The "True Christian" - A Genuine Phrase or Malarkey?

"Hmmmmm....this note reads: 'No true human should solve a large Rubik's cube in more than 1 hour- are you a true human or not?"



Is there such a thing as a "true Christian"? What with over 400 Protestant sects alone in the U.S. of A. one is justified in asking! The reason is that not all can be "true" and certainly not "true Christians"! It is also very clear that each one, if you ask, will fully lay out its precepts and criteria by which to be adorned with the mantle of the "true Christianity".

But, personally, any time I hear or see the word "true" preceding any philosophy, political party, religion etc. my humbug and logical fallacy radar goes off. The reason? The use of the term almost certainly means the claimant will be committing the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. And I suspect that the most logical offenders will be the fundies who commit all the other logical fallacies in trying to defend their creed as the only true one, including resorting to: Argumentum ad Ignorantium (argument from ignorance), the Burden of proof fallacy, and the argument from authority. So add this one to the list!

It was humanist Philosopher Antony Flew, in his Thinking about Thinking, who first made people aware of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.

As he put it:

"Here we have Angus, a Glaswegian (inhabitant of Glasgow), who puts sugar on his porridge, and who is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”.

Then the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.

(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

(3) Therefore:Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.

And:

(4) Therefore:Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.


Thus the 'No true scotsman fallacy' is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about. The fallacy thereby entails discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

This fallacy is also a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.


Examples:

I. Maury Le Fontaine was born in Texas (Dallas), has a French name and enjoys eating escargot with his French wine and is therefore a counter example to the claim that no (true) Texan eats escargot and drinks French wine.

Then the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy applied here would run as follows:

(1) Maury Le Fontaine enjoys escargot and drinking French wine

(2) No (true) Texan enjoys escargot and drinking French wine.

(3) Therefore: Maury Le Fontaine is not a (true) Texan.

And:

(4) Therefore: Maury Le Fontaine is not a counter-example to the claim that no (true) Texan enjoys escargot and drinking French wine.



II. Here we have FORMER evangelical and born again Bart D. Ehrman who is an evangelical no more. He is therefore a counter-example to the claim “No true Christian - especially one born again- would leave his faith”. Since Ehrman was indeed born again, and has since left that faith, and also rejects the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, then he qualifies as a counter example.

1) BUT Ehrman turned his back on evangelicalism and the inerrancy of the Bible

(2) No (true) Evangelical rejects the inerrancy of the Bible, or being born again.

(3) Therefore: Ehrman is not a (true) Christian.

And:

(4) Therefore: Bart D. Ehrman is not a counter-example to the claim that no true Chrisitan rejects biblical inerrancy and being born again.


In some Christian groups, for example, there's an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a (true) Christian one cannot fall away. Or if one does some unproven outside agent ("Satan") is blamed which can't be seen, and for which there isn't even circumstantial evidence.

Thus, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

The sad and inescapable fact is that whenever we behold one using "true" anything, we may be 100% certain s/he is falling for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy!