The No true Scotsman Fallacy

[Red Fox]

I would like to discuss the No true Scotsman Fallacy. I don't have experiences with this fallacy being used in different religions, other than in Christianity, though I'm sure it probably is. I noted this fallacy being used several times in my previous discussions of the mistreatment I received over the years by certain Christians. I heard assertions like, "They weren't real Christians," "so-called Christians," and "They don't represent Christianity at all!" But are these assertions actually true? And for the record, I know there is a scripture which says that not everyone who names Christ is a Christian, however.... my question is, how does Christian A determine that Christian B isn't a real Christian? Furthermore, does Christian A have the moral authority to tell Christian B that they aren't a real Christian? And how can Christian A be certain that they are a real Christian?

I encountered the accusation of not being a real Christian many times of the years. If I didn't believe in a particular doctrine or teaching or accept a particular interpretation of scripture, then this accusation would usually be brought up against me. So, here is my personal take on this, as far as I am aware, and I could be mistaken, God isn't limited within the walls of a particular denomination or within the confines of a church doctrine or within certain worship styles or prayers. In other words, I don't believe that God can be put into a box and be held captive or be limited by His own creation. I believe that God, the Creator, can be worshiped in many different ways, even outside the confines of Christianity. Also, I would like to discuss this topic in a civil and respectful manner, without any assertions that non-Christians don't really understand Christianity, therefore, their opinions aren't considered to be valid. Thank you for your time and I look forward to what I hope will be a fruitful discussion.

 

[LoAmmi]

You will see me saying that the behavior of some Jews do not represent the teachings of Judaism, but unless I have evidence that they are not Jews according to the laws of my faith, I do not say that they are now Jews.

 

[A New Dawn]

As far as Christianity is concerned, Christ said "By their fruits you shall know them". Jesus said "This is the greatest commandment, that you love the Lord with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul, and the second is like unto it. You shall love your brother as yourself/as I have loved you". So in giving these commandments, Christ was telling us how someone who truly follows Him will act. While I, personally, can't see into someone's heart to know if their heart was turned, and maybe they are just having a bad day, I can judge their actions over time to know if they represent a changed heart.

 

[Red Fox]

So, is this part of the moral standard I was asking about in my OP?

 

[morningstar2651]

I heard assertions like, "They weren't real Christians," "so-called Christians," and "They don't represent Christianity at all!" But are these assertions actually true?

They aren't. If someone professes to be a Christian, then their actions (both good and evil) are the actions of a Christian. What is important is how much influence their representation has to the world around them. Christianity is a large religion with a diverse membership.

Let's say we have an imaginary Christian named Bob. Bob is also a white supremacist and twists scripture to justify his racist beliefs and actions. Bob is a Christian, but Bob is also kind of a jerk.

Now let's say we have an imaginary atheist named Alice. Many of Alice's friends and family are Christians and they aren't racist. When Alice is exposed to Bob's racism, she can recognize that he is both a Christian and a racist - and that these are two separate parts of who Bob is. Bob could be Christian without being racist and he'd probably still be racist if he wasn't a Christian.

Now let's say we have an imaginary Buddhist named Chu. Chu has probably interacted with four or five Christians in his adult life and doesn't really know much about the religion. He meets Bob and is called all sorts of terrible things. Chu mistakenly associates racism with Christianity because that's the most memorable experience he has had with the religion.

When you're a member of a popular religion like Christianity is in North America, almost everyone outside your religion that you meet is like Alice - they've interacted with countless other Christians before you and have a composite image of what a Christian is in their imagination, just like you probably imagined more details about Bob, Alice, and Chu that I didn't post - details about three people who don't actually exist.

When you're a member of a minority religion, almost everyone you meet is like Chu. Your actions represent your religion to those around you - you may even be the sole representation a person has when they imagine someone else of your religion. That's a lot of pressure and responsibility for one person to shoulder.

Declaring someone with what you to believe to be unfavorable traits as "Not a True Christian" is an attempt to edit the composite image others have of Christians, but ultimately it just adds to the composite image the perception that Christians are judgmental of everyone - including other Christians.

how does Christian A determine that Christian B isn't a real Christian?

Weigh them on a scale with a duck.

In all seriousness - if someone claims to be a Christian, they probably are.

If they're lying about being a Christian, then they already know they aren't really a Christian and pointing this out to them is a waste of time.

If they disagree with you on some point of doctrine or dogma, they're still a Christian - they just don't agree with you on everything. Your interpretation of scripture is not the only interpretation - your religion is diverse.

If they are a fresh convert to the religion - they're going to get things wrong. They're new and they're learning. Denying that they are Christian is harmful - you're better off privately re-directing them to some scripture they should read rather than publicly shaming them for not knowing.

Furthermore, does Christian A have the moral authority to tell Christian B that they aren't a real Christian?

