No true Scotsman

It is important to understand the No True Scotsman fallacy in terms of Christianity. Here’s the wiki description:

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).[2]

Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt,[1] the following is an example of the fallacy:[3]

Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”
Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

Essayist Spengler compared distinguishing between “mature” democracies, which never start wars, and “emerging democracies”, which may start them, with the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. Spengler alleges that “political scientists” have attempted to save the “US academic dogma” that democracies never start wars from counterexamples by maintaining that no true democracy starts a war.[3]

Essentially, what you see in the Christian manosphere is that the No True Scotsman fallacy pops up in a lot of various places due to the nature of what is “Churchian” and what is “Christian.” This is the fallacy that many Churchians often like to use to inadvertently or advertently push their own agenda over the Scriptures. Some are right, and some are wrong.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is only a fallacy if the objective reality doesn’t match up with what is being said. For example, one of Dalrock’s more recent posts has a number of them.

Christian: “LIFE AMONG THE CHURCHIANS: “My problem is that no church I know makes it clear what the wife’s obligation to her husband is.” In contemporary society, men have obligations. Women have entitlements.”

Churchian: “The main part of his serious error is that the New Testament spends a lot more time instructing husbands on their duties that wives on theirs. Maybe if he learned and practiced his obligations first he wouldn’t be worrying so much about hers.”

In other words, the Churchians are saying: “No true Christian should be worrying about the duties of his wife. Maybe if he learned and practiced his obligations first he wouldn’t be worrying so much about hers.”

Unfortunately, we know that is verifiably wrong because the Scripture tells us to admonish other Christians who are wayward:

Luke 17:3 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

Romans 15:14 And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.

Psalms 141:5Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me; It is oil upon the head; Do not let my head refuse it, For still my prayer is against their wicked deeds.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

1 Thessalonians 5:14 We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins[k], go and [l]show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every [n]fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as [o]a Gentile and [p]a tax collector.

Indeed, it is actually good to admonish, reprove, and rebuke as necessary. This is what the Scriptures say. If we are not concerned about what fellow Christians are doing that is bad. And that is specifically what the Churchians prescribe: man up and mind your own beeswax.

Indeed, most of the “man up” rants by either women or traditional churchians are of the same variety.

Christian: “Men are just responding to incentives to not marry because of the high divorce rate and women having tons of premarital sex which increases chance of divorce.”

Churchian 1: “Real Christian men would marry her despite her past history because she has been forgiven.”

Churchian 2: “Yeah, those men should man up and do their duty.”

In other words here, “man up” or “real men” are the substitutes for “no true Scotsman” statement. Instead ” real Christians” or “true Christians” would be the way we are saying they should be. We know this is false because the only reason Paul gives for marriage is that if you burn for a woman. There’s no Christian doctrine that states you should marry someone who has slept around just like there is none that say you should marry a woman with credit card debt or a history of lying. It is something you should take into account especially if they did it while claiming to be a Christian and if they repented and turned from their ways.

Likewise, nice guys generally don’t get the girl whether they are Christian or not. To describe the behavior, we generally know that nice guys don’t act masculine or Christian for that matter (as they put women on pedestals).

I’ve stated before that TRUE Christian men will be attractive to women. In this statement I’m assuming that such “TRUE Christian men” will not be nice. That is they won’t put a woman on a pedestal. They will act in accordance with masculinity in the Scriptures. Thus, generally, TRUE Christian men will be objectively attraction.

Technically, this is a fallacy as I’m saying that no true nice guy acts in a Christian manner. As a general rule, masculine men will attract women. It is not generally a fallacy to say that nice guys are not masculine and therefore won’t attract women. It’s true that women COULD like particular nice guys though, so there are exceptions. Women are attracted to and get married to Christian men who are nice guys. But it’s also true that such nice guys almost inevitably end up getting divorce raped Christian wife or not.
Thus, wording matters. A logical fallacy may be objectively true if the information is compared against the Scriptures. The fact that the argument takes the form of a logical fallacy is not a reason to dismiss the meat behind the argument. Only that the argument in its present form is not supported. The argument must be dicphered and compared against objective truth which is the Scriptures.It is important to understand this because of the subjective lens that we all have in regard to viewing the world. All subjectivity and observations naturally need to be compared against an objective standard in order to convey objective truth in conversation.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to No true Scotsman

  1. Pingback: No true Scotsman | Manosphere.com

  2. Regular Guy says:

    I’m guilty of using the same logical fallacy. It’s mostly laziness on my part making generalizations when I should be communicating clearly with specifics. It’s a intellectual laziness in the same vein as throwing around catch-all terms like “Servant-Leadership” and “Biblical Marriage” when making assertions about scripture.

    I will have to do my homework memorizing scripture and becoming fluent in sound theology regarding feminist corruption of church doctrine. No point in confronting the evil you witness if I can’t back it up with books, chapters and verses and the ability to accurately communicate how the scriptures apply in a manner that is winsome. Lord knows you better be on your “A game” when you choose to confront Churchians.

    That being said, the ,No True Scotsman fallacy reeks of pride.

  3. OKRickety says:

    “There’s no Christian doctrine that states you should marry someone who has slept around …. It is something you should take into account especially if they did it while claiming to be a Christian and if they repented and turned from their ways.”

