I do find many Christians have certain criteria that they have been taught is essential to being a Christian, and yet those criteria are not universal. You must be a trinitarian, must follow the KJV bible, must have been baptised, must be born again, must perform certain rituals or prayers. How important each criteria is seems to be completely subjective. When someone tells me they believe in Jesus, the bible and God, I'm happy to take them at their word and call them a Christian. The huge amount of variety within each of those categories means no two Christians believe exactly the same things, so it has to be considered a blanket term and not specific as fundamentalist types seem to demand.
True. I once read that dogmas were never meant to be "definitions of what you have to believe" in the sense of a positive affirmation but developed out of the battle against heresies to basically tell at which point one is no longer a "true Christian". So not defining the "inside" but the "outside". Here's some nice arguments you could make to claim that "fundamentalists and evangelicals aren't true Christians" - almost none of them seem to follow "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" when it comes to demonizing LGBTQ people. So they don't follow Jesus's teachings. They also don't "rip out their eyes when they make them sin" so they don't follow the literal meaning of the Bible even though they claim they do.
There is clearly degrees of importance that can be ascribed to different criteria. For example the doctrine of the Trinity, even before its complete development by church coucils, has always been a distinctive feature of Christianity. If you don't belive that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then you are simply not a Christian because you reject the teaching of Christ given through Scripture and Tradition. Commanding that a certain translation of scripture be read by all faithful is clearly less important because it has more to do with small "t" tradition or the preference of the pastor (provided that they chose a translation that is doctrinally sound).
@@chrisblaze2129 While I agree that degrees of importance can be ascribed, I would say that doing so is still a subjective endeavour by the individual. Someone needs to choose that the trinity is to be categorised as higher value in their mind than other doctrines. It is not a doctrine that was universal from day one, and not one that is universal today, so it still feels a debatable criteria to give sole consideration to. It seems quite easy to read the bible without the taught and pre-conceived idea that Jesus was God and fail to come to that conclusion. Unitarians can point to many verses that point to Jesus as not being God, so it is not true that they must fail to read the bible or to follow the scriptures, as it is quite possible to do both without ending up a trinitarian.
@@Wertbag99 The doctrine of the Trinity though not expressed in dogmatic form intially was certainly a criteria for belief in Jesus. Jesus makes it clear that there is a Trinity of Persons in one God by His teachings, which is why the Pharisees wanted to kill Him for blaphamy--i.e., for claiming to be equal with the Father. Jesus also clearly gave authority to the Church to develop doctrine (to make explicit what is implicit in the Word) for a soteriological end. If you read the Gospel without coming to the conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be God then you are interpeting the text wrong by ignoring the sacred authors' intention. Just because you can cherry pick bible quotes does not mean that you have a legitamate arguement against the way Scripture has been interpreted from the dawn of Christianity: you must intrepret it within the Living Tradition of the Church, i.e., with the whole context of scripture in mind, within the guardrails of the magisterium (who have the authority given by Christ to interpret scripture), and being mindful of the literal and spiritual senses.
I like the idea of starting out on a topic like this, about what constitutes a fallacy or anything related to what makes an argument valid, true, cogent, etc.
The important take away for me here, is the reminder that you can make fallacious arguments for a correct conclusion. Just because your right doesn't make your argument sound, communication and sound argumentation are key.
Yes, for all his faults Matt Dillahunty always stresses that. A fallacious argument makes the conclusion unreliable, not wrong. You may be right, you may be wrong, but because you did not construct the argument well you cannot tell.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you'll dismiss a conclusion based on the arguments and not on your attempt to discern if the conclusion is true or not?
@@Oliverkism Not quite. If someone tries to support a conclusion with a fallacious argument, you can dismiss the argument. However, if you try to "discern" the truth for yourself, and find a legitimate reason to support that conclusion, then you can accept it. To build on the previous example "I am over 6 feet tall, because my hair is brown" in a non-sequiter argument. "It does not follow" . So I have no reason to think you are over 6 feet tall, and no reason to think you aren't. If I measure you myself, then I'll know one way or the other. Dismissing an argument and dismissing a conclusion are different matters.
As an old academic debater, I really love your critiques of argument and the take-downs of informal fallacies most of all. I am always a little sad when people that don’t actually understand what they’re talking about come across so smug though, like the gentleman you are correcting
Thank you for working with this creator’s own arguments to explain this. This is the best explanation of the fallacy with relevant examples I have seen.
I vote for banning mentioning logical fallacies. Unless it’s professional philosophers talking among themselves. Seems to me most people either don’t know what they are or how to identify them correctly. They add an unnecessary layer of complexity to normal conversations. Imo it’s much better and clearer to just explain why one thinks the other person’s point is wrong or incorrect.
I think I would support banning non-philosophers using the names to say other people are incorrect, mainly because it is a shortcut that I think very few (including myself) have really earned by totally understanding WHY the methodology being referenced by the name is problematic. I think they are a useful shortcut in your own mind to pull up a potential way an argument should be flawed. But then as you said, you should move past that shortcut and ensure you can articulate to your interlocutor the actual reason the the reasoning does not reliably lead to the conclusion the other person is trying to support.
Best way I understand Dan is that the word "true" is the key factor Person A: an anime fan will love Dragon Ball Person B: I have a friend I watch anime with and he hates Dragon Ball Person A: a true anime fan will love Dragon Ball. That's how I understand it. I do get IPs response about not accepting it, but that doesn't mean that they can get along. Like an atheist and a Christian, they can get along, they may not see eye to eye in beliefs, but they can still be friends. Or like Mormons and Protestants, The Mormons I believe don't believe in consuming alcohol, but a Protestant may drink, the Mormon doesn't have to accept their ideology, but the protestant drinking is no more no less Christian than any other denomination. That's how I see it at least
Yep. In this context Dan would suggest that the first generalization “an anime fan will love dragon ball” is not the arbitrary redefinition of the generalization. The arbitrary redefinition only begins when you incorporate the “true, real or genuine” terms which would exclude certain anime fans that dislike Dgz from being considered “real anime fans.”
Exactly. It is a shortcut, rather than engaging in a discussion about why you think that Dragon Ball is a foundational element of anime fandom, and the reason the poor misguided friend may have to not like Dragon Ball, you take a shortcut and assert a definition that leaves the counter example out of the discussion.
Sounds like a good analogy, though as someone aspiring to be an anime fan, I confess that due to how many episodes there are I have no intention of watching Dragon Ball (please don’t kill me!)😅
"Real anime fans love dragon ball" What? No they don't i know for a fact that real anime fans only watch Fullmetal Alchemist. Thats how i see it being used correctly
I would argue that he (and many conservative evangelicals) is not "arbitrarily" defining "Christian" this way. He is *authoritatively* defining "Christian" this way. He fundamentally believes (or at least acts like) that to disagree with him is to disagree with God. He believes that his thoughts are God's thoughts. From the outside, there is no difference between what he is asserting and what God is asserting. There is no humility. There is no reasoning together to figure out who or what God thinks. He doesn't just know what God wants, but to him what God thinks is indistinguishable from what he thinks.
"There is no humility. There is no reasoning together to figure out who or what God thinks. He doesn't just know what God wants, but to him what God thinks is indistinguishable from what he thinks." That's what makes it arbitrary rather than authoritative. Just because someone speaks as if they have authority does not mean they actually do. He is not defining "Christian" according to careful reason, but according to his personal whims. He doesn't explain why his criteria are essential, he merely asserts that they are. He has no demonstrable authority to speak for all Christians. We have no objective reason to believe that what he says is reliable or accurate. Making assertions without basis to suit one's own preference or position is what we generally call arbitrary. Dan carefully explaining how fallacies work from a basis of his dedicated study and expertise is what we generally call authoritative. Attitude has nothing to do with what most of us understand those two terms to mean.
Trinitarianism is not even specifically mentioned in the New Testament. As Dan might say, only by renegotiating with the text can you come to the conclusion that belief the trinity is something that is required to qualify one as a true Christian. And if you’re even going to attempt to massage the modern conception of the trinity from the New Testament, you’re going to have to commit to some wildly eisegetical apologetics. Alright, Michael Jones, let’s see it.🤭
IMHO (and I have 2 degrees in the field) the trinity was a way to interpret the sacrifice theology. The question is if that sacrifice theology is one of those essentials that "true" Christians need to believe, since it seems that at least in the parable of the prodigal son, the requirement for atonement is return to God, not bloody sacrifice.
Trinitarianism as in the word isn’t specifically mentioned? Is this a serious road block you have? Because the actual concept is explicitly stated multiple times and is affirmed and also explicitly mentioned by the early church and established in a creed in 325.
@@TrontaviousKatarinathe fact that a 300 years after the facts an official statement is needed to solve an interpretation problem by authority should be a big red flag on the actual transparency of the doctrine.
This kid: All "no true Scotsman" fallacies have an arbitrary definition. Dan: An arbitrary definition is not needed to commit "no true Scotsman" fallacy. This kid: All TRUE "no true Scotsman" fallacies have an arbitrary definition.
Maybe I missed the reason this came up but it feels really nitpicky. No true scotsman fallacy is really only an issue in discussions when someone starts with a category, and keeps altering it based on counterexamples. Changing or clarifying a categorization in itself isn't really a problem until you try holding both definitions simultaneously. Otherwise it's just kinda annoying but not an issue. All words and labels at the end of the day are arbitrary. What matters is that we're consistent and have a mutual understanding of what's being communicated.
@@TrentonErker it literally can? We can say "rhwlasovuhe" refers to a cat and all mutually agree on it. But that meaning is entirely arbitrary and not derived from anything objective. Covfefe
All of this also ignores that orthodox Christianity is certainly not what the earliest Christians believed. You start out with the religion of Jesus, and then after his death quickly move to the religion ABOUT Jesus, and at that point beliefs about Jesus are being developed, including various Christologies, conceptualizations of the afterlife, and accepted scripture. And each, sometimes wildly different, version of these Jesus based religions could be understood as Christian.
U seem confused and your take is similar to what Mormons believe: Dan being a progressive Mormon ( he denied being an atheist) has this same ignorant view of some Apostasy taking over Christianity after the death of of the Apostles.
I sorta want to know what an American "Christian Nation" is. Since "apostasy" is relative, I have a morbid curiosity about how much Christian-on-Christian blood-letting there will be. Hopefully I'll be able to watch before I get burnt as a steak.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Oh I'm not confused. I'm just happy to deal with the historic realities of early Christianity. You can be happy with dogmas. I sincerely hope they enrich your life.
You're not wrong but IP would argue with you until he was blue in the face that his definition of Christianity has been practiced by Christians since roughly Easter sunday.
Yeah, lots of people don't know how fallacies work. They don't address the truth of the premisses or conclusion but only the validity of an argument. My favourite example: 1. Water is wet 2. and grass is green 3. so Vladimir Putin is president of Russia. The only incorrect word here is "so".
Indeed, and technically, a valid argument is one that does not derive a false conclusion from true premises. An argument that derives a false conclusion from false premises is valid, but not sound. An argument that derives a true conclusion from false premises is valid, and is also not sound. An argument must derive a true conclusion from true premises to be both valid and sound. As you say, the "so" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and it must be up to the task for the argument to be valid and sound.
Yes, and then it shifts the point of contention, because there's a difference between saying someone, _"eats_ steak (habitually)," and, _"has eaten_ steak(circumstantially)."
@@MarcillaSmithWell, the saying that “no true vegan eats meats” completely dismisses vegans who have occasionally eaten meat due to peer pressure. Since they ate meat, they are no true vegan. Although the fallacy doesn’t specify if vegans who casually eat meat are excluded, we can infer that it does.
You're no longer a vegan if you eat meat and you're no longer a Christian if don't you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour - otherwise you're going to a not so nice place - apparently!
In other words, IP may be correct in saying that the identity of being a Christian entails a Trinitarian theology, but he hasn't done the work to establish that, hence he falls afoul of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Further, he will run into a fallacy of reason if he wants to impose Trinitarian theology on the Christian identity marker, as Christians before the third or fourth century would not have been Trinitarians, but IP would want at least some of them included in his tent of Christians as they are necessary for other features of his Christian identity.
