Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death of a Scotsman (Re: the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 166 of 210 (289012)
02-21-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by riVeRraT
02-21-2006 6:29 AM


Re: There are no Christians
If it were so simple, RR, i'd be inclined to agree with you; but it isn't.
Can you tell someone who vehemently believes that they are acting in a Christian way, that they are not true christians?
Especially when their actions have been justified and sanctioned by the Church, and even at times by their interpretation of scripture (something which has been done for many things).
This message has been edited by U can call me Cookie, 02-21-2006 01:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 6:29 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 8:06 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 167 of 210 (289026)
02-21-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by U can call me Cookie
02-21-2006 6:53 AM


Re: There are no Christians
Can you tell someone who vehemently believes that they are acting in a Christian way, that they are not true christians?
Especially when their actions have been justified and sanctioned by the Church, and even at times by their interpretation of scripture (something which has been done for many things).
I could believe I am black, but I am not. No true black would be white.
The church does not define Christianity. If it did, there wouldn't be so many denominations.
Interpretation, is an individual thing, not a Christian one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-21-2006 6:53 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-21-2006 9:26 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 174 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 9:37 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 168 of 210 (289037)
02-21-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by riVeRraT
02-20-2006 9:48 PM


Re: christians and scots
Well it's not. And that's the point of the NTS fallacy, and why it doesn't apply to Christians.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by riVeRraT, posted 02-20-2006 9:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 9:17 AM Modulous has replied

  
Hal Jordan
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 210 (289055)
02-21-2006 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by riVeRraT
02-20-2006 11:38 AM


Question...
Thread hijack
The bible doesn't say you have to be Christian to get into heaven.
If there is a thread in which this is discussed, would you provide the link? I have never heard that said anywhere before except by jar; thought I would ask this time this has been discussed.
/Thread hijack

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 02-20-2006 11:38 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 10:52 AM Hal Jordan has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 170 of 210 (289063)
02-21-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Modulous
02-21-2006 8:21 AM


Re: christians and scots
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.
While there may be some gray areas, and then I guess I would understand the logic behind the NTS fallacy, but some things are so obvious as to what the definitions are, that the NTS fallacy cannot hold water in those areas.
i.e. No-true-Scotsman would be of African decent, having been born and raised in Africa, only tp have visited Scotland once or twice. Obviously this person is not a true Scotsman.
i.e. #2 Mass murderers who claim to be Christian.
Either one of these people may at one point later on become a Scotsman, or become a Christian, but not at those moments, they are not, and the NTS fallacy cannot apply. period.
People cannot just cry NTS, and have an end to a debate on whether Hitler was really Christian or not. It's like trying equate 2+2=Love.
again, I think it comes down to the context of the word "true" and how it is being used. The word true in NTS, is different from the "true" in "true Christian". again, I say if you are true to your faith, and then go against those rules set forth by your faith, then are you true?
But if we are talking about some silly thing like the verse that says if eating meat causes your brother to sin, then it is better not to. Or wearing lipstick, or short skirts. The bible explains those things, and it is left to scrutiny of the particular individual or denomination, and their relationship with Jesus.
Same situation with a scotsman. But there is no book of Scotish rules.
If you choose to be in the Army, there are defined rules. If you go against them, then your not true to the rules, making you an untrue soldier.
If we look at the definition of untrue, I think it makes perfect sense, and furthers the failed logic behind the NTS fallacy.
quote:
un·true Audio pronunciation of "untrue" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tr)
adj. un·tru·er, un·tru·est
1. Contrary to fact; false.
2. Deviating from a standard; not straight, even, level, or exact.
3. Disloyal; unfaithful.
No true Christian would commit murder. I am perfectly within the boundries of the English language to make such a statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 8:21 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 9:27 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 173 by nwr, posted 02-21-2006 9:29 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 171 of 210 (289065)
02-21-2006 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by riVeRraT
02-21-2006 8:06 AM