    It would be wise to be very careful with anyone (woman or man) who is not a virgin. I think they are more likely to return to their previous sinful ways. “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.” – Proverbs 26:11

    I’m not certain that I’ve ever heard a sermon on Matthew 18:15-17 (but I don’t remember most sermons very long), much less one that fully covered the teaching. In the past couple of years, I have concluded that good teaching and actual practice of this passage would greatly benefit the church. Instead, there seems to be fear of offending others, infringing on their privacy, and, of course, judging others is considered to be the most hypocritical action of all.

  4. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    I will have to do my homework memorizing scripture and becoming fluent in sound theology regarding feminist corruption of church doctrine. No point in confronting the evil you witness if I can’t back it up with books, chapters and verses and the ability to accurately communicate how the scriptures apply in a manner that is winsome. Lord knows you better be on your “A game” when you choose to confront Churchians.

    I’m working on doing the same.  I’ve allowed some very bad fruit into my life merely by not being on top of things as I should be.  Things only happen that we allow, and we can’t rebuke anything without the sword of truth in our mouths and hearts.

    So in the meantime I’ve been chided by good brothers to only speak what I know, and spend the rest of the time listening/reading and learning.

    If I were as astute in the Word as I am in Martial Arts, Fitness, Music, or in the IT field,  I’d be the bomb.dot.com, and yet compared to a great many people I’m not really a lightweight.  I have a lot of strengths, but my weaknesses are pretty effin bad.

    And like DS illuminates, I do indeed tend to recognize when things aren’t bearing witness with my spirit…and a lot of churchian declarations just rub wrongly.  When I read Sensings comments on the Instapundit post re: Dalrock, I was like “naaah, don’t event try it”.

    This love affair with the FI is, to me, akin to practicing and teaching lawlessness.  It’s one thing to be ignorant of the Word, but how daft and nervy does one have to be to just try and revise it on the fly like a DJ mixing and scratching a live set?

  5. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Hey DS, so what do you think of the notion that a Christian man with godly conviction is “unattractive”?

    Is it how he frames his convictions, the type of individual who considers it “unattractive”…or both?

  6. @ Pedat

    Hey DS, so what do you think of the notion that a Christian man with godly conviction is “unattractive”?

    Is it how he frames his convictions, the type of individual who considers it “unattractive”…or both?

    I think it’s possible but unlikely.

    For example, the main reason why there are now only really “bad boys” and “nice guys” is the selective pressure of society. Those who want to disobey feminist leanings earn the title of bad boys and display masculinity while those who are law abiding citizens become nice guys. Likewise, in the vast majority of churches men are being taught churchian heresy about how to be a man. Therefore, there are less manly men and mostly nice guys.

    It’s likely that as a man has extremely strong convictions for boldness and for God’s word that he also won’t have the same faults with women in his life. Sure, it’s certainly possible but unlikely.

    What is more likely is that it’s possible someone is attempting to internalize strong convictions which is what reading the Scripture, prayer, meditation, and the like are for. However, they do not have strong outward convictions yet where they are willing to apply them throughout all aspects of their wife including women.

    It’s very difficult if men are in the “perform for women” mindset to get out of that.

  7. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    What is more likely is that it’s possible someone is attempting to internalize strong convictions which is what reading the Scripture, prayer, meditation, and the like are for. However, they do not have strong outward convictions yet where they are willing to apply them throughout all aspects of their wife including women.

    Indeed, intellectually knowing what godly frame (convictions) should entail, versus employing them is key.   And breaking frame will get you branded a hypocrite in a minute.

    In my experience, the pendulum has swung wide.  When I have put my foot down about what is acceptable or not, for some it’s been considered “judgmental” and “unattractive”.  But as I’ve paid more attention, it’s been the marginal people (men and women) who have bristled at godly frame.

    People who know me, discern exactly where I’m coming from.  It’s these wayward fraudulent women that I’ve associated with that have taken issue.

    But as we’re experiencing as a whole, godly convictions are scoffed at wholesale, so it’s the course of the day…even when dealing with these weak Churchian leaders.

    Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins[k], go and [l]show him his fault [m]in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every [n]fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as [o]a Gentile and [p]a tax collector.

    Having done this very thing once and told that the leadership didn’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole, made me feel like there was no hope if these synagogues of satan don’t believe in reprooving untoward believers.

    Being told, “no Christian walking in love should be so harsh in their expectations of other believers.  We don’t punish one another…” was infuriating.

    If I’m not a true Scotsman, then okay…I’ll just be a part of the remnant…

     

  8. @ Pedat

    Being told, “no Christian walking in love should be so harsh in their expectations of other believers. We don’t punish one another…” was infuriating.

    A good place to discuss the difference between consequences and punishment.

    Consequences: the wages of sin is death.

    Consequence: Matthew 18 which is Jesus’ own words says that if a person continues to persist in sin the consequences of their actions should be excommunication.

    Punishment is consequences that don’t fit the crime. In fact, Jesus is says that unrepentant sin should be followed with excommunication is in fact righteous consequences. It is not a punishment. Hence, they are incorrect.

    Now, there is something to say for being TOO blunt. Kindness is a fruit of the Spirit after all. Temper words with as much kindness as possible.

  9. Mark Peterson says:

    What is “FI” and “divorce rape” in the above?

  10. @ Mark Peterson

    FI is an abbreviation for “feminine imperative” which is a term mainly describing the feminization of Christianity which we also refer to as churchianity.

    Namely, in churchianity women are generally absolved from any wrong doing, and everything bad that happens is a man’s fault because he’s the leader.

    Divorce rape is as it sounds. A wife divorces her husband and takes the kids for cash and prizes (e.g. the home, car, etc.) because she didn’t love him anymore. AKA not a valid divorce.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s