He also forgets early Jewish Christians like Nazarenes or Ebionites who even believed Jesus to be a man, a prophet like David, Moses etc. And then evangelicals like to speak about "the gospel" but fail to realize that there is and was never a single gospel. Even Paul mentions that his opponents had a different gospel. Our four are also different in many ways.
@@JopJio Exactly! There is no nuance in IP's apparent position for accepting Christians with a low christology, despite that being such an important part of the early history of the movement.
@@1youtube_account Jewish Christian groups in general. The names got confused by church fathers and sometimes they just called them all just ebionites for example. so its hard to mention names. And then we had Unitarians/Arians and its important to note that even Ignatius said its wrong to believe Jesus to be God over all. Ireneus also said the father is the supreme God.
@@JopJioIf they believed that Jesus was merely a man/prophet, that’s not sufficient for being a Christian as per Paul and the words of Jesus himself in the gospels
Whenever McClellanites talk about how Dan "destroys" IP in all their exchanges I just go back to this video and get to enjoy watching Dan whiffing badly again. Dan having to redefine the entire fallacy just so he could make his point and getting to read again all the mental gymnastic the McClellanites had to make so that they could still believe Dan was right was just the cherry on top. I haven't even bothered watching IPs response to this video, it wasn't needed, Dan had already failed to justify his stance.
Then you completely misunderstood what’s going on. It’s not like Dan is saying “Mormonism is the true Christianity and whatever Christianity IP believes in is wrong.” In brief Dan is saying you can’t exclude Mormonism from Christianity through arbitrary propositions.
Would it be a fallacy if the argument was the following? “All Christians believe in the Trinity” “JW are Christian and they do not believe in the doctrine of a Trinity” “To be Christian requires believing in what is described in the Nicene Creed of 381. This creed requires the belief in the consubstantiality of the Father and Son. If JWs don’t believe this then they are not true Christians”
As Dan says, no - however, let's interrogate it - 1) by this argument there were no true christians before 381 ad. That'll do for now. I don't think JWs have got it right, but I wouldn't tell them they're not christians.
This whole situation is kind of funny. It started with the guy stating that he was not committing the No True Scotsman fallacy, then Dan agreed but corrected his definition of the fallacy, then the guy decided to argue about it anyway lol
@@travis1240yeah I like IP and I think Dan has been a pedantic jerk just to sound smart and be correct over all this but I agree, philosophy is not the backbone of IPs apologetics, it's scholarly cherrypicking. Which honestly is probably not too far off from Dan, either
To be more specific true to him(subjectively) cause thats all it is, what he believes to be true. Cause neither God nor Jesus can deny or confirm he's claims. But the conclusion he draws is based on personal belief and biases.
@@dimitris_zaha At 1:36, IP thinks that this argument is valid: My uncle Angus eats stake, But no true vegan eats stake, Therefore, my uncle Angus is not a true vegan. Specifically, IP thinks that this argument is not an instance of the No True Scotsman Fallacy (which it is, btw, as Dan explains in the video). Presumably, IP makes this mistake because he's under the impression that the conclusion is true (which it isn't, btw, as Dan also explains in the video).
I've enjoyed watching this back and forth, but I think a live conversation between you and Inspiring Philosophy could go really well. I don't expect you two to ever fully agree (since there is a bit of an underlying data vs dogma issue here), but just getting to the root of the disagreement would help to illustrate how meaning is constructed and negotiated in different contexts.
It's a month later since I last watched this vid. All I can say is that if you believe that Dan is saying something other than something batshit crazy, he could probably convince you that drinking Drain-o is a good idea. According to Dan, you can literally assign any meaning to anything at all and any argument against it is a No True Scotsman fallacy. If we applied Dan's reasoning, communication between people would be meaningless, since the meaning of words would have no basis in anything at all.
If you make a generalization such as “Christians” and defend that generalization by arbitrarily changing it to “true Christian’s” instead of specifying the meaning of the term such as “The majority of Protestant Christian’s” than its completely arbitrary without any good reason.
I think there are two pieces here. One is the _post hoc_ redefinition of the concept under discussion. That's in itself a no-no and something that famously invalidates a low of statistical interpretation in empirical science. The other, and more impressive, piece is the rhetorical use of the word “true” which is a shorthand that generalises over _all possible post hoc redefinitions_ and selects just the one(s) that will win the argument! Genius!
I always thought the No true Scotsman fallacy was very easy to understand. Now through Michael and Dan's back and forth I've learned so much about the nuances of it
There seem to be three interesting problems that pops up when one tries to determine who is a "real" Christian. 1. (Most importantly): You are not the judge of that (we are sure, like Job's friends, to get it wrong) 2. What the Bible say? It often say contradictory things and operative words (like "believe") is notoriously many-faceted and how true and set in stone claim in the Bible are, is hard to determine when we cannot get affirmation from God himself (currently) on whether the claims in the Bible are from him or from the human authors. 3. Are you questioning who is SAVED or who is A DISCIPLE, as in "a good and true servant of Gods will" (this is not the same question). Even what the Bible mean by "saved" (when it uses the term) is hard to pin down (is it an earthly or heavenly association with God we are talking about?), Or is salvation UNIVERSAL or INDIVIDUAL (many are sure of the answer, but the Bible gives directives in BOTH directions).
@@tezzerii Right, speaking for God is already quite the dubious activity and JUDGING for God is definitely above "our paygrade" as humans! .. Many volunteer to do so anyway. I guess it is the POWER it lends the speaker that is so irresistible to many ..
You misunderstood the meaning of arbitrary and now everyone is confused. If I make up what defines true christianity based off my own opinions, that definition is arbitrary, if I say no true christian worships satan, I have not committed a fallacy but rather with knowledge of what it means to be a christian made a factual statement.
I remember Jesus breaking bread with tax collectors, prostitutes, he would hang out with and teach sinners. He washed the feet of the disciples and called us to do likewise. Being humble and being of service. I think some people missed the point. If God loves us unconditionally shouldn't we strive to love others likewise? A prerequisite of acceptance is not understanding or even liking a thing. That's still your brother or sister. A person could say they're the arch mage 33rd degree of the flying spaghetti monster. How does that effect me at all? I think some apologists need to refocus on more important things, y'know?
But God in the bible does not love unconditionally 😂 and Jesus didnt treat many people well, e.g. the woman which begged him to heal her daughter and when he called her an animal name
@@JopJio we all got to make our own peace with the world, bruv. Imagine, like John Lennon, we all brethren, y'know what I mean? I think that's pretty vital
@@JopJioYep, Jesus was wrong when he did that which contradicted his own teachings to love everyone. No one is perfect, even Jesus. But his teachings to love everyone unconditionally could still change the world.
@@JopJioGod let's it rain on the just and the unjust. And Jesus did heal her daughter because of her argument. He also said about the centurion that he had more faith than Jesus had seen in Israel. Granted, you could make the point that at least at some point, Jesus didn't think he was sent to the whole world, just to the children of Israel. The question is, did he himself open up to the possibility that gentiles should be included in his work of salvation or was it his followers? The "baptize all nations", etc is a word of the risen Christ. In the classic historical critical method and redaction criticism this would have been called "Gemeindebildung" so not a word of Jesus but an expression of faith in him and a sentence that the community has put in his mouth. Nowadays this is not as clear cut as it used to be since the quest for the ipsissima verba has largely failed.
This was such a great explanation of this issue. Wonderful teacher! Example of a fallacy that has a "true" conclusion based on false premises. Divorce is rampant in America. We only stand a 50 percent chance of survival. Therefore, we can't get married." This can happen in all types of syllagisms! I don't get why IP doesn't understand that "true" is a moving term. Refutation at its finest!
There are actually extenuating circumstances when a vegan would eat steak, unless they are also a vegetarian. Dan makes similar points very well in this video. However, I couldn't possibly comment on whether vegans would put sugar on their porridge, even though I am a Scotsman and a vegetarian. I mean, no real Scottish vegetarian would ever use these ridiculous fallacies, anyway.
@@icollectstories5702 I've accidentally eaten shrimp before, and I think I've eaten most types of meat by accident once in my life, but I'm still a vegetarian because I didn't decide to just start eating meat on the basis of that happening. But there is a distinction between vegans and vegetarians in that vegetarianism refers to a diet, while veganism is an ideological framework. So vegetarians don't eat meat, for whatever reason (eg. health concerns) and vegans try to minimise the amount of animal suffering that their actions cause for ideological reasons. Hopefully you can see there's a huge overlap, but for instance a vegan could technically eat roadkill while a vegetarian wouldn't. Vegans might take the view that if someone has made them a meat dinner without realising, they may as well eat it and avoid waste, while I myself just would go hungry in that situation, because I won't choose to eat meat under any circumstances, so the venn diagram isn't a total overlap for the two things.
@@integrationalpolytheism Would you allow yourself to die? I'm sure anyone who eats farm products -- or jogged -- has eaten insects. I assume the intent is purer than the world.
1 King Koopa 8:15: “On this day is born unto you one who is with the Pipes but not of the Pipes. In this one the Kingdom of Mushroom will have freedom” 2nd Bros. 12:22-27: “and Mario spoke, ‘has it not been said in the script of yore that one would come who was one with the Pipes but not of the Pipes? Behold my wrench and my mustache!’ And the Koopa Troopas did fling their shells at him and called him blasphemer.’” So sick of you liberal “Mario Fans”. No true Mario fan would ever speak against univocality.
That's entirely true, yeah. Different teams work on each game, so mechanics used to defeat enemies in one game may result in taking damage when playing another.
Because IP is invested in the necessary and sufficient features which to him are not "arbitrary," he seems to be hindered in conceiving of arbitrarily adding non-arbitrary, to him, features. In the sources used, the philosophers refer to the adding/changing of features as arbitrary (and often adverbally) whereas IP seems to have equivocated with arbitrariness (vs meaningfulness) of the features (adjectivally in his usage) themselves. Similarly, as you point out, he's not clearly differentiating between sound reasoning and sound conclusions and the relation between the two. I scrolled through some of the comments on IP's thread and similarly pondered about a general disinterest for this level of critical thought. And from there, I wondered about empathy. As such, I rarely aspire to engage in meaningful to me conversations with "true believers" about these matters.
I thought IP made some interesting points. But logical fallacies can be very subtle in their language, so I totally understand why IP might’ve missed this. If Dan hadn’t pointed out the “arbitrary RE-definition” clause, I would’ve agreed with IP. Philosophy is so subtle.
Hi I copy pasted my comment And I wanted to discuss it 2:45 The problem is That this isn't what actually happens during discussions 2:55 here is the problem I don't see where the arbitrary redefinition is Let's say some American dude said that no American had ever committed a crime And you give an example and he so happens to have spent half his life in the UK (and of course he was born in the us and committed the crime here) Now the arguer decided to arbitrarily change the definition of Americans to exclude his fellow American Just so he can save his false generalization But Michael's original example Doesn't involve an arbitrary redefinition Michael stated that a vegan by definition is Cambridge definition "a person who does not eat or use any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather" According to this definition someone who eats steak is not a vegan Someone came along and told Michael that his uncle Angus Is a vegan and does eat steak Michael responded with "no true vegan eats steak" Where is the redefinition The word TRUE Well no it didn't change the meaning at all All the arguer did by using the word true was claiming that uncle Angus is a phony But nothing was added to the original definition The arguer simply chose a hill to die on by reaffirming his position Now you could argue that the arguer in this case committed a different fallacy by appealing to his position as evidence for his position But there are these things that are known a priori without any need for logical argumentation Like the fact that someone who eats steak isn't a vegan More on that later However you can accuse Michael of this fallacy when appealing to his presuppositions about the development of the doctrine of let's say the hypostatic union Because unlike being a vegan or "1=1" the Michael's proposition doesn't seem obvious Therefore he needs to prove his definition of Christianity before making the generalization Which is frankly what you should have spent the video on instead of actually trying to explain why someone who eats meat is a vegan 3:31 Why should I think that Vegan is a social label Like sure we can model almost everything as social labels But why should I think that the opinion of people who identify as something is relevant to the discussion Professions are labels that aren't given based on whether or not you identify with them (Response to the original video) And no I don't care if Person x wants to be a vegan but he can't He is still not a vegan even if he identifies as such 4:17 sadly the problem Is that moral imperfection doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone is a Scotsman Because it relates to either ethnicity or nationality not morality Unlike veganism Because veganism is related to your diet so it absolutely matters 4:28 Michael gave a nice counterexample in his response We don't call someone a "medical doctor" unless he fits a certain definition Identification comes after establishing a definition 5:38 as I explained no he didn't 7:08 once again There is absolutely no difference Adding the word orthodox or genuine doesn't automatically guarantee fallacious argumentation 9:46 oh boy I am excited for the drama Note I know Dr Dan ain't reading this I just like to talk to myself in second person That's all Extra note I meant that the definition of vegan that the arguer was using already excludes uncle Angus There is no need for a redefinition to exclude him Unlike Anthony's second example Where the definition of Scotsman doesn't exclude criminals So the arguer had to redefine The definition of Scotsman to necessitate moral adherence Turning his generalization into a necessary feature of being a Scotsman
No matter how hard Inspiring Philosophy tries to define being a Christian based on personal beliefs or biases, it will always be logically flawed. Using the example of veganism, if we Google the definition of Christian, it's simply believing in Jesus and his teachings and God (the Father Jesus points to). So, while it's correct to say that no vegan eats meat, equating this to no Christian who doesn't believe in the Trinity not being a Christian is misleading and a false equivalence. A more accurate analogy would be to say that no vegan who works in a restaurant preparing meat is a true vegan, even though they themselves don't eat meat. Christianity traditionally revolves around the belief in Jesus and God, not exclusively on the acceptance of the Trinity. Insisting that only those who adhere to the Trinity are 'true' Christians parallels the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, where definitions are manipulated to exclude individuals who do not meet a particular standard. Moreover, Jesus himself never explicitly stated that belief in the Trinity is a prerequisite for entering the kingdom of heaven."
