Two-headed cerberus, part 7: No true Scotsman
One of the recurring debates of the Internet goes like this:
Fundagelical: Christians are more moral than atheists.
Skeptic: Torquemada was a Christian.
Fundagelical: He wasn't a true Christian. Maybe if you had read the Bible, you would know that already.
Skeptic: You're just using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If you ask me, this isn't so much a case of the No True Scotsman fallacy as a case of comparing apples and oranges. The No True Scotsman fallacy involves ambiguity of definitions. To the fundagelical, there is no ambiguity: Torquemada simply wasn't a Christian. The real fallacy is comparing apples and oranges: "Christian" is defined as "everyone who follows my teachings, which I pretend originated with Jesus," while "atheist" is defined as "anyone who doesn't believe in God." One could similarly declare- legitimately- that a "Secular Humanist" is anyone who truly follows the Humanist Manifesto, and conclude- illegitimately- that Secular Humanists are more moral than theists.
Even granting that the fundagelicals are identifying the N.T.S. fallacy correctly, the Skeptics have no real understanding of the fallacy. Their understanding is that when they hear the trigger phrase "Torquemada was a Christian," they reflexifely cry "No true Scotsman!"
You want proof? Here's another little debate that plays itself out time and again, particularly in the days immediately after 9/11:
Fundagelical: Islam isn't a religion of peace- just look at Osama bin Laden!
Skeptic: Osama isn't a real Muslim.
How stupid do the Skeptics have to be in order to say that? All along they've been attacking the fundagelicals for saying that Torquemada wasn't a Christian. Doesn't it give them pause to say that Osama isn't a Muslim? No, not a bit. Remember: they aren't thinking at all. They're just operating on reflex, coughing up canned replies in response to the appropriate keywords, just like Eliza. If they were really thinking, and were really honest about what they belive, then they would declare that most Muslims are shocked by 9-11, just as most Christians are shocked by the bombings of abortion clinics. But, unfortunately, that would require conscious thought.
And don't forget that I'm criticising the Skeptical subculture on the grounds that so many of its members aren't really skeptical. How do you think the Skeptics will rebut my argument?
"I do imagine, however, that there are plenty of people out there who dislike religion or fundamentalist versions of religion, and who happily parrot people like Dawkins, but who’ve not done the analysis of evidence and so on, and who, ultimately, take it on faith that that biblical fundamentalists are wacky. They’re not skeptics, though. They’re just people with axes to grind."
Fundagelical: Christians are more moral than atheists.
Skeptic: Torquemada was a Christian.
Fundagelical: He wasn't a true Christian. Maybe if you had read the Bible, you would know that already.
Skeptic: You're just using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If you ask me, this isn't so much a case of the No True Scotsman fallacy as a case of comparing apples and oranges. The No True Scotsman fallacy involves ambiguity of definitions. To the fundagelical, there is no ambiguity: Torquemada simply wasn't a Christian. The real fallacy is comparing apples and oranges: "Christian" is defined as "everyone who follows my teachings, which I pretend originated with Jesus," while "atheist" is defined as "anyone who doesn't believe in God." One could similarly declare- legitimately- that a "Secular Humanist" is anyone who truly follows the Humanist Manifesto, and conclude- illegitimately- that Secular Humanists are more moral than theists.
Even granting that the fundagelicals are identifying the N.T.S. fallacy correctly, the Skeptics have no real understanding of the fallacy. Their understanding is that when they hear the trigger phrase "Torquemada was a Christian," they reflexifely cry "No true Scotsman!"
You want proof? Here's another little debate that plays itself out time and again, particularly in the days immediately after 9/11:
Fundagelical: Islam isn't a religion of peace- just look at Osama bin Laden!
Skeptic: Osama isn't a real Muslim.
How stupid do the Skeptics have to be in order to say that? All along they've been attacking the fundagelicals for saying that Torquemada wasn't a Christian. Doesn't it give them pause to say that Osama isn't a Muslim? No, not a bit. Remember: they aren't thinking at all. They're just operating on reflex, coughing up canned replies in response to the appropriate keywords, just like Eliza. If they were really thinking, and were really honest about what they belive, then they would declare that most Muslims are shocked by 9-11, just as most Christians are shocked by the bombings of abortion clinics. But, unfortunately, that would require conscious thought.
And don't forget that I'm criticising the Skeptical subculture on the grounds that so many of its members aren't really skeptical. How do you think the Skeptics will rebut my argument?
"I do imagine, however, that there are plenty of people out there who dislike religion or fundamentalist versions of religion, and who happily parrot people like Dawkins, but who’ve not done the analysis of evidence and so on, and who, ultimately, take it on faith that that biblical fundamentalists are wacky. They’re not skeptics, though. They’re just people with axes to grind."
posted by Wintermute at 1:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home