Not really, especially if you consider that Christians believe that Non-Christians will go to Hell. This bit of doctrine fosters an "us vs. them" attitude where the believer considers themselves righteous and saved and sees nothing but sinners going to Hell around them. It pushes people to one-up others in acts of feigned piousness.

And how can Christian A be certain that they are a real Christian?

There was this movement called Fundamentalism that eventually got re-defined to mean extremism, but the original Fundamentalism was about defining the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Any religion has a set of fundamental beliefs that all denominations have at their core - it serves as the foundation that all the various flavors of Christianity are built upon. The problem with fundamentalism is that everyone wants their specific interpretations added as a requirement. If I would boil Christianity down to its true fundamentals, it would be much more inclusive than the 5 fundamentals.

Fundamental Christian Beliefs:

1. The Lord is your God, the Lord alone.
   
2. Love your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
   
3. Love your neighbor as yourself.
4. Love your friends and your enemies.
5. Lay down your life for those you love.

Really. That's it. No immaculate conception. No virgin birth. No original sin. No transubstantiation. No Heaven. No Hell. No total depravity. This is the core of Christianity. In spite of what the church would have you believe, Christianity is not about being saved by believing the right things - it's about self-sacrifice.

There is no grace; there is no guilt.
Love is the Law; Do what thou Wilt.

 

[seekingsolace]

They aren't. If someone professes to be a Christian, then their actions (both good and evil) are the actions of a Christian. What is important is how much influence their representation has to the world around them. Christianity is a large religion with a diverse membership.

By your logic could I infer that all atheists are child molesters, murderers and thief's, because a number of them are guilty of such? A person may 'profess' to be something, but their actions are what indicate the validity of the claim. Each person is an individual, regardless of the attempt to generalise them.

 

[LoAmmi]

By your logic could I infer that all atheists are child molesters, murderers and thief's, because a number of them are guilty of such? A person may 'profess' to be something, but their actions are what indicate the validity of the claim. Each person is an individual, regardless of the attempt to generalise them.

That isn't what is being said. If a man commits a robbery, that was the actions of a man. It wasn't the actions of a lion, or a bird, or a woman. If someone says they are Christian, than their actions are the actions of a Christian. That doesn't make all Christians guilty by association in the same way that all men wouldn't be guilty of robbery. It's the absurd denial people place upon those who claim to be part of their group but do bad things. I very rarely hear someone isn't a real Christian once it's revealed they donated to an orphanage, even though by the "not a real Christian" idea, that person might not be either.

 

[morningstar2651]

By your logic could I infer that all atheists are child molesters, murderers and thief's, because a number of them are guilty of such? A person may 'profess' to be something, but their actions are what indicate the validity of the claim. Each person is an individual, regardless of the attempt to generalise them.

You could make that inference, but it doesn't make your inference valid or correct. It depends upon your perceptions. If every atheist you have ever met molested your children, stole your money, and murdered someone you know - you'd believe some terrible things about all atheists.

Have you seen some of the stuff people say about Muslims on this very subforum? They genuinely believe some pretty awful things about an entire class of people.

 

[seekingsolace]

That isn't what is being said. If a man commits a robbery, that was the actions of a man. It wasn't the actions of a lion, or a bird, or a woman. If someone says they are Christian, than their actions are the actions of a Christian. That doesn't make all Christians guilty by association in the same way that all men wouldn't be guilty of robbery. It's the absurd denial people place upon those who claim to be part of their group but do bad things. I very rarely hear someone isn't a real Christian once it's revealed they donated to an orphanage, even though by the "not a real Christian" idea, that person might not be either.

I am not denying the atrocities people commit in the name of religion. But a person who is self professed is often far from it. A person wouldn't dispute a donation to an orphanage because it fits in with the principles. It's like claiming a self professed Muslim who attends church rather than mosque, is he a Muslim?

 

[LoAmmi]

I am not denying the atrocities people commit in the name of religion. But a person who is self professed is often far from it. A person wouldn't dispute a donation to an orphanage because it fits in with the principles. It's like claiming a self professed Muslim who attends church rather than mosque, is he a Muslim?

He could be a Muslim. I'd be inclined to believe that he was. Perhaps there is no mosque in his area and he wants to go somewhere to worship.

 

[seekingsolace]

You could make that inference, but it doesn't make your inference valid or correct. It depends upon your perceptions. If every atheist you have ever met molested your children, stole your money, and murdered someone you know - you'd believe some terrible things about all atheists.

Have you seen some of the stuff people say about Muslims on this very subforum? They genuinely believe some pretty awful things about an entire class of people.

Indeed they do, but caution is always advised before generalisation, prejudice is rife. Some of the things people say are truly disgusting, and it does make you question the motives.

I know people struggle with certain groups because of personal experience, that's why it becomes such an issue with reconciliation. A person who willfully abuses children is no less living as a Christian than an Atheist, that's why it should be taken as an individual problem.

 

[morningstar2651]

Indeed they do, but caution is always advised before generalisation, prejudice is rife. Some of the things people say are truly disgusting, and it does make you question the motives.

I know people struggle with certain groups because of personal experience, that's why it becomes such an issue with reconciliation. A person who willfully abuses children is no less living as a Christian than an Atheist, that's why it should be taken as an individual problem.

I agree. Unfortunately, that's not how everyone acts. People make assumptions and generalizations about us all the time, and our actions affect the assumptions and generalizations they make about other people. The best we can do to combat those assumptions is be the best person we can be. Telling someone they're wrong won't change their mind - it's something they have to see and understand for themselves.

 

[A New Dawn]

So, is this part of the moral standard I was asking about in my OP?

I do think there is a moral standard to point out. That standard is not "That person isn't a Christian", but "There are certain actions that define a Christian, and does that person fit into it?

Part of the problem is that people are, first and foremost, enemies of God. Even a true believer, who has had his heart turned to Christ, is still a human being with human tendencies. Without the constant attention of the Holy Spirit to guide us, we could never hope to emulate Christ. We wouldn't even want to emulate Christ. Some people call themselves Christian because that is the heritage they grew up in, not because they are really believers. That tendency is diminishing nowadays, but until relatively recently, people identified themselves according to their heritage. The other part of the problem is that people who claim to be Christian do bad things, but do they do bad things in the name of Christianity. Some do, yes, but most often, they are two separate things that are not related to each other. The Inquisition is a good example of people doing bad things in the name of Christianity. But most of the western world has grown since that time and most of the actions that bad people take are not done in the name of Christianity.

 

[seekingsolace]

Some people call themselves Christian because that is the heritage they grew up in, not because they are really believers. That tendency is diminishing nowadays, but until relatively recently, people identified themselves according to their heritage.

Always brings to mind the Monty Python song, it's not very Christian or clean come to think of it. "I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born"

 

[awitch]

Part of the problem is that people are, first and foremost, enemies of God.

Ghostbusters aside, I wouldn't think people could be a threat to a god so I don't see how people can be enemies of god.
On the other hand, given certain interpretations of some religions, it's easy for me to see how god can be people's enemy.

 

[Red Fox]

Ghostbusters aside,

OK, now I'm going to have, "Who ya gonna call? Ghost Busters!!" in my head for the rest of the day. Thanks a lot...

 

[bhsmte]

I would like to discuss the No true Scotsman Fallacy. I don't have experiences with this fallacy being used in different religions, other than in Christianity, though I'm sure it probably is. I noted this fallacy being used several times in my previous discussions of the mistreatment I received over the years by certain Christians. I heard assertions like, "They weren't real Christians," "so-called Christians," and "They don't represent Christianity at all!" But are these assertions actually true? And for the record, I know there is a scripture which says that not everyone who names Christ is a Christian, however.... my question is, how does Christian A determine that Christian B isn't a real Christian? Furthermore, does Christian A have the moral authority to tell Christian B that they aren't a real Christian? And how can Christian A be certain that they are a real Christian?

I encountered the accusation of not being a real Christian many times of the years. If I didn't believe in a particular doctrine or teaching or accept a particular interpretation of scripture, then this accusation would usually be brought up against me. So, here is my personal take on this, as far as I am aware, and I could be mistaken, God isn't limited within the walls of a particular denomination or within the confines of a church doctrine or within certain worship styles or prayers. In other words, I don't believe that God can be put into a box and be held captive or be limited by His own creation. I believe that God, the Creator, can be worshiped in many different ways, even outside the confines of Christianity. Also, I would like to discuss this topic in a civil and respectful manner, without any assertions that non-Christians don't really understand Christianity, therefore, their opinions aren't considered to be valid. Thank you for your time and I look forward to what I hope will be a fruitful discussion.

IMO, this is just a primitive defense mechanism some use, to protect their own faith belief.

Some who have faith beliefs, really struggle when there are others who disagree with them and or left their faith because they couldn't believe in it any longer. When this happens, what simpler way to protect your own belief than by trying to convince yourself, they were never true Christians or true whatever else would apply.

 

[smaneck]

I am not denying the atrocities people commit in the name of religion. But a person who is self professed is often far from it. A person wouldn't dispute a donation to an orphanage because it fits in with the principles. It's like claiming a self professed Muslim who attends church rather than mosque, is he a Muslim?

I'm a Baha'i and whenever my mother is in town I take her to church. I wouldn't be surprised if Niblo doesn't go to church now and then. Yasser Arafat, after the Palestinian Authority was set up would go to church in Bethlehem every Easter with his wife. Didn't stop him from being a Muslim (his wife was Christian.)

 

[A New Dawn]

Ghostbusters aside, I wouldn't think people could be a threat to a god so I don't see how people can be enemies of god.

That phrase doesn't mean that people are a threat to God, but that they are in rebellion to him.

 

[awitch]

That phrase doesn't mean that people are a threat to God, but that they are in rebellion to him.

Kind of how you rebel against my gods, I guess.