Re: There are no Christians
Race is in itself not very well defined, and so does not give your argument any more merit..
To the early European explorers, even the "caucasoid" peoples of North Africa were regarded as "Black".
But your analogy does raise the issue of Identity. Is it appropriate for one to dismiss the Identity of another, simply because they do not agree with said Identity?
The issue, as Modulous and others have pointed out, lies in the definition of Christianity. Without an indisputable definition of Christianity, and it seems there can be no indisputable definition, the "No True Christian" Defense cannot be valid.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 8:06 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 12:32 PM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 172 of 210 (289066)
02-21-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by riVeRraT
02-21-2006 9:17 AM


when is a murderer not a murderer?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 9:17 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 173 of 210 (289069)
02-21-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by riVeRraT
02-21-2006 9:17 AM


Re: christians and scots
again, I think it comes down to the context of the word "true" and how it is being used.
I think you are taking the expression "no true Scotsman" too literally.
When somebody uses the expression "No true Scotsman" in such an argument, that person is denying that the ordinary meaning of "Scotsman" is the right one, and insisting that his own personal (and subjective) meaning is the one that counts in this case.
Angus is no true Scotsman
means something very different from
It is not true that Angus is a Scotsman.
The distinction you have been making between "Scotsman" and "Christian" simply does not seem relevant to the way NTS is used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 9:17 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 12:25 PM nwr has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 174 of 210 (289071)
02-21-2006 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by riVeRraT
02-21-2006 8:06 AM


Re: There are no Christians
quote:
I could believe I am black, but I am not. No true black would be white.
That depends upon one's definitions of "black" and "white"
Ever hear of the black folks who could "pass"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 8:06 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 12:27 PM nator has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 210 (289101)
02-21-2006 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Hal Jordan
02-21-2006 9:11 AM


Re: Question...
I don't know if I gave you this link before. If I did, then sorry for the repeat.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Hal Jordan, posted 02-21-2006 9:11 AM Hal Jordan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Hal Jordan, posted 02-21-2006 10:53 AM jar has not replied

  
Hal Jordan
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 210 (289103)
02-21-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
02-21-2006 10:52 AM


Re: Question...
Thnaks, jar. I'll read the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 10:52 AM jar has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 177 of 210 (289142)
02-21-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by nwr
02-21-2006 9:29 AM


Re: christians and scots
When somebody uses the expression "No true Scotsman" in such an argument, that person is denying that the ordinary meaning of "Scotsman" is the right one, and insisting that his own personal (and subjective) meaning is the one that counts in this case.
It's almost as if your not paying attention. I think I have rebuked all that already.
There's nothing subjective about murder, and there is nothing subjective about living in Scotland.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by nwr, posted 02-21-2006 9:29 AM nwr has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 178 of 210 (289143)
02-21-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by nator
02-21-2006 9:37 AM


Re: There are no Christians
quote:I could believe I am black, but I am not. No true black would be white.
That depends upon one's definitions of "black" and "white"
Ever hear of the black folks who could "pass"?
In that case, my name is actually Schrafinator, and I ride horses, because I write responses in this forum. And you are somehow responsible for my actions.
NTS= no-true-schrafinator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 9:37 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 12:29 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 179 of 210 (289144)
02-21-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
02-21-2006 12:27 PM


Re: There are no Christians
If you define "schrafinator" as someone who has that name, rides horses, and posts in this forum, then that is a clear definition that disqualifies you from being "schrafinator."
How "black" and "white" have been defined by different people and groups vary greatly over the years.
How do you want to define "white"?
How do you want to define "black"?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 12:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 12:27 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2006 12:34 PM nator has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 180 of 210 (289147)
02-21-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by U can call me Cookie
02-21-2006 9:26 AM


Re: There are no Christians
The issue, as Modulous and others have pointed out, lies in the definition of Christianity. Without an indisputable definition of Christianity, and it seems there can be no indisputable definition, the "No True Christian" Defense cannot be valid.
Doesn't make it invalid either. If nothing in science can be proven, then why not religion too?
While there may be grey areas where I think the NTS fallacy may apply, there are clearly areas where this is not the case. There are a few indisputable rules that Christians should follow, otherwise they remain untrue to their faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-21-2006 9:26 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024