telling them personally; Christians who think they should obey [some] old testament laws; Christians who think that their own reason was implanted in them as a sovereign guide to right and wrong.

Some of these positions I agree with, some are (in my opinion) profoundly anti-Christian. But I don't get to judge whether the people who hold them are Christians, any more than other people get to judge whether I'm a Christian.


I know enough Christians who express their faith in their lives to know that the distinction I've made is a valid one, and that the fallacy does not apply in this case.

I'm glad you know some 'good' Christians. So do I, and I try to be one too. But I also know plenty of Christians who are utterly obnoxious, or who believe things I think are repellent, or both. They're still Christians. Some of them are Christians who have a lot to teach me about being Christian.

Plus, as I said above, I don't know a single person who follows the teachings of Jesus perfectly. And neither you, nor me, nor anyone gets to draw the line between sins that stop you being a Christian and sins that don't.

The church (by which I mean the community of all Christians) would be gravely at fault if we didn't acknowledge Christians who commit atrocities in Christ's name, and consider carefully what our role was in helping them to happen and what we need to do to prevent them from happening in the future.

[danceswithlife]

This.

How about new subsets: people who claim to follow a specific set of spiritual teachings but are mentally ill? Or, people who claim to follow a specific set of spiritual beliefs, but are unable to live by "conventional" morals or ethics?

"Conventional"--according to my study--is always conventional in relationship to a specific culture or subculture. In this usage, any group of people is a culture or subculture. So all of us belong to multiple cultures (family, chosen family, workplaces, social groups, churches, countries, hobby groups, fandom, etc.). Each of those groups has a "conventional" set of ethics and morals. There is of course, overlap. Each culture (and individuals in that culture) also struggles to define who is "in" and who is "out." The ethics and morals and qualifiers for membership can be conscious or unconscious, and they change over time as people say, "Hey! I belong here but I don't believe or follow x, and here's why!"

*One* factor in our mental health is an ability, or inability, to follow the norms of groups that claim us, or that we claim. Sometimes norms shouldn't be followed, they should be changed. But who defines or instigates that change is also subject to the judgment of the groups involved or impacted. Sometimes it is necessary to break with a group and find or form a new one.

There are no simple answers, IMHO, only increasingly complex examinations and discussions.

I personally have a difficult time knowing if there is a line between someone being "evil" and someone who is "mentally ill." While my master's degree is an academic (as opposed to clinical) degree in psychology, one thing I have learned is there are so many things that impact how we see ourselves and our cultures that I tend to say that "evil" is a radical inability to cope--often combined with biologically based mental illness--that is acted out, sometimes on an extremely large scale.

That doesn't mean we condone or excuse it, or even, forgive it. Sometimes horrible evil acts happen with little or no warning. Sometimes the people who do those acts claim membership in a group where some, or all of the members, don't share the same values of the perpetrator.

As to membership in a group of teachings referred to as "Christian" there are no clear guidelines today as to who is "in" and who is "out." There probably never were--as the alchemist pointed out, the followers of Jesus splintered into different subgroups shortly after his death. It's been argued about by those who call themselves Christian, and those who don't, for over 2000 years.

So how do we judge the actions of those who claim to be in any specific group: the same way we judge anyone. How do they live their lives? How does what they do impact others? Do their values and morals support the greatest good for the greatest number? Do they acknowledge and try to deal with their own imperfections, neediness,and hurtful actions? Are they willing to allow those values and actions to be examined by others in their culture?

Even those guidelines are subject to interpretation and values from subgroups. And people who commit evil actions will slip through the cracks.

But we have to *try* to keep it from happening, not by adopting simple answers to complex questions but by continuing to be willing to confront the complexity of human existence and deal with it.

*lola climbs down off her soapbox*

[danceswithlife]

I meant to add: "conventional" above means the standard, or normative, beliefs and values of adults in that culture. In the 21st century this is a highly movable feast--norms change quickly. That's part of the problem, and, part of the solution. But it doesn't make it easier to figure how what's going on...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

This resonated profoundly with me.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/no-true-christian-no-true-scotsman/

Interesting fact: if you Google "no true Scotsman" (well, I use Startpage, but the idea's the same) almost all the entries that are not simple definitions link to atheist sites bemoaning the supposed use of this fallacy by "Christian apologists," in whose number I hope nobody is going to include me. This was about the only instance I could find of a Christian writer mentioning it. Nobody else cares.

And that's my lot for this thread. Night all.