Padraic asks how I say the true scotsman fallacy is illogical after I explain why. Nuff said.

(April 15, 2009 at 3:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Padraic asks how I say the true scotsman fallacy is illogical after I explain why. Nuff said.

As I understand it, the No True Scotsman is a recognised fallacious argument where a debater, in essence, argues that their opponent cannot understand why something is so without either becoming what they are/experiencing what they have/knowing what they know. Someone (someone other than you that is ... sorry but I wouldn't trust you to tell me my weight correctly even if you'd just measured it) will no doubt correct me if I have misunderstood it.

You have used that style of argument on several occasions in this forum and are therefore guilty of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Kyu

Fr0d0, I completely understand that there is much more to just believing in Jesus when it comes to the various faiths. Christian is a broad term, only meant to describe one thing. When you want to get into the interpretation of what people believe, that's when you get into demoninations of evangelical, baptist, catholic, etc... The same goes for Atheists. Atheists describe 1 thing, disbelief in god. After that you have many various philisophies that people adhere to based on what they think disbelief in god means for them, such as secular humanism, objectivism, philiosphical buddhism, etc...

I'm not trying to say that you're points an the details of what makes up true practicing Christians are irrelevant, there just not relevant to the simple question of what is a Christian. Words are invaluable, however limited, as a means of communication. When we're trying to distinguish who who believes in Jesus (not what they believe about Jesus) Christian is the term for everyday life. The demonations a person belongs to or their own personal interpretations then tells us more about the details.

I haven't read Kyu's posts, so I'm don't have an opinion on them, but if you're only tryign to state that the term Catholic and Christian are interchangeable, you're right. For the longest time I thought All Christian's were Catholic. I assumed as much because of how I was raised and I often had to correct myself. To this day I will mistakenly say Catholic when I mean Christians in general. Essentially, Catholic equals Christian but Christian does always equal Catholic. If that's the simple point you were trying to make, then I'm in full agreement.

Also, I agree you've made "No true Scotsman" fallacies from time to time. If you assert that people aren't Christian because they don't follow your interpretations, that's using that fallacy. The fact is that if someone says they are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Muslim...they are that until they claim otherwise. It doesn't matter if they don't believe what you believe.

And also, you say I'm ignorant of Christianity yet have you ever been an atheist? Because I sure have been Christian. I was indoctrinated, I even was the first female Alter Server at my local parish. When I started to disbelieve I was stuck in a Catholic high school and forced to take a religion class every year. If I knew enough to qualify for Confirmation, then I know enough to talk about it. I do fully admit that my scope if understanding is not as good in protestant Christianity as my Catholic understanding, but I am by no means ignorant. I find it laughable that the people who tend to claim atheists are ignorant of their religion make this claim having never been a part of any other religion or non-religion, yet most atheists tend to be first generation.

(April 15, 2009 at 6:25 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 15, 2009 at 3:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Padraic asks how I say the true scotsman fallacy is illogical after I explain why. Nuff said.

As I understand it, the No True Scotsman is a recognised fallacious argument where a debater, in essence, argues that their opponent cannot understand why something is so without either becoming what they are/experiencing what they have/knowing what they know. Someone (someone other than you that is ... sorry but I wouldn't trust you to tell me my weight correctly even if you'd just measured it) will no doubt correct me if I have misunderstood it.

You have used that style of argument on several occasions in this forum and are therefore guilty of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Kyu

That isn't what I understand to be the True Scotsman fallacy.

Here it is:

Quote:Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)


In putting forward the above rebuttal one is equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e., a man of Scottish ancestry and connection) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that falls within that definition. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa.

But you're ignoring my answers right?

---

Eilonnwy

I was raised in an atheist family and didn't discover Christianity until my mid 20's. I have been an atheist more than once. I've also been flavours in between. I've said many times that Christianity is an aim and not a destination. You can aim to be like Christ, but there is no 'Christian' as in a person who is like Christ. Only people who have stated that they aspire to be so. There is no magic line to cross that makes you suddenly Christ like.

Show me where I've said that people aren't Christians because they don't follow my interpretations (not that I don't believe you). And are you using Kyu's definition of the fallacy or the one I quote above?

Can I ask you the same question as I asked Giff? Did you every actually make a decision to be a Christian, or are you like you say, not 1st generation?

If you were indoctrinated, that doesn't sound like you chose to believe at all. That fails God's requirement for all his followers in my understanding, and that's something I have to stay firm on. Some things I don't understand at all yet accept that Christianity fits the description. I'd include in that some Christians interpretation on homosexuality and the role of women in the church. Creationism and literalists. Even though I consider some of these standpoints repulsive I still can accept that at the same time people can be wanting to follow Christ.

See in this respect, I can understand that you weren't actually a Christian, even though you held position in a Catholic Church. I hope you can understand that. I come from a very anti Catholic position and try since about 3 years ago to be open and fair. I may not achieve that but this is my aim. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A person can know everything there is to know about a religion, but without actually changing your life in response you can be as ignorant as someone who knows nothing at all. That statement, as you'll probably know, is biblical of course. I have the utmost respect for atheists. I think it's a very honest position to take, and atheists are possibly more open to understanding than almost any other philosophical position.

fr0d0 Wrote:I was raised in an atheist family and didn't discover Christianity until my mid 20's. I have been an atheist more than once. I've also been flavours in between. I've said many times that Christianity is an aim and not a destination. You can aim to be like Christ, but there is no 'Christian' as in a person who is like Christ. Only people who have stated that they aspire to be so. There is no magic line to cross that makes you suddenly Christ like.

I didn't know you used to be an atheist. While I hate indoctrination, it makes the fact that a person believes more understandable. And while I think it's ideal for people not to be indoctrinated and chose their religion as an adult, there's still a part of me that thinks they should know better and not end up in a religion. However, I till respect your right to believe.

Quote:Show me where I've said that people aren't Christians because they don't follow my interpretations (not that I don't believe you). And are you using Kyu's definition of the fallacy or the one I quote above?

Can I ask you the same question as I asked Giff? Did you every actually make a decision to be a Christian, or are you like you say, not 1st generation?

If you were indoctrinated, that doesn't sound like you chose to believe at all. That fails God's requirement for all his followers in my understanding, and that's something I have to stay firm on. Some things I don't understand at all yet accept that Christianity fits the description. I'd include in that some Christians interpretation on homosexuality and the role of women in the church. Creationism and literalists. Even though I consider some of these standpoints repulsive I still can accept that at the same time people can be wanting to follow Christ.

See in this respect, I can understand that you weren't actually a Christian, even though you held position in a Catholic Church. I hope you can understand that. I come from a very anti Catholic position and try since about 3 years ago to be open and fair. I may not achieve that but this is my aim. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You say that certain things go against Christianity that Catholics do which makes then non Christian. I would say that's your interpretation because those things that you say go against Christ others would argue that they don't. The way I view the fallacy is to say someone is not part of something, in this case Christianity based on your conception of what being Christian is. Christianity has one requirement (believing in Jesus), just like beign a Scotsman does (Being a Scottish citizen), everthing else is inconsequential to the label.

You are correct, I never chose Christianity. As soon was given the option to chose, I rebeled. But that doesn't mean I never truly believed, it doesn't mean I don't know the religion. Essentially my deconversion was simply from realizing I had the choice to really question the faith and when I did it fell apart and I could never go back. However that doesn't mean I was never Christian. If I held onto those beliefs I would still profress Christianity. How can the religion that founded Christianity be anything but Christian? This is also why I think you should never be indoctrinated because how many people believe in something where they are not allowed to think for themselves? What would they believe if they were?