@@SherlockReasoning The trinity. The Bible doesn’t explicitly talk about the concept of the trinity. The trinity is a conclusion that was made by early Christian apologist. Therefore Inspiring philosophy can’t definitively incorporate this conclusion to the definition of “Christian”. Basically IP can’t omit Mormons from being deemed “Christians” merely because they don’t believe in the trinity, since it’s not an official and inerrant requirement of being a Christian (According to the Bible). In my opinion being a Christian is just a person who follows the teachings of Christ, wether you believe he’s god or not. I came to this conclusion since there’s to much contention between concepts and Christian doctrines like the trinity or the belief that Jesus is God.
@@Call_Me_Rioto simply "follow the teachings of Jesus" isn't as easy as it sounds. That's already an arbitrary border to draw. We only know about Jesus from the gospels, which are a combination of ancient biographies (with all the problems that entails) and faith documents. Theologians had a hard time determining the "ipsissima verba" the "true words of Jesus". The criteria to determine those words were in part contradictory (like the "dissimilarity" and "similarity" argument). So gospels are already a part of the tradition of Christianity and they might have been written 10 years later or 40 years later, depending on who makes the better points for dating them. So we might claim, "we only follow the Bible" (Protestants) which means accepting that we cannot know if Jesus truly said all the things he says in the gospels. Or we say "we follow the whole tradition" (Roman catholic and Eastern Orthodox) because the new testament is just one part of that tradition. Then of course we run into issues like celibacy contradicting the fact that the apostles were married or "eternal vows" contradicting the fact that Jesus said "don't swear", etc. In each case we have to do the work and decide for ourselves and "cherry pick". I don't think that's a bad thing BTW. Jesus cherry picked the old testament himself and gave it his own interpretation (even if we can find parallels to that in other Jewish teachers).
The earliest christians including paul and the apostles , the patristic authors and apostolic fathers then are not christians because they dont believe in the trinity.. because the trinitarian doctrine was not invented yet during their time
But something something if you ACTUALLY read tha Baybel and interpret it the way eye doo, you'll see that the Holy Trinity is in there in the subtextual intellextual blahblahblah
@@drj-pp8hw lol, Dan had lost before IP even replied. The reply IP did give was just the cherry on the top. Dan bit off way more then he could chew on this one.
This is a complete assumption, but Dan seems to be a bit more relative (and realistic) vs. the other guy with truth. Dan understands you can make arguments to prove who should be included in Christianity, but the other guy seems to think there is just one group of “true” Christians. Therefore, he doesn’t need an argument. He can just use the term “true” Christian as though it is already defined.
The problem for IP is that he never clearly defines what he considers orthodox and he never even tells people to which strand of Christianity he belongs. I guess he's trying to emulate Lewis and his "Mere Christianity" in a way but unfortunately it often comes across as patchwork as he seems to want to address as many Christians as he can but still uphold that there is one true Christianity.
You need to understand that in his mind, there is an objectively "correct" way to be a Christian and that's the way God would want you to behave and he thinks he knows that. Since his worldview is top-down, instead of emergent, talking about it from a "social identity" angle is going to be complete lost on him, even if he understands your underlying point and even though it's his analogy. $100 says he responds saying that he's not trying to renegotiate the boundaries of Christianity, God/Jesus already did that already, he's just marking the borders and surveying the plot.
There may not be an objectively “correct” way to be a Christian but there is an objective belief you must have to be a Christian. Two totally different things that you seem to have conflated.
@@TrontaviousKatarina That's why I put it in "quotes." I'm also not speaking for all Christians, I'm speaking about Fundamentalists, specifically Apologists, even most specifically the Apologist in this video. The constant gatekeepers of "true Christianity" (hopefully the sarcasm/inflected tone will come through this time). Surely, they are as obnoxious in the Christian camp as they are trying to annoy us?
@@revertrevertz5438 "... by definition ..." - The problem is that IP, in this case, is the one providing the definition. IP is entitled to give his definition; indeed, this is good practice in some ways. But if other people who call themselves "Christian" have a slightly different definition of what that means, we reach an impasse because there is no definitive, universally-agreed definition of what a Christian IS. Declaring by fiat, as it were, that Christianity must be X, and then excluding Christianities Y and Z on the basis of one's preferred definition seems to me to be a clear case of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
@@Nai61a that’s what definitions are for. You have to put a limit to things. Mormonism is by definition opposite to the most intrinsic characteristics of Christianity. If we include Mormonism within Christianity, then we are obliged to include Bahais or Muslims as well.
@@revertrevertz5438 But definitions - in this kind of context - are flexible. You clearly think you know what a Christian is, but, forgive me for putting it like this, who are you to decide what are "the most intrinsic characteristics of Christianity"? Your opinion - and your definition - are no more reliable or definitive than the next (wo)man's. Roman Catholics will tell you one thing, Baptists, Methodists ... etc will tell you something else. Then there are Eastern and Greek Orthodox, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses ... There is NO way to come up with a definitive statement about what a Christian IS, unless you can get all of these different groups to sign up to something. Good luck with that! The best you could hope for, in my view, is a statement of basic elements which would include what everybody agreed on and exclude anything controversial - the status quo, in fact.
No, Dan. It is you who continues to not understand the fallacy. _"Two things here. First they absolutely committed the no true Scotsman fallacy. Just because your conclusion is accurate does not mean your argument cannot be a fallacy and just because your argument is fallacious does not mean that your conclusion is falsified or wrong."_ _"That fundamentally misunderstands the nature of informal fallacies. Because they're not saying oh well let's take a look at how we understand what a vegan is how people typically use the word vegan and you can see that your uncle is not actually a vegan. That would be providing an argument but to respond to my uncle Angus is a vegan and he eats steak by saying well no true vegan eats stake is changing the boundaries of the claim arbitrarily by presuming to have the prerogative to dictate the difference between true veganism and false veganism. That's the arbitrariness. That's the change. That's the fallacy. So it is absolutely a fallacy even if you have an accurate conclusion."_ Nope. First off, "No vegan eats steak" is not a generalization. It is literally definitional of being a vegan. No one is going to argue with it. Well, except you, apparently, who said earlier that words don't have to have meaning. The rest of us understand that vegans don't eat meat. So, when the other guy says "Well, my cousin Angus is a vegan and he eats steak", what we get is everyone wondering how in the heck is Angus a vegan, then? Then, when the first guy says "Yeah, but no true vegan eats steak" everyone listening to the argument is going to say, "That's right". That would be because everyone knows there's no arbitrary redefinition, or changing the boundaries of what constitutes a vegan being introduced here. Because most people aren't complete idiots and understand that words have definitions, no further argument need be made. In the original example of no Scotsman would put sugar on their porridge, the "what the heck" moment comes with that statement. Everyone's wondering what sugar on porridge has to do with being a Scotsman. When the obvious is pointed out about Angus putting sugar on his porridge, the fallacy comes with obscuring the indefensibleness of the generalization by trying to change the boundaries with a new term. That doesn't happen with the case concerning vegans and steaks. Do you see now? No one, except you, is going to argue with the definition of vegan. They're going to argue whether Angus can be a vegan if he eats steak. Michael is spot on in showing your misunderstanding concerning what constitutes a no true Scotsman fallacy. The way you treat the subject, we could never actually identify what a true Scotsman actually is which, I suspect, is your goal. Hence your statement... _"But to respond to my uncle Angus is a vegan and he eats steak by saying well no true vegan eats steak is changing the boundaries of the claim arbitrarily by presuming to have the prerogative to dictate the difference between true veganism and false veganism."_ Um, yeah. Words having an actual, defined meaning is bad. Got it. Insisting that words have definitions must be the evil work of, how did you put it in that other video??? Oh, yeah. _"and the only denomination in which there's just a plurality of members who reject the Christianity of Mormons is white evangelicals the group most committed to structuring power and values and boundaries to serve their own interests."_ Yep, those evil white evangelicals insisting that words have definite meanings! Where will it all end???
This is insane. This guy is saying we can't actually define anything at all. No cats are dogs. But my cat, who was raised by a dog, thinks it's a dog. But it's not a real dog. And then a bunch of twaddle about the audacity of dictating what constitutes a cat.
Dan doesn't want the Bible to have any meaning so that he can believe whatever he wants. He is also adamantly against anyone who does believe the Bible has meaning because the Bible denounces everything Dan personally stands for and he can't stand it. His biases have severely clouded his judgement.
This was insanely helpful. I was asking similar questions after the last post and this really cleared up exactly what it means to commit a fallacy. Thanks!
More like inspiring philosophy, would never dare to have an actual conversation with Dan. He get crushed. Dan always has receipts. IP can’t even represent his own sources correctly, as Dan demonstrated so clearly here.
@@CharlesPayet Dan has never debated anyone before to prove that he always has receipts lol Mike has debated in person against the worst debate opponent there is: Muslims
In all these arguments and counter-arguments by Christian apologists, I still do not hear the most important thing: What is a TRUE Christian? I have asked this of people, both well-known apologists and pastors and theologians I've known personally, before, during, and after my time as a Christian, and still, in the many years I've been asking it, I have yet to receive any definition even a sizable minority agree upon that can stand up to the barest scrutiny.
Shouldn't be all that hard - take what Jesus described as the "essence of the law and the prophets" - the double commandment of love (already pretty hard to follow) and combine it with the Golden Rule, maybe sprinkle a bit of the 4 laws on top that the apostles decided upon (Acts 15) - I think you're good to go. Everything else comes after that, like trinity, atonement, etc. The gospels don't even agree on the interpretation of Jesus's death. Was it a bloody sacrifice to atone for our sins? Or does God forgive if we just repent? Or did Jesus just not want to leave his friends (gospel of John basically - surprisingly "low christology" there)? And was his death later reinterpreted or did he interpret it himself? Questions upon questions and the reason why theology is so interesting. The reason why I studied it. But in the end, it's "literary science with just one book" that's what I used to call it. We can read it but we shouldn't expect the authors to follow our modern way of thinking. Applying logic already presupposes to accept quite a bit of things about the world that aren't necessarily presupposed by the biblical authors. Or the ones who compiled the gospels. Otherwise they would have known that the discrepancies or even contradictions between them might cause problems. Obviously they didn't see it that way. And that wasn't because they were dumb as some theologians seem to think.
