Happy April Fools Day! Now’s let’s talk fallacies. Today’s is a common one known as the “No True Scotsman”. This is an argument meant to exempt certain members of a population by claiming that they either are or aren’t “true” members of the group in question.

An example of this could look something like “True Christians don’t murder!”, and if you’re thinking that this is a bit heavy handed I’ve met several Christians who in debates have made this claim. They’ve used it to try and squirm out of things like the fact that studies have shown that the U.S. prison population has exceptionally few atheists even though we are also a very tiny percentage of the population.

Once again, not the easiest fallacy to call out, but easier than a few others we’ve talked about so far. This fallacy can and should be called out whenever it occurs. One way to do so is to point out that we do not have knowledge of someone’s motives, or of their “soul” for a lack of a better word. Nor do we have the authority, even if you’re debating a priest, to say that someone is or isn’t a true member of their faith. Some people like to claim that they can judge people, particularly by using a specific Bible verse, John 7:24. The full context of this is that it is the story of Jesus’s appearance at the Festival of Tabernacles. It’s a bit odd to try and use this to justify passing judgement righteously, given that Jesus was saying he ought not be judged based off of appearances alone, but instead he should be “judged correctly”. He was speaking specifically about how they thought he was demon possessed and how he was rebuking that belief. So do Christians who make this claim and use this verse about judgement believe the “not true” Christians are possessed by demons? It’s silly.

The reality is that we have no way of knowing whether or not someone believes, genuinely, and truly. The idea that there is some mechanism by which we can determine whether or not people who behave a certain way are automatically “not true” members of their faith is just a bad idea. It’s not true and it’s not worth spending time on. The simple reality is that people experience things differently and thus they act differently even if placed in the exact same situation. It’s exclusionary and foolish to try and categorize people as “true” and “untrue” members of their identities, based off of certain actions, unless those actions run directly contrary to the definition of the identity, in SOME cases. An example could be a self-described atheist who believes in God. Someone who for various reasons might believe but not worship. They might identify themselves as “atheists” but they aren’t. Depending on how they feel about “God” they could be deists, or agnostics, or even weird anti-theists who actually do “hate God” (like the Professor in God’s Not Dead, he qualifies as this weird anti-theist that I mentioned). Another example could be a “Christ-like” follower of another religion. This person could be told that they are “not true” members of whatever religion they follow to practice due to their behaviors. It doesn’t make it true.

Criminals who are Christian, are still Christian even if they repeatedly commit crimes. Killers who are Muslim are still Muslim even if they kill repeatedly. Atheists who are hateful bigots are still atheists independent of their hate filled attitudes.

This fallacy tends to be used as a distraction, in addition to being a tactic used to get a certain, indefinite amount of a population out of valid criticisms. The No True Scotsman fallacy is a silly, and lazy tactic used to escape conversations which make people belonging to a certain identity, or social group uncomfortable. But just because a conversation is uncomfortable doesn’t make it “wrong”, “false”, or “unnecessary”. Let’s try to avoid using it. But if someone does try it, ask who gave them the authority to make that call, and then depending on how they respond ask them to prove that the person in question has the relevant qualifications, and/or actually exists.

If you want to make suggestions about relevant fallacies to cover, let me know! Let me know what you think about my coverage of this fallacy. And of course have a great day!