I understand why you don't think I was ever a Christian, that's your opinion but not a matter of fact. The fact is I was baptised into the Catholic religion and raised on those beliefs. So I was a Christian. Anytime you put forth your own opinion to decide that someone was or is not the label they put on themselves, you are committing a fallacy. If a someone claims to be what they were, then that's what they were. I accept that you say you were an atheist and I'm not going to challenge it. I told Edward that I don't think he was every really an atheist, but I also fully admitted in that same post that I was making that fallacy.

I really don't care if you are anti-Catholic, as long as you recognize they are Christian. If you actually want to know what I specifically believed as a Catholic I'd be happy to share.

Quote:A person can know everything there is to know about a religion, but without actually changing your life in response you can be as ignorant as someone who knows nothing at all. That statement, as you'll probably know, is biblical of course.

That essentially is saying that you can't know facts. It makes the assumption that if you learn about a religion you must be persuaded about it. I've learned about the Greek religion and not changed my life in response, I was simply enriching my knowledge of what other people believed. I can understand why people believe things and still not believe it. I think the statement also assumes people should be positively changed by a religion. I think the opposite can happen. As I investigated Catholicism and Christianity I was repulsed by it.

Quote:I have the utmost respect for atheists. I think it's a very honest position to take, and atheists are possibly more open to understanding than almost any other philosophical position.

Honestly, you didn't give that impression when you first came here. But I think you've been better about that recently, hence I've been responding to you more.

(April 15, 2009 at 1:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 15, 2009 at 6:25 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: As I understand it, the No True Scotsman is a recognised fallacious argument where a debater, in essence, argues that their opponent cannot understand why something is so without either becoming what they are/experiencing what they have/knowing what they know. Someone (someone other than you that is ... sorry but I wouldn't trust you to tell me my weight correctly even if you'd just measured it) will no doubt correct me if I have misunderstood it.

You have used that style of argument on several occasions in this forum and are therefore guilty of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

That isn't what I understand to be the True Scotsman fallacy.

Here it is:

Quote:Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)


In putting forward the above rebuttal one is equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e., a man of Scottish ancestry and connection) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that falls within that definition. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa.

But you're ignoring my answers right?

OK ... can someone else clear this up?

I believe that if someone of group X (for instance Christian) sees someone else who also claims to be of group X behaving in a fashion they don't approve (they consider their behaviour to be un-group X like) and as a result brands them something other than group X or not a true group X person then that is invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Simple question ... am I right and if not which fallacy (if any) is it?

Kyu

Looking it up, there is the caveat that Fr0d0 is correct in making, which is that the person making the fallacy must first make their own definition of what it is to be a true scotsman or christian. Which, I would add I think fr0d0 has also done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

(April 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

So I'm correct except that the first someone has to redefine what group X is in order to exclude someone else from it? So am I correct in saying that Frodo, in order to exclude the Catholics from being in some way true Christians ™ is using the NTS fallacy?

Kyu

(April 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I didn't know you used to be an atheist. While I hate indoctrination, it makes the fact that a person believes more understandable. And while I think it's ideal for people not to be indoctrinated and chose their religion as an adult, there's still a part of me that thinks they should know better and not end up in a religion. However, I till respect your right to believe.

I think it's un-Christian to indoctrinate. Especially children. I agree in bringing children up with Christian standards if that's your belief. But a major part of a parents resonsibility is to teach the child to think for themselves and enable them to find their own way in life.

(April 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: You say that certain things go against Christianity that Catholics do which makes then non Christian. I would say that's your interpretation because those things that you say go against Christ others would argue that they don't.

Fair enough. How can I know how an individual takes on those beliefs. Like you say, the person could be genuinely & completely trying to follow Christ. We all have our weaknesses, and have to realise that. Personally I think it goes beyond personal belief when you start making it a doctrine of the church. When that happens, the church is in error. Churches stepping over the line are disowned by the wider church. I know the Catholic Church is close to the line, currently they aren't considered to be over it.

