No True Scotsman

Old Man G Funk · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
How should we define a Christian?

The No True Scotsman fallacy is mentioned here occasionally, usually after someone states that a real Christian would never condone or partake in some act.

There is however a difference between Scotsmen and Christians (beyond the impenetrable accent); Scotsmen can be defined by fixed parameters, Christians are self-defining. To elaborate, I can call myself a Christian and justify it by saying I believe in Christ, if I call myself a Scotsman I have to find some way to prove by birth, anscentry, citizenship or naturalisation.

So should being a Christian be so simple, or should there be a test?

Certainly, as we've talked about before, self identification should be part of the equation. Also, some belief in Jesus as savior is probably also in order.

Old Man G Funk · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
If those are the only criteria then the label becomes all but meaningless, certainly such phrases as 'christian values' are rendered worthless.

There does remain the 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' fallacy however, because if Christian is self-defined then so is un-Christian, so logically the fallacy is itself false when applied to Christians.

I'm not sure if those are the only criteria, so let's hold the "label becomes all but meaningless" stuff off for a bit.

As to your second point, huh?

Old Man G Funk · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
Well, the Scotsman thing... both the persons in the tale are scotsmen by common definition (e.g. birth/parentage) but one sees the other as untrue for a particular act/belief, denying the scottishness as a result 'no true scotsman would' etc.. etc.. But of course they are both scotsmen because it is defined by something other than actions/thoughts. If we are to say that being a Christian has an element of self-definition then if another Christian fails the test on part of the original Christian's self-defined criteria then according to those criteria (which we allow to be valid if we allow self-definition as a factor) the latter is indeed not a true Christian. Ergo the No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply.

Well, by that criteria, then there are no Christians at all.

The problem with saying that one is not a "True Christian" is that it is always based on the subjective assumptions of the speaker, which is the fallacy of begging the question. So, even without a hard and fast criteria for what "Christian" is, the argument is still fallacious.

Andyman_1970 · Mar 31, 2006

I think alot of Christians say that one should "affirm" the Nicene Creed in order to be identified as a Christian.

For me, a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, a disciple would be someone who centers their life around His teachings (if we are going to use the 1st century definition of what a disciple was).

The whole Christians and the finger pointing that "so and so is not acting in a Christian like manner" does have an element of subjectiveness to it, as everyone's understanding of the Scriptures is based on an interpretation of said Text. Thus I strive to interprete the Text as contextually "whole" as possible in light of the history and culture of the 1st century.

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

Just out of interest Fluff, how would you define a Scotsman?

MMike · Mar 31, 2006

There's a scotsman who sits beside me at work. I keep calling him irish. "Happy St. Patty's day! You must be thrilled! It's your special day!"

He tells me to" f-off, you bloody septic"..... Good times...good times.

Old Man G Funk · Mar 31, 2006

One thing to make clear though, is that "Christian" is defined by beliefs, not by actions. For example, Fred Phelps. He is a Christian, whether people like it or not. You can use in-fighting and say that you don't think he is following Jesus's teachings, or you could say that you wish he would do such-and-such to make himself a better person (or even a better Christian), but it would be fallacious to say that he isn't a true Christian. Until he professes belief in non-Christianity, then how can we say that he isn't a Christian?

ALEXIS_DH · Mar 31, 2006

Old Man G Funk said:
One thing to make clear though, is that "Christian" is defined by beliefs, not by actions. For example, Fred Phelps. He is a Christian, whether people like it or not. You can use in-fighting and say that you don't think he is following Jesus's teachings, or you could say that you wish he would do such-and-such to make himself a better person (or even a better Christian), but it would be fallacious to say that he isn't a true Christian. Until he professes belief in non-Christianity, then how can we say that he isn't a Christian?

i vote for "if a person consider himself christian, then bam! he is christian".
the belief necesary for one to become christian, is the belief that one is a christian.

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
Someone born and raised in Scotland would do it for me.

So someone not born in Scotland can't be a Scotsman? Or someone born there but raised elsewhere likewise can't be a Scotsman?

Old Man G Funk · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
But if the beliefs are not universally acknowledged amongst Christians then the problem remains. If I believe that in order to be Christian you must believe X and Phelps does not then he fails my personal criteria. Furthermore if someone does not act in accordance with their beliefs then they are surely open to be questioned? After all no true pacifist would partake in a war, eh?

They are open to being questioned, that is correct. But, what we are talking about here is one making an ad hoc assumption and using it to exclude a data point in order to shore up an argument. It is a fallacious tactic.

Also, your analogy is flawed. Your analogy is closer to saying something like, "No true Scotsman is born and raised in India, eh?"

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
Not a true one...

Why not....and don't say because they're not a true Scotsman.

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
Cos they failed my definition of a Scotsman...

Your little tackers are Japanese.

See what an easy system it is?