In the LGBT+ community, we have to allow for conflicts between identity and behavior, for example, a lesbian who is in a sexual relationship with a man. A good fictional study of the phenomenon is the setup for _Bob and Rose_ a British TV series by Russel T. Davies, in which a gay man and a straight woman fall in love, and they and everyone around them have to confront how that conflicts with identities and definitions. But LGBT+ identities are controversial and the need for the closet (for keeping desires and relationships clandestine) continues to exist. Indeed, bisexuals have often had to have two doors on the closet, expressing their gayness among gay associates and expressing heterosexual opinions among family and business colleagues. Lesbian communities have had to contend with gatekeeping by _gold star lesbians_ who've never engaged with men at all, as opposed to those who have before or sometimes still do. We sometimes have to remind people that the big index of definitions is a tool for understanding your own sexual and gender identity, and not something to use to judge others. And so it is with Christianity, though religious ministries are also fraught with gatekeeping, even though most of them teem with parishioners who do not fully accept the creeds and statements of faith as asserted by their church. Catholics in the developed world notoriously use birth control even when the Pope, CDF and USCCB demands they do not. And because definitions of _Christian_ vary from church to church, if not from individual to individual, those of us on the outside have to assume a Christian is anyone who identifies as one, no matter their behaviors or assertions. And yes, this lends itself to even atheist Christians who see Jesus as merely a man who did not perform miracles nor was resurrected. But then, cultural Catholics exist, who go to church not because they believe, but because it is a social occasion that is useful to them. As with conservative, feminist, communist, goth, Juggalo, gamer, etc. social identities are often so big as to include people whose opinions run contrary to (or are inconsistent with) commonly understood doctrine, and we cannot assume that just because someone identifies as a thing that we understand their positions. Often they align, but often enough they do not align, and if the LGBT+ community informs, any kind of assertion that someone is _not a real Republican_ or _not a valid rock-&-roller_ or _not truly gay_ is just gatekeeping. Everyone's identity is valid and has to be. And so it is for Christians, trinitarian or otherwise.
That's fair, "I'm gay/straight, except for this one person" is hardly unheard-of. When it's 99%/1%, there's a reasonable argument that label really does apply better than "bisexual " would.
@@TheEagleChristianhe never said that words don’t have meaning. What he said is that words are just sounds and we as a society agree that certain sounds invoke certain conceptual ideas, and those ideas are contingent on many factors, like where you’re from, who you’re surrounded by, your culture etc. So to try to reduce words down to a single definition goes against how we conceptualize words and is going to create issues when someone has a slightly different context of what a word means than you do
@@rensjosephus3152 which is exactly why its so important to come to mutual understandings of what words mean. Dan refuses to use the accepted definition of Christian which includes Trinitarian belief, which is why he's wrong and not a Christian.
Dan himself commits a question-begging fallacy (i.e. flagrant circular reasoning) by invoking "all people who identify as Christian." But what is the definition of Christian? He's either getting the logic completely backwards or just projecting.
I read through the comments on IPs response video and the ad hominem attacks were exactly what I would expect from “rational and loving” evangelicals. The term ‘pseudo-intellectual’ was thrown around with little to no self awareness on their part. It is clear to me that Dan does not qualify as a pseudo-intellectual.
What makes you think that his audience is just evangelicals? I wouldn't even claim IP is one himself. AFAIK he's a member of a high church. Of course the definition of evangelical is probably as murky as the definition of a "true" Christian. I'd argue that most evangelicals today are fundamentalists not upholding any of the things evangelicals held true in the 70's.
Thanks Dan...pretty new to your channel and enjoying your rational breakdowns. I'm starting to understand that a lot of people mistake the basic premise of philosophy. In my own experience, I've always had it described in more esoteric/feel good terms and your videos are helping to make clear that it is quite the opposite and is more interested in being systematic and logical in its approach.
I’m assuming that the Inspiring Philosophy channel is not run by trained philosophers, because, wow, he even misread the paragraphs he was using to try and defend his position. I have taught critical reasoning courses to undergraduates who understand the fallacy better than him.
My thing with Mormons , JW’s, and other Restorationist denominations isn’t even about the Trinity, but more that the reoccurring concept in the origin of these movements is that the original Church as described in the New Testament was “lost” in time, and that the faith leaders of each movement was brought forth to restore the Church to what it originally was during Antiquity. This is different than the Great Schism or even earlier splits in that there was understandably one church until theological and sometimes political differences lead to a split between them to no longer be in “union”. Of course each of these denominations have varying stances upon being the “the one true original church” but the Restoration movement leaders believed none of them were ever part of the church in the first place. I would understand why Christians who affirm the councils would think that Christians that believe that they were never part of the ancient church are “not Christians”
I have learnt so much about fallacies, the true Scotsman fallacy, arbitrary redefinitions in arguments from this video. I love it and I can use all this in my work. Thanks Dan!!!
Just watched these back-and-forth videos and Dan got whipped. Furthermore, Dan comes across as an arrogant, pontificating authoritarian that would like us to believe that he is draped in a mantle of (self) righteousness. He's not as smart as he thinks he is. Dan seems to think that Doctors, for instance, shouldn't have a say in who is called a "doctor" because they are drawing an "authoritarian boundary" around themselves that excludes non-doctors who, nevertheless, think of themselves as doctors. In this case, the actual Doctors are safeguarding their profession from those who would, inevitably, defame and disgrace it. The early church policed itself and excommunicated erring members. Paul even provided instruction on who to "withdraw" from. Were they committing both "logical fallacies" and drawing arbitrary , authoritarian boundaries around themselves?
My thing with Mormons , JW’s, and other Restorationist denominations isn’t even about the Trinity, but more that the reoccurring concept in the origin of these movements is that the original Church as described in the New Testament was “lost” in time (aka the Great Apostasy) and that the faith leaders of each movement was brought forth to restore the Church to what it originally was during Antiquity. This is different than the Great Schism or even earlier splits in that there was understandably one church until theological and sometimes political differences lead to a split between them to no longer be in “union”. Of course each of these denominations have varying stances upon being the “the one true original church” but the Restoration movement leaders believed none of them were ever part of the church in the first place. I would understand why Christians who affirm the councils would think that Christians that believe that they were never part of the ancient church are “not Christians”
the other way this would not be a fallacy is that if every person or group being referenced within the first statement "Christians", had come to an absolute agreement on what constituted being called a Christian, then if an additional supposed "Christian" group arose in the second statement they were added to the first statement and a reshuffling of the defining aspects were again agreed upon. You'd never get to the fallacy at all. The arbitrary aspect is introduced when you cut the inclusiveness and the 'definition' becomes 'dead'.
Incorrect. Scotsman is a national identity which is not specific to anything other than being a Scotsman. Vegan is very specific in that if you are truly vegan you never eat steak. Someone who eats steak is not a true vegan. No true Scotsman is of Irish descent would be a viable argument.
I think these 2 are just talking past each other. I think inspiring philosophy was more making the distinction that there is a ground to say Mormons aren’t true Christian and that CONCLUSION not be fallacious. And Dan is just saying the presentation is.
Thank you for this video Dan. It actually helped me understand No True Scotsman better and, well, more completely. As always I appriciate your videos very much. Keep up the good work!
I would change the eats steak to keeps house pets to make the thought process a little more challengeing. Because then it really adresses the meaning and concept of veganism.
This video sounded like a heated discussion. Put another way, Dan sounded I'll say passionate about this issue (as opposed to the video / person in it trying to prove _his_ point with his "knowledge." I liked it, but I found myself thinking, "If Dan were to do a video where HE plays both parts of this discourse, that would be _really_ interesting to watch.
Object substitution often allows us to evaluate things more clearly. Maybe if we changed it to, say, No centaurs eat licorice,' then IP might be better able to focus on the structure of the argument.
I think anyone who believes that Jesus is God, and at the same time makes a statement about what a true Christian is or isn't based on their belief about the Trinity, is missing the point entirely. Jesus never said that his people would be called Christians. He never said his people would believe in the Trinity either. He said his people would love each other in such a way that his people would all value each other as much as each individual valued themselves. "Christian" is a term that men came up with and adopted to convince each other that they follow Christ. There is no divinity attached to it, and Jesus never put his stamp of approval onto it. Honest Christians ought to let go of the pride they've wrapped around themselves with regard yo that term, and perhaps come to terms with the fact that there is highly likely to be plenty of people who don't identify as Christian whom Jesus would find favor in.
Of course Jesus didn't define christians that's why we do it. You can't just call yourself a christian and say muhammad is a prophet of allah that's nonsense
Christianity is not the same as being a vegan. You can boil down veganism to the lack of animal products in a diet. What is the definition of Christianity and who determines this? Catholics? The creeds? Lots of people before and after the creeds never signed up or agreed with them. It’s like saying before the exact wording of the nicean creed, there were no / or hardly any christian’s
Dear Dr Dan , I have been following you through your podcasts ever since I first saw your interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I think you are brilliant and very enjoyable. Do you know of and collaborate with Dr David Bokovoy?
No uncle Angus did not commit the ntsf. Just because uncle Angus identifies as a vegan the very fact that he eats steak violates the definition of what a vegan is. If another person said they were a bible scholar but had no degrees or education in the New Testament Dan would be justified in saying that they are not a New Testament scholar.
I don't think he misrepresented all three sources. He only misrepresented the primary source by Antony Flew. I read the other two (at least what's shown on the screen), and unlike the primary source, they don't claim that it's necessary for the redefinition to exclude the counter example by using words like "true," "genuine," or such. The first source by Stuart Hanscomb even says that it's also known as an ad hoc rescue, which shifts the focus to the arbitrary redefinition rather than the fixating on words like "true" or "genuine." Note how he is the only one to highlight the redefinition from being purely geographical to describing a specific attitude. The second source doesn't say anything about these words except in the examples. In my opinion, it'd be best to separate the two fallacies ad hoc rescue and no true Scottsman. First, while in many cases a no true Scottsman is an ad hoc rescue, notice how in the "no true democrats" example provided by the second source, an altercation was not made. However, the point is that by appending the word "true," even if not exclusive to the response, all potential counter examples could be ignored, and consequently untrained listeners could be deceived. Thus, it may be seen as an ad hoc rescue, though if that requires an explicit shift of definition, then the "no true Democrat" example cannot be sufficiently called an ad hoc rescue. I will also note that it is helpful to distinguish between true and by name if certain metaphysical assertions are taken to be true. For instance, accepting the Catholic worldview, one may consider themselves Christian, but we could say he's not a "true Christian," i.e, one who God would consider to be a humble servant, and that could be established via Catholic doctrines, and I don't believe that would be committing a true Scottsman fallacy since in this case the word "true" does not lead to an ad hoc rejection of counter examples, as the definition would have been well stipulated. To conclude, I believe IP and Dr. McClellan are covering two different fallacies, thanks to common errors found in most logic books (ironic, I know). I also believe the main way to avoid the fallacy is to simply make it clear whether we're using a stipulative or a lexical definition. The true Scottsman fallacy, as far as I understand, could only be made in examples where the argumenter intentionally confuses between what's lexically known and what's stipulative, whereas in the Catholic example I mentioned, no such confusion could occur. Let me know if I got anything wrong! Thanks
TL;DR I don't think any of the sources got it right. No true Scottsman should not involve an arbitrary redefinition. Rather, it's going from a lexical understanding to a stipulative definition *without* noting the differentia.
First time I've ever disagreed with Dan. I don't care how someone identifies. Words have meanings.If you eat steak, you are not a vegan. Philosophy does tend to lead to nonsense. Similarly, anyone can call themselves a Christian. That doesn't make it so, not when there is a thing called lying. What an actual Christian is, is a more difficult question. If it's just an identity then it truly has no meaning, except a social one. I was brought up as a Christian, and I see the name used as a talisman by crooks who want to appear good. I think there needs to be a minimal set of beliefs that define a religion.
completely agree. Also a former Christian. Dan is just doing the "how can you really know how something is defined". If take Dan's philosophy to everything, it will lead me to a belief that nothing means nothing. I can deconstruct every definition of everything.
This was so necessary I know it’s sort of a different wheelhouse, but I wish Dan would do a course on Fallacies… this breaks down can make some of the tougher ones make sense
Thank you Dan for doing this cuz I seen this guy debate many people many times and it doesn't comprehend the typical fallacies and this is a great example of you calling him out thank you
I do find many Christians have certain criteria that they have been taught is essential to being a Christian, and yet those criteria are not universal. You must be a trinitarian, must follow the KJV bible, must have been baptised, must be born again, must perform certain rituals or prayers. How important each criteria is seems to be completely subjective.
When someone tells me they believe in Jesus, the bible and God, I'm happy to take them at their word and call them a Christian. The huge amount of variety within each of those categories means no two Christians believe exactly the same things, so it has to be considered a blanket term and not specific as fundamentalist types seem to demand.
True. I once read that dogmas were never meant to be "definitions of what you have to believe" in the sense of a positive affirmation but developed out of the battle against heresies to basically tell at which point one is no longer a "true Christian". So not defining the "inside" but the "outside".
Here's some nice arguments you could make to claim that "fundamentalists and evangelicals aren't true Christians" - almost none of them seem to follow "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" when it comes to demonizing LGBTQ people.
So they don't follow Jesus's teachings. They also don't "rip out their eyes when they make them sin" so they don't follow the literal meaning of the Bible even though they claim they do.
There is clearly degrees of importance that can be ascribed to different criteria. For example the doctrine of the Trinity, even before its complete development by church coucils, has always been a distinctive feature of Christianity. If you don't belive that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then you are simply not a Christian because you reject the teaching of Christ given through Scripture and Tradition. Commanding that a certain translation of scripture be read by all faithful is clearly less important because it has more to do with small "t" tradition or the preference of the pastor (provided that they chose a translation that is doctrinally sound).
@@chrisblaze2129 While I agree that degrees of importance can be ascribed, I would say that doing so is still a subjective endeavour by the individual. Someone needs to choose that the trinity is to be categorised as higher value in their mind than other doctrines. It is not a doctrine that was universal from day one, and not one that is universal today, so it still feels a debatable criteria to give sole consideration to.
It seems quite easy to read the bible without the taught and pre-conceived idea that Jesus was God and fail to come to that conclusion. Unitarians can point to many verses that point to Jesus as not being God, so it is not true that they must fail to read the bible or to follow the scriptures, as it is quite possible to do both without ending up a trinitarian.
I thought this was Catholicism
@@Wertbag99 The doctrine of the Trinity though not expressed in dogmatic form intially was certainly a criteria for belief in Jesus. Jesus makes it clear that there is a Trinity of Persons in one God by His teachings, which is why the Pharisees wanted to kill Him for blaphamy--i.e., for claiming to be equal with the Father. Jesus also clearly gave authority to the Church to develop doctrine (to make explicit what is implicit in the Word) for a soteriological end. If you read the Gospel without coming to the conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be God then you are interpeting the text wrong by ignoring the sacred authors' intention. Just because you can cherry pick bible quotes does not mean that you have a legitamate arguement against the way Scripture has been interpreted from the dawn of Christianity: you must intrepret it within the Living Tradition of the Church, i.e., with the whole context of scripture in mind, within the guardrails of the magisterium (who have the authority given by Christ to interpret scripture), and being mindful of the literal and spiritual senses.
Would love to see you & IP in an actual debate, but maybe on a more important topic
I like the idea of starting out on a topic like this, about what constitutes a fallacy or anything related to what makes an argument valid, true, cogent, etc.
He wouldn't debate ip because ip would grill him
I would not want to be subjected to that blind deaf fool again.
@@AwesomeViews. Lol, the amateur would grill an actual scholar? High on copium
@@colinc892 Couldn't care less what degree you have, God has made the foolish the wisdom of this world. The guys arguments are lame and desperate.
The important take away for me here, is the reminder that you can make fallacious arguments for a correct conclusion. Just because your right doesn't make your argument sound, communication and sound argumentation are key.
Yes, for all his faults Matt Dillahunty always stresses that. A fallacious argument makes the conclusion unreliable, not wrong. You may be right, you may be wrong, but because you did not construct the argument well you cannot tell.
I'm over 6' tall because my hair is brown.
Nonsense argument, but correct conclusion. The argument being nonsense does not make me lose height.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you'll dismiss a conclusion based on the arguments and not on your attempt to discern if the conclusion is true or not?
@@Oliverkism Not quite. If someone tries to support a conclusion with a fallacious argument, you can dismiss the argument. However, if you try to "discern" the truth for yourself, and find a legitimate reason to support that conclusion, then you can accept it.
To build on the previous example
"I am over 6 feet tall, because my hair is brown" in a non-sequiter argument. "It does not follow" . So I have no reason to think you are over 6 feet tall, and no reason to think you aren't.
If I measure you myself, then I'll know one way or the other. Dismissing an argument and dismissing a conclusion are different matters.
So yes, Dan is not a Christian
As an old academic debater, I really love your critiques of argument and the take-downs of informal fallacies most of all. I am always a little sad when people that don’t actually understand what they’re talking about come across so smug though, like the gentleman you are correcting
True. I watch most of the debates as entertainment. Smugness seems part of the job as apologist 😂.
ua-cam.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
I imagine you lost most of your debates, then, judging by this comment.
@@drakkonis1 😂
Or Dan himself. Dan might be this platforms most smug youtuber
Thank you for working with this creator’s own arguments to explain this. This is the best explanation of the fallacy with relevant examples I have seen.
I vote for banning mentioning logical fallacies. Unless it’s professional philosophers talking among themselves.
Seems to me most people either don’t know what they are or how to identify them correctly. They add an unnecessary layer of complexity to normal conversations. Imo it’s much better and clearer to just explain why one thinks the other person’s point is wrong or incorrect.
They do tend to just get used as a "gotcha".
I think I would support banning non-philosophers using the names to say other people are incorrect, mainly because it is a shortcut that I think very few (including myself) have really earned by totally understanding WHY the methodology being referenced by the name is problematic. I think they are a useful shortcut in your own mind to pull up a potential way an argument should be flawed. But then as you said, you should move past that shortcut and ensure you can articulate to your interlocutor the actual reason the the reasoning does not reliably lead to the conclusion the other person is trying to support.
Agreed
Only professional (true) philosophers use them correctly?
Just as a clarification, no true professional philosopher commits logical fallacies.
"Arbitrarily arrogates the prerogative..." has a wonderful sound.
it's like a Tom Lehrer lyric.
To paraphrase Taggert from Blazing Saddles: "Dan uses his tongue prettier than a $20 wh0r3"
Indeedilly-doo!
Say, isn't this the class on Set Theory? This lecture sounds a lot like Semantics!
@@bengreen171Nice!
Best way I understand Dan is that the word "true" is the key factor
Person A: an anime fan will love Dragon Ball
Person B: I have a friend I watch anime with and he hates Dragon Ball
Person A: a true anime fan will love Dragon Ball.
That's how I understand it. I do get IPs response about not accepting it, but that doesn't mean that they can get along. Like an atheist and a Christian, they can get along, they may not see eye to eye in beliefs, but they can still be friends.
Or like Mormons and Protestants, The Mormons I believe don't believe in consuming alcohol, but a Protestant may drink, the Mormon doesn't have to accept their ideology, but the protestant drinking is no more no less Christian than any other denomination.
That's how I see it at least
Yep. In this context Dan would suggest that the first generalization “an anime fan will love dragon ball” is not the arbitrary redefinition of the generalization. The arbitrary redefinition only begins when you incorporate the “true, real or genuine” terms which would exclude certain anime fans that dislike Dgz from being considered “real anime fans.”
Or it’s like changing the Venn diagram halfway through, rather than explaining why your initial diagram was correct
Exactly. It is a shortcut, rather than engaging in a discussion about why you think that Dragon Ball is a foundational element of anime fandom, and the reason the poor misguided friend may have to not like Dragon Ball, you take a shortcut and assert a definition that leaves the counter example out of the discussion.
Sounds like a good analogy, though as someone aspiring to be an anime fan, I confess that due to how many episodes there are I have no intention of watching Dragon Ball (please don’t kill me!)😅
"Real anime fans love dragon ball"
What? No they don't i know for a fact that real anime fans only watch Fullmetal Alchemist.
Thats how i see it being used correctly
I would argue that he (and many conservative evangelicals) is not "arbitrarily" defining "Christian" this way. He is *authoritatively* defining "Christian" this way. He fundamentally believes (or at least acts like) that to disagree with him is to disagree with God. He believes that his thoughts are God's thoughts. From the outside, there is no difference between what he is asserting and what God is asserting.
There is no humility. There is no reasoning together to figure out who or what God thinks. He doesn't just know what God wants, but to him what God thinks is indistinguishable from what he thinks.
"There is no humility. There is no reasoning together to figure out who or what God thinks. He doesn't just know what God wants, but to him what God thinks is indistinguishable from what he thinks."
That's what makes it arbitrary rather than authoritative. Just because someone speaks as if they have authority does not mean they actually do. He is not defining "Christian" according to careful reason, but according to his personal whims. He doesn't explain why his criteria are essential, he merely asserts that they are. He has no demonstrable authority to speak for all Christians. We have no objective reason to believe that what he says is reliable or accurate.
Making assertions without basis to suit one's own preference or position is what we generally call arbitrary. Dan carefully explaining how fallacies work from a basis of his dedicated study and expertise is what we generally call authoritative. Attitude has nothing to do with what most of us understand those two terms to mean.
@@JediMobius Arguing from false or imagined authority would be about right.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 indeed, or in one word: pretense.
Trinitarianism is not even specifically mentioned in the New Testament. As Dan might say, only by renegotiating with the text can you come to the conclusion that belief the trinity is something that is required to qualify one as a true Christian. And if you’re even going to attempt to massage the modern conception of the trinity from the New Testament, you’re going to have to commit to some wildly eisegetical apologetics. Alright, Michael Jones, let’s see it.🤭
IMHO (and I have 2 degrees in the field) the trinity was a way to interpret the sacrifice theology. The question is if that sacrifice theology is one of those essentials that "true" Christians need to believe, since it seems that at least in the parable of the prodigal son, the requirement for atonement is return to God, not bloody sacrifice.
@@MrSeedi76 I’m not sure I understand your point. Could you rephrase?
Trinitarianism as in the word isn’t specifically mentioned? Is this a serious road block you have? Because the actual concept is explicitly stated multiple times and is affirmed and also explicitly mentioned by the early church and established in a creed in 325.
@@TrontaviousKatarina You don’t frequent Dan’s channel often, do you? ua-cam.com/video/HwGBQaafIaU/v-deo.htmlsi=QClIJ9Pp38jdkHx2
@@TrontaviousKatarinathe fact that a 300 years after the facts an official statement is needed to solve an interpretation problem by authority should be a big red flag on the actual transparency of the doctrine.
This kid: All "no true Scotsman" fallacies have an arbitrary definition.
Dan: An arbitrary definition is not needed to commit "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
This kid: All TRUE "no true Scotsman" fallacies have an arbitrary definition.
Fair nuff lol
This comment needs to be pinned
gold
😂
It’s a good think IP responded to this highlighting Dan’s mistakes and proving his position 😁
Maybe I missed the reason this came up but it feels really nitpicky. No true scotsman fallacy is really only an issue in discussions when someone starts with a category, and keeps altering it based on counterexamples. Changing or clarifying a categorization in itself isn't really a problem until you try holding both definitions simultaneously. Otherwise it's just kinda annoying but not an issue. All words and labels at the end of the day are arbitrary. What matters is that we're consistent and have a mutual understanding of what's being communicated.
Your last sentence contradicted your penultimate sentence…can’t be arbitrary if there’s a common understanding…
@@TrentonErker it literally can? We can say "rhwlasovuhe" refers to a cat and all mutually agree on it. But that meaning is entirely arbitrary and not derived from anything objective. Covfefe
All of this also ignores that orthodox Christianity is certainly not what the earliest Christians believed. You start out with the religion of Jesus, and then after his death quickly move to the religion ABOUT Jesus, and at that point beliefs about Jesus are being developed, including various Christologies, conceptualizations of the afterlife, and accepted scripture. And each, sometimes wildly different, version of these Jesus based religions could be understood as Christian.
U seem confused and your take is similar to what Mormons believe: Dan being a progressive Mormon ( he denied being an atheist) has this same ignorant view of some Apostasy taking over Christianity after the death of of the Apostles.
I sorta want to know what an American "Christian Nation" is. Since "apostasy" is relative, I have a morbid curiosity about how much Christian-on-Christian blood-letting there will be. Hopefully I'll be able to watch before I get burnt as a steak.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Oh I'm not confused. I'm just happy to deal with the historic realities of early Christianity. You can be happy with dogmas. I sincerely hope they enrich your life.
@@davidjanbaz7728 the apostles did not get along with Paul. Jewish Christians followed the apostles, they rejected Paul
You're not wrong but IP would argue with you until he was blue in the face that his definition of Christianity has been practiced by Christians since roughly Easter sunday.
Yeah, lots of people don't know how fallacies work. They don't address the truth of the premisses or conclusion but only the validity of an argument. My favourite example:
1. Water is wet
2. and grass is green
3. so Vladimir Putin is president of Russia.
The only incorrect word here is "so".
Indeed, and technically, a valid argument is one that does not derive a false conclusion from true premises.
An argument that derives a false conclusion from false premises is valid, but not sound.
An argument that derives a true conclusion from false premises is valid, and is also not sound.
An argument must derive a true conclusion from true premises to be both valid and sound.
As you say, the "so" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and it must be up to the task for the argument to be valid and sound.
I gotta admit that vegan argument would’ve got me. It was around 6:30 where the lightbulb finally went on and I see Dan’s side of it
It does happen. You'd have to be thoroughly trained (like academically) to not fall for it.
Yes, and then it shifts the point of contention, because there's a difference between saying someone, _"eats_ steak (habitually)," and, _"has eaten_ steak(circumstantially)."
@@MarcillaSmithWell, the saying that “no true vegan eats meats” completely dismisses vegans who have occasionally eaten meat due to peer pressure. Since they ate meat, they are no true vegan. Although the fallacy doesn’t specify if vegans who casually eat meat are excluded, we can infer that it does.
You're no longer a vegan if you eat meat and you're no longer a Christian if don't you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour - otherwise you're going to a not so nice place - apparently!
@@Call_Me_RioBut can they really say then that they’re vegan?
In other words, IP may be correct in saying that the identity of being a Christian entails a Trinitarian theology, but he hasn't done the work to establish that, hence he falls afoul of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Further, he will run into a fallacy of reason if he wants to impose Trinitarian theology on the Christian identity marker, as Christians before the third or fourth century would not have been Trinitarians, but IP would want at least some of them included in his tent of Christians as they are necessary for other features of his Christian identity.
He also forgets early Jewish Christians like Nazarenes or Ebionites who even believed Jesus to be a man, a prophet like David, Moses etc. And then evangelicals like to speak about "the gospel" but fail to realize that there is and was never a single gospel. Even Paul mentions that his opponents had a different gospel. Our four are also different in many ways.
@@JopJio Exactly! There is no nuance in IP's apparent position for accepting Christians with a low christology, despite that being such an important part of the early history of the movement.
@@JopJio
What are the other groups of earlier Christians who didn't believe Jesus is God?
@@1youtube_account Jewish Christian groups in general. The names got confused by church fathers and sometimes they just called them all just ebionites for example. so its hard to mention names.
And then we had Unitarians/Arians and its important to note that even Ignatius said its wrong to believe Jesus to be God over all. Ireneus also said the father is the supreme God.
@@JopJioIf they believed that Jesus was merely a man/prophet, that’s not sufficient for being a Christian as per Paul and the words of Jesus himself in the gospels
Whenever McClellanites talk about how Dan "destroys" IP in all their exchanges I just go back to this video and get to enjoy watching Dan whiffing badly again. Dan having to redefine the entire fallacy just so he could make his point and getting to read again all the mental gymnastic the McClellanites had to make so that they could still believe Dan was right was just the cherry on top. I haven't even bothered watching IPs response to this video, it wasn't needed, Dan had already failed to justify his stance.
I’m a progressive Christian who likes both Dan and IP and it feels like mom and dad are fighting about which church I should go to on Sunday.
Then you completely misunderstood what’s going on. It’s not like Dan is saying “Mormonism is the true Christianity and whatever Christianity IP believes in is wrong.”
In brief Dan is saying you can’t exclude Mormonism from Christianity through arbitrary propositions.
@@Call_Me_Rio it was supposed to be a joke. I guess I need to re-evaluate how funny I am. 😅
@@Call_Me_Rio really, I’m just here for the scholarship.
@@shannamathias4176 Oh my bad🤣, your comment just appeared like a joke made from a fallacy.
@@Call_Me_Rio I mean, it kinda was, but I wasn’t trying too hard to avoid logical fallacies. Next time I’ll considered that in my comedic delivery.
"My uncle Angus eats mushroom steaks."
Full point!
when almond milk may not be labelled milk but scrouring milk may
My uncle angus is a steak 🤷♂️
I'll actually be cooking up vege steaks for dinner tonight
@@jamesmachuta2010 Basphemy! 🤣
Would it be a fallacy if the argument was the following?
“All Christians believe in the Trinity”
“JW are Christian and they do not believe in the doctrine of a Trinity”
“To be Christian requires believing in what is described in the Nicene Creed of 381. This creed requires the belief in the consubstantiality of the Father and Son. If JWs don’t believe this then they are not true Christians”
No, because it at least provides an argument that can be interrogated.
@@maklelan Alright. Thanks Dan
As Dan says, no - however, let's interrogate it - 1) by this argument there were no true christians before 381 ad.
That'll do for now. I don't think JWs have got it right, but I wouldn't tell them they're not christians.
"No TRUE Batchelor is Married".
You mean married, right?
don't oppress me with your metaphysical assertions
I had a friend with the last name Bachelor. His wife made good scones. Funny
This whole situation is kind of funny. It started with the guy stating that he was not committing the No True Scotsman fallacy, then Dan agreed but corrected his definition of the fallacy, then the guy decided to argue about it anyway lol
Hopefully some education happens. I'm too lazy to pay tuition, so this'll have to be my degree program in rhetoric.
Where did Dan agree that IP didn't commit the no true Scotsman fallacy😅😅😅😅😅.
IP thinks he knows something about philosophy but he really doesn't.
@@travis1240yeah I like IP and I think Dan has been a pedantic jerk just to sound smart and be correct over all this but I agree, philosophy is not the backbone of IPs apologetics, it's scholarly cherrypicking. Which honestly is probably not too far off from Dan, either
IP is correct about the fallacy, and directly cited numerous philosophers who all confirmed his definition.
Wait, IP thinks that as long as an argument has a true conclusion, it's not invalid? What? :D
true.
that is tbf a fairly widely held and frankly also appealing belief.
it is effectively the rhetoric equivalent of the ends sanctifying the means.
To be more specific true to him(subjectively) cause thats all it is, what he believes to be true.
Cause neither God nor Jesus can deny or confirm he's claims.
But the conclusion he draws is based on personal belief and biases.
When did IP ever say that?
@@dimitris_zaha At 1:36, IP thinks that this argument is valid:
My uncle Angus eats stake,
But no true vegan eats stake,
Therefore, my uncle Angus is not a true vegan.
Specifically, IP thinks that this argument is not an instance of the No True Scotsman Fallacy (which it is, btw, as Dan explains in the video). Presumably, IP makes this mistake because he's under the impression that the conclusion is true (which it isn't, btw, as Dan also explains in the video).
Aren't definitions arbitrary? Why argue about definitions at all?
I've enjoyed watching this back and forth, but I think a live conversation between you and Inspiring Philosophy could go really well. I don't expect you two to ever fully agree (since there is a bit of an underlying data vs dogma issue here), but just getting to the root of the disagreement would help to illustrate how meaning is constructed and negotiated in different contexts.
It's a month later since I last watched this vid. All I can say is that if you believe that Dan is saying something other than something batshit crazy, he could probably convince you that drinking Drain-o is a good idea. According to Dan, you can literally assign any meaning to anything at all and any argument against it is a No True Scotsman fallacy. If we applied Dan's reasoning, communication between people would be meaningless, since the meaning of words would have no basis in anything at all.
If you make a generalization such as “Christians” and defend that generalization by arbitrarily changing it to “true Christian’s” instead of specifying the meaning of the term such as “The majority of Protestant Christian’s” than its completely arbitrary without any good reason.
I think there are two pieces here. One is the _post hoc_ redefinition of the concept under discussion. That's in itself a no-no and something that famously invalidates a low of statistical interpretation in empirical science. The other, and more impressive, piece is the rhetorical use of the word “true” which is a shorthand that generalises over _all possible post hoc redefinitions_ and selects just the one(s) that will win the argument! Genius!
I always thought the No true Scotsman fallacy was very easy to understand. Now through Michael and Dan's back and forth I've learned so much about the nuances of it
There seem to be three interesting problems that pops up when one tries to determine who is a "real" Christian.
1. (Most importantly): You are not the judge of that (we are sure, like Job's friends, to get it wrong)
2. What the Bible say? It often say contradictory things and operative words (like "believe") is notoriously many-faceted and how true and set in stone claim in the Bible are, is hard to determine when we cannot get affirmation from God himself (currently) on whether the claims in the Bible are from him or from the human authors.
3. Are you questioning who is SAVED or who is A DISCIPLE, as in "a good and true servant of Gods will" (this is not the same question). Even what the Bible mean by "saved" (when it uses the term) is hard to pin down (is it an earthly or heavenly association with God we are talking about?), Or is salvation UNIVERSAL or INDIVIDUAL (many are sure of the answer, but the Bible gives directives in BOTH directions).
No. 1 is definitely most important.
@@tezzerii Right, speaking for God is already quite the dubious activity and JUDGING for God is definitely above "our paygrade" as humans!
.. Many volunteer to do so anyway. I guess it is the POWER it lends the speaker that is so irresistible to many ..
You’d think a channel with philosophy in it’s name would understand the basics of fallacies
one of the many ironies of Inspiring Philosophy.
@@bengreen171 well, I guess at least he did inspire us... into not following his steps 😅
No TRUE philosopher would understand the basics of fallacies… sorry, I’ll see myself out.
@@theamazingreptar I'm Dead🤣☠️
You'd think a theologian who identifies as "Christian" would believe in the Trinity
You misunderstood the meaning of arbitrary and now everyone is confused. If I make up what defines true christianity based off my own opinions, that definition is arbitrary, if I say no true christian worships satan, I have not committed a fallacy but rather with knowledge of what it means to be a christian made a factual statement.
Expiring Philosophistry at it again.
At what again?
Correction... Inspiring Dipshitery is at it again
@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness Talking in confused circles.
@@johnrichardson7629 What is IP confused about? Disagreeing with Dan is itself insufficient to warrant the claim of confusion
😂😂
Dan, why move right past the moving of the goalpost problem to get at whether or not this person asserts themself to have the correct definition ?
I remember Jesus breaking bread with tax collectors, prostitutes, he would hang out with and teach sinners. He washed the feet of the disciples and called us to do likewise. Being humble and being of service.
I think some people missed the point. If God loves us unconditionally shouldn't we strive to love others likewise? A prerequisite of acceptance is not understanding or even liking a thing. That's still your brother or sister.
A person could say they're the arch mage 33rd degree of the flying spaghetti monster. How does that effect me at all? I think some apologists need to refocus on more important things, y'know?
But God in the bible does not love unconditionally 😂 and Jesus didnt treat many people well, e.g. the woman which begged him to heal her daughter and when he called her an animal name
@@JopJio we all got to make our own peace with the world, bruv. Imagine, like John Lennon, we all brethren, y'know what I mean? I think that's pretty vital
@@JopJioYep, Jesus was wrong when he did that which contradicted his own teachings to love everyone. No one is perfect, even Jesus. But his teachings to love everyone unconditionally could still change the world.
@@papabear2262If he wasn't perfect then how can he be God.
@@JopJioGod let's it rain on the just and the unjust. And Jesus did heal her daughter because of her argument. He also said about the centurion that he had more faith than Jesus had seen in Israel. Granted, you could make the point that at least at some point, Jesus didn't think he was sent to the whole world, just to the children of Israel. The question is, did he himself open up to the possibility that gentiles should be included in his work of salvation or was it his followers? The "baptize all nations", etc is a word of the risen Christ. In the classic historical critical method and redaction criticism this would have been called "Gemeindebildung" so not a word of Jesus but an expression of faith in him and a sentence that the community has put in his mouth. Nowadays this is not as clear cut as it used to be since the quest for the ipsissima verba has largely failed.
This was such a great explanation of this issue. Wonderful teacher! Example of a fallacy that has a "true" conclusion based on false premises. Divorce is rampant in America. We only stand a 50 percent chance of survival. Therefore, we can't get married." This can happen in all types of syllagisms! I don't get why IP doesn't understand that "true" is a moving term. Refutation at its finest!
There are actually extenuating circumstances when a vegan would eat steak, unless they are also a vegetarian. Dan makes similar points very well in this video.
However, I couldn't possibly comment on whether vegans would put sugar on their porridge, even though I am a Scotsman and a vegetarian.
I mean, no real Scottish vegetarian would ever use these ridiculous fallacies, anyway.
The e-mail I remember is "I think the vegetarian chow mein has shrimp in it. I don't think I am vegetarian anymore. :)"
@@icollectstories5702 I've accidentally eaten shrimp before, and I think I've eaten most types of meat by accident once in my life, but I'm still a vegetarian because I didn't decide to just start eating meat on the basis of that happening.
But there is a distinction between vegans and vegetarians in that vegetarianism refers to a diet, while veganism is an ideological framework.
So vegetarians don't eat meat, for whatever reason (eg. health concerns) and vegans try to minimise the amount of animal suffering that their actions cause for ideological reasons.
Hopefully you can see there's a huge overlap, but for instance a vegan could technically eat roadkill while a vegetarian wouldn't. Vegans might take the view that if someone has made them a meat dinner without realising, they may as well eat it and avoid waste, while I myself just would go hungry in that situation, because I won't choose to eat meat under any circumstances, so the venn diagram isn't a total overlap for the two things.
@@integrationalpolytheism Would you allow yourself to die?
I'm sure anyone who eats farm products -- or jogged -- has eaten insects. I assume the intent is purer than the world.
There is no unvocality in Super Mario Brothers, BRO
1 King Koopa 8:15: “On this day is born unto you one who is with the Pipes but not of the Pipes. In this one the Kingdom of Mushroom will have freedom”
2nd Bros. 12:22-27: “and Mario spoke, ‘has it not been said in the script of yore that one would come who was one with the Pipes but not of the Pipes? Behold my wrench and my mustache!’ And the Koopa Troopas did fling their shells at him and called him blasphemer.’”
So sick of you liberal “Mario Fans”. No true Mario fan would ever speak against univocality.
That's entirely true, yeah. Different teams work on each game, so mechanics used to defeat enemies in one game may result in taking damage when playing another.
@@alexanderfloyd5099 In thy mercy 😍😉🍄🍄🍄♾🙌
Because IP is invested in the necessary and sufficient features which to him are not "arbitrary," he seems to be hindered in conceiving of arbitrarily adding non-arbitrary, to him, features. In the sources used, the philosophers refer to the adding/changing of features as arbitrary (and often adverbally) whereas IP seems to have equivocated with arbitrariness (vs meaningfulness) of the features (adjectivally in his usage) themselves. Similarly, as you point out, he's not clearly differentiating between sound reasoning and sound conclusions and the relation between the two. I scrolled through some of the comments on IP's thread and similarly pondered about a general disinterest for this level of critical thought. And from there, I wondered about empathy. As such, I rarely aspire to engage in meaningful to me conversations with "true believers" about these matters.
I thought IP made some interesting points. But logical fallacies can be very subtle in their language, so I totally understand why IP might’ve missed this. If Dan hadn’t pointed out the “arbitrary RE-definition” clause, I would’ve agreed with IP.
Philosophy is so subtle.
Hi
I copy pasted my comment
And I wanted to discuss it
2:45 The problem is
That this isn't what actually happens during discussions
2:55 here is the problem
I don't see where the arbitrary redefinition is
Let's say some American dude said that no American had ever committed a crime
And you give an example and he so happens to have spent half his life in the UK (and of course he was born in the us and committed the crime here)
Now the arguer decided to arbitrarily change the definition of Americans to exclude his fellow American
Just so he can save his false generalization
But Michael's original example
Doesn't involve an arbitrary redefinition
Michael stated that a vegan by definition is
Cambridge definition
"a person who does not eat or use any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather"
According to this definition someone who eats steak is not a vegan
Someone came along and told Michael that his uncle Angus
Is a vegan and does eat steak
Michael responded with "no true vegan eats steak"
Where is the redefinition
The word TRUE
Well no it didn't change the meaning at all
All the arguer did by using the word true was claiming that uncle Angus is a phony
But nothing was added to the original definition
The arguer simply chose a hill to die on by reaffirming his position
Now you could argue that the arguer in this case committed a different fallacy by appealing to his position as evidence for his position
But there are these things that are known a priori without any need for logical argumentation
Like the fact that someone who eats steak isn't a vegan
More on that later
However you can accuse Michael of this fallacy when appealing to his presuppositions about the development of the doctrine of let's say the hypostatic union
Because unlike being a vegan or "1=1" the Michael's proposition doesn't seem obvious
Therefore he needs to prove his definition of Christianity before making the generalization
Which is frankly what you should have spent the video on instead of actually trying to explain why someone who eats meat is a vegan
3:31
Why should I think that Vegan is a social label
Like sure we can model almost everything as social labels
But why should I think that the opinion of people who identify as something is relevant to the discussion
Professions are labels that aren't given based on whether or not you identify with them
(Response to the original video)
And no I don't care if
Person x wants to be a vegan but he can't
He is still not a vegan even if he identifies as such
4:17 sadly the problem Is that moral imperfection doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone is a Scotsman
Because it relates to either ethnicity or nationality not morality
Unlike veganism
Because veganism is related to your diet so it absolutely matters
4:28 Michael gave a nice counterexample in his response
We don't call someone a "medical doctor" unless he fits a certain definition
Identification comes after establishing a definition
5:38 as I explained no he didn't
7:08 once again
There is absolutely no difference
Adding the word orthodox or genuine doesn't automatically guarantee fallacious argumentation
9:46 oh boy I am excited for the drama
Note I know
Dr Dan ain't reading this
I just like to talk to myself in second person
That's all
Extra note
I meant that the definition of vegan that the arguer was using already excludes uncle Angus
There is no need for a redefinition to exclude him
Unlike Anthony's second example
Where the definition of Scotsman doesn't exclude criminals
So the arguer had to redefine
The definition of Scotsman to necessitate moral adherence
Turning his generalization into a necessary feature of being a Scotsman
No matter how hard Inspiring Philosophy tries to define being a Christian based on personal beliefs or biases, it will always be logically flawed. Using the example of veganism, if we Google the definition of Christian, it's simply believing in Jesus and his teachings and God (the Father Jesus points to). So, while it's correct to say that no vegan eats meat, equating this to no Christian who doesn't believe in the Trinity not being a Christian is misleading and a false equivalence. A more accurate analogy would be to say that no vegan who works in a restaurant preparing meat is a true vegan, even though they themselves don't eat meat.
Christianity traditionally revolves around the belief in Jesus and God, not exclusively on the acceptance of the Trinity. Insisting that only those who adhere to the Trinity are 'true' Christians parallels the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, where definitions are manipulated to exclude individuals who do not meet a particular standard.
Moreover, Jesus himself never explicitly stated that belief in the Trinity is a prerequisite for entering the kingdom of heaven."
I find this very odd. I was literally just pondering about this and 2 minutes later I find your comment
@@Call_Me_Rio pondering about what exactly lol
@@SherlockReasoning The trinity. The Bible doesn’t explicitly talk about the concept of the trinity. The trinity is a conclusion that was made by early Christian apologist. Therefore Inspiring philosophy can’t definitively incorporate this conclusion to the definition of “Christian”.
Basically IP can’t omit Mormons from being deemed “Christians” merely because they don’t believe in the trinity, since it’s not an official and inerrant requirement of being a Christian (According to the Bible).
In my opinion being a Christian is just a person who follows the teachings of Christ, wether you believe he’s god or not.
I came to this conclusion since there’s to much contention between concepts and Christian doctrines like the trinity or the belief that Jesus is God.
@@Call_Me_Rio yeah correct. Inspiring philosophy is moving the goal post and adding/changing definitions to fit his point
@@Call_Me_Rioto simply "follow the teachings of Jesus" isn't as easy as it sounds. That's already an arbitrary border to draw. We only know about Jesus from the gospels, which are a combination of ancient biographies (with all the problems that entails) and faith documents. Theologians had a hard time determining the "ipsissima verba" the "true words of Jesus". The criteria to determine those words were in part contradictory (like the "dissimilarity" and "similarity" argument).
So gospels are already a part of the tradition of Christianity and they might have been written 10 years later or 40 years later, depending on who makes the better points for dating them. So we might claim, "we only follow the Bible" (Protestants) which means accepting that we cannot know if Jesus truly said all the things he says in the gospels. Or we say "we follow the whole tradition" (Roman catholic and Eastern Orthodox) because the new testament is just one part of that tradition. Then of course we run into issues like celibacy contradicting the fact that the apostles were married or "eternal vows" contradicting the fact that Jesus said "don't swear", etc. In each case we have to do the work and decide for ourselves and "cherry pick". I don't think that's a bad thing BTW. Jesus cherry picked the old testament himself and gave it his own interpretation (even if we can find parallels to that in other Jewish teachers).
The earliest christians including paul and the apostles , the patristic authors and apostolic fathers then are not christians because they dont believe in the trinity.. because the trinitarian doctrine was not invented yet during their time
But something something if you ACTUALLY read tha Baybel and interpret it the way eye doo, you'll see that the Holy Trinity is in there in the subtextual intellextual blahblahblah
@@jonhopp
Yeah… i know!
If you just squint your eyes hard enough… hmmm
I’m excited for the response
*apologist shrieking*
IP is literally is right. Adding real or true at the end of vegan is not a fallacy. Dan is fighting a lost battle here @@drj-pp8hw
@HardCore_Islamist atheist Liberal Bible scholars and Muslims got a truce going on 😂
@@drj-pp8hw lol, Dan had lost before IP even replied. The reply IP did give was just the cherry on the top. Dan bit off way more then he could chew on this one.
I totally misundersttod that fallacy too. Good to learn
This is a complete assumption, but Dan seems to be a bit more relative (and realistic) vs. the other guy with truth. Dan understands you can make arguments to prove who should be included in Christianity, but the other guy seems to think there is just one group of “true” Christians. Therefore, he doesn’t need an argument. He can just use the term “true” Christian as though it is already defined.
The problem for IP is that he never clearly defines what he considers orthodox and he never even tells people to which strand of Christianity he belongs. I guess he's trying to emulate Lewis and his "Mere Christianity" in a way but unfortunately it often comes across as patchwork as he seems to want to address as many Christians as he can but still uphold that there is one true Christianity.
Damn scholarly biblical internet beef is a sight to see 😬😂
You need to understand that in his mind, there is an objectively "correct" way to be a Christian and that's the way God would want you to behave and he thinks he knows that. Since his worldview is top-down, instead of emergent, talking about it from a "social identity" angle is going to be complete lost on him, even if he understands your underlying point and even though it's his analogy. $100 says he responds saying that he's not trying to renegotiate the boundaries of Christianity, God/Jesus already did that already, he's just marking the borders and surveying the plot.
There may not be an objectively “correct” way to be a Christian but there is an objective belief you must have to be a Christian. Two totally different things that you seem to have conflated.
@@TrontaviousKatarina That's why I put it in "quotes." I'm also not speaking for all Christians, I'm speaking about Fundamentalists, specifically Apologists, even most specifically the Apologist in this video. The constant gatekeepers of "true Christianity" (hopefully the sarcasm/inflected tone will come through this time).
Surely, they are as obnoxious in the Christian camp as they are trying to annoy us?
This was fun to listen to. Took me back almost 50 years to a philosophy class I had in college. Keep the good work Dan!!
Bottom line: IP wants permission to be superior to persons who they probably don't even know
No, he is simply stating that by definition some sects cannot be called Christian. I mean, jsut logic.
@@revertrevertz5438Yeah and he’s not wrong about that either.
@@revertrevertz5438 "... by definition ..." - The problem is that IP, in this case, is the one providing the definition. IP is entitled to give his definition; indeed, this is good practice in some ways. But if other people who call themselves "Christian" have a slightly different definition of what that means, we reach an impasse because there is no definitive, universally-agreed definition of what a Christian IS. Declaring by fiat, as it were, that Christianity must be X, and then excluding Christianities Y and Z on the basis of one's preferred definition seems to me to be a clear case of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
@@Nai61a that’s what definitions are for. You have to put a limit to things. Mormonism is by definition opposite to the most intrinsic characteristics of Christianity. If we include Mormonism within Christianity, then we are obliged to include Bahais or Muslims
as well.