(April 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: You are correct, I never chose Christianity. As soon was given the option to chose, I rebeled. But that doesn't mean I never truly believed, it doesn't mean I don't know the religion. Essentially my deconversion was simply from realizing I had the choice to really question the faith and when I did it fell apart and I could never go back. However that doesn't mean I was never Christian. If I held onto those beliefs I would still profress Christianity.

I know from personal experience children who are more encouraged into belief than left to make up their own minds. I know & know of many people like this who later decide the opposite. It just goes to prove the error. If parents want their children to consider their faith seriously and potentially follow suit they have to give the child full choice.

(April 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: How can the religion that founded Christianity be anything but Christian?

Catholicism didn't found Christianity I think. It may have been the first major organisation of it. There are and have been many Christian sects that are non Christian in actual fact. 'catholic' (small 'c') means 'universal' church. The Catholic church ceased to be 'catholic' at the reformation. From that point on the catholic (universal) church was more than Catholicism.

Still, Catholicism doesn't have to last forever. Most churches fail when traditionalism overrides present needs. Look at the Salvation Army. It was born of a time where it's military style & fire & brimstone was popular. Today, militarism is unfashionable and fire & brimstone is considered unbiblical. Yet the old Salvationists still cling to the old ways ignoring any relevance Christianity has to todays world. The traditional wing of the church is naturally dying out.

(April 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I understand why you don't think I was ever a Christian, that's your opinion but not a matter of fact. The fact is I was baptised into the Catholic religion and raised on those beliefs. So I was a Christian. Anytime you put forth your own opinion to decide that someone was or is not the label they put on themselves, you are committing a fallacy. If a someone claims to be what they were, then that's what they were. I accept that you say you were an atheist and I'm not going to challenge it. I told Edward that I don't think he was every really an atheist, but I also fully admitted in that same post that I was making that fallacy.

I can't say you were never Christian, only you can know that. It certainly doesn't sound like you were, but it means nothing for me to say that. It's just perhaps an ignorant observation on my part.

Pardon my ignorance again, but how does the fact that you were baptised and raised as a Catholic make you a Christian? If someone was raised a Christian that wouldn't ever make them a Christian, at some point they'd have to make a decision to believe. Just asking.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you were actually a Catholic. You're in a much better position even now to know if that's right or not. I believe that you fully were.

(April 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote:

Quote:A person can know everything there is to know about a religion, but without actually changing your life in response you can be as ignorant as someone who knows nothing at all. That statement, as you'll probably know, is biblical of course.

That essentially is saying that you can't know facts. It makes the assumption that if you learn about a religion you must be persuaded about it. I've learned about the Greek religion and not changed my life in response, I was simply enriching my knowledge of what other people believed. I can understand why people believe things and still not believe it. I think the statement also assumes people should be positively changed by a religion. I think the opposite can happen. As I investigated Catholicism and Christianity I was repulsed by it.

Absolutely, you can go either way. To be a Christian, I'm saying, is very different from studying it. You can know Christianity inside out, I believe, yet not 'get it' at all. Only in believing will you ever understand it.

(April 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: which is that the person making the fallacy must first make their own definition of what it is to be a true scotsman or christian.

I disagree. I think you can have a No True Scotsman fallacy without first making the definition, because often the definition is implied through the fallacy. For example, say a Christian and an atheist are both watching a news report of a preacher who shot his congregation. The atheist might say "see, Christians can do evil things too". If the Christian responded "That preacher wasn't a true Christian, no true Christian would do that" then they are making the fallacy.

The only time when a no true Scotsman is not applicable is when the action is directly connected to the meaning of the word. Like the wiki article says, "No true vegetarian eats meat" is perfectly true, so is "No true atheist believes in gods". Vegetarians are defined as people who do not eat meat, and atheists are defined as people who do not believe in gods.

If "Christian" was defined as "person who does not shoot people" then the above example of the church shooting would be true. The preacher wouldn't be a "true" Christian. However the definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ, or believes in the doctrines of Christianity.