So being a Scotsman is self-defined?
Actually my young blokes are dual citizens but I take your point. In reality I'm sure there are more than a few Japanese that would say my young blokes aren't Japanese either. :mad:

macko · Mar 31, 2006

You're thinking about this way too hard, man. ...and I fail to see your point. Who cares what people call themselves? There are guys who refer themselves as mountain bikers when the biggest jump they encounter is going over the curb on their Mongoose. True, they're riding a mountain bike but not in the mountains. What if they do ride on trails, but they only ride for a mile and then turn around a go back. Are they still not a mountain biker? Do we actually need to define a set of parameters in order to recognize the true mountain bikers from the poseurs? I don't see a need for it.

The fact is there is no true litmus test for most social or religious groups. There is no black & white comparison between, say Christians and non-Christains besides the obvious "believing in Christ" factor. You can be as strict within your own interpretations and guidelines as you want to be. What you believe has absolutely no bearing on what I believe. Each "Christian's" personal belief structure is as unique as persons' definition of what it is to be "Christian."

Andyman_1970 · Mar 31, 2006

Old Man G Funk said:
One thing to make clear though, is that "Christian" is defined by beliefs, not by actions.

This is where I disagree on several points.

First the idea that one can hold a set of beliefs and act contrary to those beliefs and yet still remain identfied with said beliefs is a very Western/Greek dualisitic way of thinking.......something the authors of the Scriptures would not have affirmed. From the Christian stand point a life of faith should be "whole" not compartmentalized into what I intellectually assent to and how I live as separate compartments.

The Scriptures even indicate that if one's faith does not prompt action in line with that faith then that faith is "dead".

Wouldn't we characterize someone who intellectually affirms Jesus as Messiah and Lord but does not live a life that is in line with Jesus' teachings a hypocrite?

I mean lets say I'm pro womens rights, but yet I regularly put women down, sexually harass them, publically espouse that they are second class citizens.............am I really pro womens rights if I live this way?

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
You asked me for my definition so I made up a simplistic one just to start an argument. Sure it's more complex but it's much more feasible to come up with a universally acceptable definition than 'one who says he is'.

More realistically these could be qualifiers:

Born in Scotland
One or more parent Scottish
Scottish citizenship (of course no such thing really available)
Raised in Scotland

Such rules exist in order to determine who can and cannot represent nations at sporting events such as the Olympics.

It does give a much stronger foundation than the current Christian definition though.

Is there an official definition of a Scotsman?
About the Olympics, one of my students once asked my why there is a British team at the Olympics but England et al are seperate teams at the World Cup (rugby, football, cricket etc). I said I don't know but my guess it had something to do with the rules each sporting body applies.
I also often get the "what's the difference between Britain and the United Kingdom?" Try explaining that in one or two syllable words when you don't even understand it yourself.

Ciaran · Mar 31, 2006

macko said:
You're thinking about this way too hard, man. ...and I fail to see your point. Who cares what people call themselves? There are guys who refer themselves as mountain bikers when the biggest jump they encounter is going over the curb on their Mongoose. True, they're riding a mountain bike but not in the mountains. What if they do ride on trails, but they only ride for a mile and then turn around a go back. Are they still not a mountain biker? Do we actually need to define a set of parameters in order to recognize the true mountain bikers from the poseurs? I don't see a need for it.

The fact is there is no true litmus test for most social or religious groups. There is no black & white comparison between, say Christians and non-Christains besides the obvious "believing in Christ" factor. You can be as strict within your own interpretations and guidelines as you want to be. What you believe has absolutely no bearing on what I believe. Each "Christian's" personal belief structure is as unique as persons' definition of what it is to be "Christian."

You know, you all keep saying how Christians are pushing our beliefs down your throat and all that, but it seems to me that it's all of YOU that keep bringing it up. Never have I seen Andyman start a thread encouraging you all to accept Jesus into your heart. But there is no end to the threads discussing and bashing religion and religious people.

Seems to me that no one is forcing christianity down your throats but yourselves.

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

Perhaps the definition of a Christian should be;
- identifies as a Christian
- is accepted by those in his/her community as a Christian
- follows the teachings of Christ

Imperfect I know.

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

Fluff- are Britain and Great Britain the same thing?

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
Yeah, and do you know who put the Great in Great Britain?

(After all you never hear of Great France or Great Germany do you?)

Catherine the Great?
Do Northern Irish athletes compete for Britain in the Olympics.

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
Nope - we did.

You know what, I think they do... strange huh?

Don't confuse me even more (not that that's hard). What should I say when they ask me why there's a little sliver of Ireland cut off from the rest?

Andyman_1970 · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
It seems that the 'Christain' right has gained a very powerful political voice .................

I would argue that's the problem. Many Christians are more concerned about politics than actually getting out there and helping people. There's a verse where Jesus teaches His diciples not to chase after power like the pagans do, but I can't find it.........

valve bouncer · Mar 31, 2006

fluff said:
Ask them why Canada and the USA are not the same country.

Because of the British?

No True Scotsman

Monkey Turbo

Choir Boy

Monkey Turbo

Choir Boy

Monkey Turbo

Choir Boy

Monkey Turbo

Turbo Monkey

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

A fowl peckerwood.

Choir Boy

Tirelessly Awesome

Monkey Turbo

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Choir Boy

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

Fear my banana

Master Dildoist

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Turbo Monkey

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo