Death of a Scotsman (Re: the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

Thanks jar, I knew something like this existed, but didn't know where to look.

Actually the NTS fallacy is used by a group to remove themselves from the actions of members of that group. No one is blaming all Scots for putting sugar on their porridge, instead the Scot is saying 'No TRUE Scots put sugar on their porridge'.The Christianity argument is as follows:1: Islam is a religion filled with a violent history.
2: So is Christianity, here is an example of a Christian being violent.
1: No TRUE Christian would be violent.Its a fallacy in that according to the logic, nobody is a Christian unless they conform to the POV of the arguer, which means they are free to move goalposts as desired. Its basically saying "I'm right because I have defined myself as such", any counter examples you can conjur to falsify my argument automatically fail under the NTS provision.Note: This is different from comparing religious texts and declarations to see levels of violence encouraged/accepted for example.

That's assuming that coming from Scotland makes you a Scotsman. What if being a Scotsman is more than a nationality and is an attitude/lifestyle etc? Assuming that being a Christian is based on actions, and not the heart/soul/intangible unknowable thing.On the Scottish side, the user of NTS is trying to say that being a Scotsman goes beyond what is on your passport, in the case of NTC the user is trying to say that being a Christian goes beyond accepting Christ (or saying you accept Christ).Whether or not there is more to being a Scotsman or Christian is not important. What's important are the implications for debate. If using the NTC defence, a solid and cogent definition on what it means to be Christian (in the defenders eyes) is necessary. This is due to the fact that this point is where the disagreement lies, one cannot just say 'Hitler wasn't a Christian, no true Christian would kill millions of Jews'. One needs to define what you think it means to be a Christian and show how that is incompatible with Hitler's activity.

---

Incidentally, the quote of mine you chose, was an incidental issue, just to flesh out my actual post which was a response to your saying: which I replied with

quote:

---

Actually the NTS fallacy is used by a group to remove themselves from the actions of members of that group. No one is blaming all Scots for putting sugar on their porridge, instead the Scot is saying 'No TRUE Scots put sugar on their porridge'.

---

Its a great quote, I enjoy reading it.The question is, is there a frequency of sin-committing where it becomes clear that the person committing the sin is not even attempting to follow the teachings of Christ?I don't think the answer is clear...though (I think it was) riVeRrat did have an interesting quote to help answer it but this subject is spread over so many threads I can't find it right now. Something about saying they are of God but their actions betray them as not being of God.

Exactly the correct response to the NTS fallacy. It relies on non-defined concepts to move goal posts. Another response would be to find someone commonly thought of as the embodiment of Scotsmannishness and demonstrate that they put sugar on their porridge. That forces them to reject a stalwart figure in scotsman heritage. Nobody knows what the rules on being a Scotsman are, except the person who is committing the fallacy, and he defines those rules as it is convenient to whatever point he is making. Which is why it is fallacious to proclaim that no true Christian would do some thing. It would be fallacious to blame Christianity for the actions of some Christians. One might say that there is correlation between the religion and certain activities, but correlation and causation are not the same. If someone tries to blame Christianity for Hitler's actions then instead of trotting out a NTC argument, you could just reply that Hitler was an evildoer, a murderer etc and that he would be judged appropriately by God. If God forgives Hitler, then we have to accept that, if Hitler does not accept the love of Christ then it will be a sticky end for him.Christianity and race differ massively in that Christianity is a choice, and its far more acceptable to criticize someone based on their choices rather than criticizing someone because of something they have no choice about.I do agree though, it's mostly stupid to generalise and its basically stupid to prejudice against someone based on the fact they are members of any group that had someone deplorable as a member. So you're falling back to the NTC argument? I'd like to point out that the full quote was

quote:

---

This is due to the fact that this point is where the disagreement lies, one cannot just say 'Hitler wasn't a Christian, no true Christian would kill millions of Jews'.

---

They are supposed to follow them, but not following a commandment doesn't suddenly make you not a Christian (or a Jew), it makes you a Christian who has sinned. That's why Catholics have confession...after all if coveting is against the ten commandments, then there are very few Christians by your reckoning. Also taking the lord's name in vain would discount many.As a side note, I remember reading that the commandments actually say things like 'thou shalt not murder'. If murder is unlawful killing then Hitler could argue he didn't commit murder. That's not what I said. There is such a thing as a Christian. Its someone who accepts Christ is the messiah. What I am saying is that there is no such things as a 'true' Christian because, when used in debate it is basically a malleable concept that bends to whatever point the debater is trying to raise.There are just Christians, some of them more righteous than others, some more virtuous than others, but all Christians, not one of them is more a 'true' Christian than any other. I didn't because I was talking about racism so the context was out, being a Scotsman is a choice but being Scottish isn't. Your argument is that the NTS is different from NTC because Scotsmanness is not a choice and Christianity is. Which is far from what I was saying. I am saying that being a Scotsman is characterised as being something more than coming from Scotland by NTSers and Christianity is characterised as something more than accepting Christ as the messiah, the saviour etc by NTCers...Its a fallacy to claim that no true Christian would do x. It is more accurate to say that it is a poor Christian that would do x, and a Christian that doesn't represent Christianity.

Yes. Christianity didn't exist when Jesus was about. Semantics aside, none of the quotes says anything like that. They are conditions on getting into heaven and loving him and avoiding hell.

If he's the King of Jews
and
If the King of Jews can decide who is and who isn't a Jewthen your right. That's your definition of being a Christian, but there is no objective definition of being a Christian. It might be that you believe in God and you believe that Christ was is Son the messiah, the living God and that is the Alpha and the Omega and you accept that forgiveness and judgement come only from Him. Mercy is His alone to ultimately give.The lack of objective criteria makes the NTS and NTC problematic.

If you want to define a Scotsman as a Scottish man, that is fine. However, in the context of the NTS debate a Scotsman might be more than just a Scottish man, he represents Scotland's virility and hardiness. That's the problem, there isn't one single objective definition. And therein lies the issue with the fallacy.Before you can start saying who is and isn't a true Scotsman you have to define what a true Scotsman is.Before you say who is and isn't a true Christian you have to define what a true Christian is.Once participants in a debate agree on these basic terms the debate can move forward to finding out who is and who isn't one. The fallacy comes from the malleable nature of the definitions which each participant can meld into whatever proves whatever point he is trying to make.Relying on imprecise definitions so that one can move goals posts as needed.

And if you define what a true Christian is, at the start of the debate, in the way you have begun to here, then there will no uncertainty or malleableness. People can debate your terms and once an agreement is reached we can begin to explore Hitler and his Christianity.For the record, there is no evidence Hitler committed any murders. We start getting into the sticky area of 'if Hitler wasn't a Christian, is George Bush? What about the Popes that ordered the Crusades (eg Pope Urban II)?'. That of course, is a whole kettle of fish in its own right.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-February-2006 02:28 PM