@@revertrevertz5438 But definitions - in this kind of context - are flexible. You clearly think you know what a Christian is, but, forgive me for putting it like this, who are you to decide what are "the most intrinsic characteristics of Christianity"? Your opinion - and your definition - are no more reliable or definitive than the next (wo)man's. Roman Catholics will tell you one thing, Baptists, Methodists ... etc will tell you something else. Then there are Eastern and Greek Orthodox, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses ... There is NO way to come up with a definitive statement about what a Christian IS, unless you can get all of these different groups to sign up to something. Good luck with that! The best you could hope for, in my view, is a statement of basic elements which would include what everybody agreed on and exclude anything controversial - the status quo, in fact.
Exactly, some Vegans use leather products because they are more sustainable and have a lower negative impact on animal life
No, Dan. It is you who continues to not understand the fallacy.
_"Two things here. First they absolutely committed the no true Scotsman fallacy. Just because your conclusion is accurate does not mean your argument cannot be a fallacy and just because your argument is fallacious does not mean that your conclusion is falsified or wrong."_
_"That fundamentally misunderstands the nature of informal fallacies. Because they're not saying oh well let's take a look at how we understand what a vegan is how people typically use the word vegan and you can see that your uncle is not actually a vegan. That would be providing an argument but to respond to my uncle Angus is a vegan and he eats steak by saying well no true vegan eats stake is changing the boundaries of the claim arbitrarily by presuming to have the prerogative to dictate the difference between true veganism and false veganism. That's the arbitrariness. That's the change. That's the fallacy. So it is absolutely a fallacy even if you have an
accurate conclusion."_
Nope. First off, "No vegan eats steak" is not a generalization. It is literally definitional of being a vegan. No one is going to argue with it. Well, except you, apparently, who said earlier that words don't have to have meaning. The rest of us understand that vegans don't eat meat.
So, when the other guy says "Well, my cousin Angus is a vegan and he eats steak", what we get is everyone wondering how in the heck is Angus a vegan, then?
Then, when the first guy says "Yeah, but no true vegan eats steak" everyone listening to the argument is going to say, "That's right". That would be because everyone knows there's no arbitrary redefinition, or changing the boundaries of what constitutes a vegan being introduced here. Because most people aren't complete idiots and understand that words have definitions, no further argument need be made.
In the original example of no Scotsman would put sugar on their porridge, the "what the heck" moment comes with that statement. Everyone's wondering what sugar on porridge has to do with being a Scotsman. When the obvious is pointed out about Angus putting sugar on his porridge, the fallacy comes with obscuring the indefensibleness of the generalization by trying to change the boundaries with a new term.
That doesn't happen with the case concerning vegans and steaks. Do you see now? No one, except you, is going to argue with the definition of vegan. They're going to argue whether Angus can be a vegan if he eats steak. Michael is spot on in showing your misunderstanding concerning what constitutes a no true Scotsman fallacy.
The way you treat the subject, we could never actually identify what a true Scotsman actually is which, I suspect, is your goal. Hence your statement...
_"But to respond to my uncle Angus is a vegan and he eats steak by saying well no true vegan eats steak is changing the boundaries of the claim arbitrarily by presuming to have the prerogative to dictate the difference between true veganism and false veganism."_
Um, yeah. Words having an actual, defined meaning is bad. Got it. Insisting that words have definitions must be the evil work of, how did you put it in that other video??? Oh, yeah.
_"and the only denomination in which there's just a plurality of members who reject the Christianity of Mormons is white evangelicals the group most committed to structuring power and values and boundaries to serve their own interests."_
Yep, those evil white evangelicals insisting that words have definite meanings! Where will it all end???
This is insane. This guy is saying we can't actually define anything at all.
No cats are dogs.
But my cat, who was raised by a dog, thinks it's a dog.
But it's not a real dog.
And then a bunch of twaddle about the audacity of dictating what constitutes a cat.
Dan doesn't want the Bible to have any meaning so that he can believe whatever he wants. He is also adamantly against anyone who does believe the Bible has meaning because the Bible denounces everything Dan personally stands for and he can't stand it. His biases have severely clouded his judgement.
I love the passion for logic required to make this. Thank you!
This was insanely helpful. I was asking similar questions after the last post and this really cleared up exactly what it means to commit a fallacy. Thanks!
Looking forward to an actual conversation between the 2 of you
Dan would never. If he isn't talking to his internet atheist friend on his podcast then he's talking to his camera and nothing else
More like inspiring philosophy, would never dare to have an actual conversation with Dan. He get crushed. Dan always has receipts. IP can’t even represent his own sources correctly, as Dan demonstrated so clearly here.
@@CharlesPayet Dan has never debated anyone before to prove that he always has receipts lol Mike has debated in person against the worst debate opponent there is: Muslims
@@TheEagleChristian I’ve seen Mike’s “debates.” They’re depressingly bad.
@@CharlesPayet Really? Cus' I saw Mike debate Aron Ra and he pretty much just wiped the floor with him.
In all these arguments and counter-arguments by Christian apologists, I still do not hear the most important thing:
What is a TRUE Christian?
I have asked this of people, both well-known apologists and pastors and theologians I've known personally, before, during, and after my time as a Christian, and still, in the many years I've been asking it, I have yet to receive any definition even a sizable minority agree upon that can stand up to the barest scrutiny.
I'd give it up if I were you. Make your own definition if you like, but don't hold others to it. That would be the christian thing to do =o)
Shouldn't be all that hard - take what Jesus described as the "essence of the law and the prophets" - the double commandment of love (already pretty hard to follow) and combine it with the Golden Rule, maybe sprinkle a bit of the 4 laws on top that the apostles decided upon (Acts 15) - I think you're good to go. Everything else comes after that, like trinity, atonement, etc. The gospels don't even agree on the interpretation of Jesus's death. Was it a bloody sacrifice to atone for our sins? Or does God forgive if we just repent? Or did Jesus just not want to leave his friends (gospel of John basically - surprisingly "low christology" there)? And was his death later reinterpreted or did he interpret it himself? Questions upon questions and the reason why theology is so interesting. The reason why I studied it. But in the end, it's "literary science with just one book" that's what I used to call it. We can read it but we shouldn't expect the authors to follow our modern way of thinking. Applying logic already presupposes to accept quite a bit of things about the world that aren't necessarily presupposed by the biblical authors. Or the ones who compiled the gospels. Otherwise they would have known that the discrepancies or even contradictions between them might cause problems. Obviously they didn't see it that way. And that wasn't because they were dumb as some theologians seem to think.
@@MrSeedi76 no, it shouldn't be hard. But apparently it is, because people want to put you in a box and dismiss you.
If the evangelical gate keepers are right, the population of Heaven is one.
I don't think IP is evangelical at all. But the question is "what's a true evangelical" 😂?
Yeah, and he's already there.
@@MrSeedi76 I see what you did there.
In the LGBT+ community, we have to allow for conflicts between identity and behavior, for example, a lesbian who is in a sexual relationship with a man. A good fictional study of the phenomenon is the setup for _Bob and Rose_ a British TV series by Russel T. Davies, in which a gay man and a straight woman fall in love, and they and everyone around them have to confront how that conflicts with identities and definitions. But LGBT+ identities are controversial and the need for the closet (for keeping desires and relationships clandestine) continues to exist.
Indeed, bisexuals have often had to have two doors on the closet, expressing their gayness among gay associates and expressing heterosexual opinions among family and business colleagues. Lesbian communities have had to contend with gatekeeping by _gold star lesbians_ who've never engaged with men at all, as opposed to those who have before or sometimes still do. We sometimes have to remind people that the big index of definitions is a tool for understanding your own sexual and gender identity, and not something to use to judge others.
And so it is with Christianity, though religious ministries are also fraught with gatekeeping, even though most of them teem with parishioners who do not fully accept the creeds and statements of faith as asserted by their church. Catholics in the developed world notoriously use birth control even when the Pope, CDF and USCCB demands they do not.
And because definitions of _Christian_ vary from church to church, if not from individual to individual, those of us on the outside have to assume a Christian is anyone who identifies as one, no matter their behaviors or assertions. And yes, this lends itself to even atheist Christians who see Jesus as merely a man who did not perform miracles nor was resurrected. But then, cultural Catholics exist, who go to church not because they believe, but because it is a social occasion that is useful to them.
As with conservative, feminist, communist, goth, Juggalo, gamer, etc. social identities are often so big as to include people whose opinions run contrary to (or are inconsistent with) commonly understood doctrine, and we cannot assume that just because someone identifies as a thing that we understand their positions. Often they align, but often enough they do not align, and if the LGBT+ community informs, any kind of assertion that someone is _not a real Republican_ or _not a valid rock-&-roller_ or _not truly gay_ is just gatekeeping. Everyone's identity is valid and has to be.
And so it is for Christians, trinitarian or otherwise.
That's fair, "I'm gay/straight, except for this one person" is hardly unheard-of. When it's 99%/1%, there's a reasonable argument that label really does apply better than "bisexual " would.
I wasn't totally satisfied with your previous video, and I found this re-re-response more successful. Thanks for revisiting!
When someone makes the argument that words don't have meaning, you can stop listening
@@TheEagleChristian Words don't have INHERENT meaning. Maybe we need another video to address the Strawman fallacy.
@@juanausensi499 He actually claimed words don't have "coherent" meaning, maybe you should rewatch the blasphemer's video
@@TheEagleChristianhe never said that words don’t have meaning. What he said is that words are just sounds and we as a society agree that certain sounds invoke certain conceptual ideas, and those ideas are contingent on many factors, like where you’re from, who you’re surrounded by, your culture etc. So to try to reduce words down to a single definition goes against how we conceptualize words and is going to create issues when someone has a slightly different context of what a word means than you do
@@rensjosephus3152 which is exactly why its so important to come to mutual understandings of what words mean. Dan refuses to use the accepted definition of Christian which includes Trinitarian belief, which is why he's wrong and not a Christian.
circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works
It’s almost like inspiring philosophy doesn’t even think the fallacy exists.
Dan himself commits a question-begging fallacy (i.e. flagrant circular reasoning) by invoking "all people who identify as Christian." But what is the definition of Christian? He's either getting the logic completely backwards or just projecting.
no, nice try. I hear from evangelicals that Catholics are not true christions and the sane from catholics
@@67cudaksa34 no nice try, two wrongs dont make a right.
I read through the comments on IPs response video and the ad hominem attacks were exactly what I would expect from “rational and loving” evangelicals. The term ‘pseudo-intellectual’ was thrown around with little to no self awareness on their part. It is clear to me that Dan does not qualify as a pseudo-intellectual.
What makes you think that his audience is just evangelicals? I wouldn't even claim IP is one himself. AFAIK he's a member of a high church. Of course the definition of evangelical is probably as murky as the definition of a "true" Christian. I'd argue that most evangelicals today are fundamentalists not upholding any of the things evangelicals held true in the 70's.
@4:03 What do you mean by perfect and imperfect vegan?
Thanks Dan...pretty new to your channel and enjoying your rational breakdowns. I'm starting to understand that a lot of people mistake the basic premise of philosophy. In my own experience, I've always had it described in more esoteric/feel good terms and your videos are helping to make clear that it is quite the opposite and is more interested in being systematic and logical in its approach.
I’m assuming that the Inspiring Philosophy channel is not run by trained philosophers, because, wow, he even misread the paragraphs he was using to try and defend his position. I have taught critical reasoning courses to undergraduates who understand the fallacy better than him.
My thing with Mormons , JW’s, and other Restorationist denominations isn’t even about the Trinity, but more that the reoccurring concept in the origin of these movements is that the original Church as described in the New Testament was “lost” in time, and that the faith leaders of each movement was brought forth to restore the Church to what it originally was during Antiquity. This is different than the Great Schism or even earlier splits in that there was understandably one church until theological and sometimes political differences lead to a split between them to no longer be in “union”. Of course each of these denominations have varying stances upon being the “the one true original church” but the Restoration movement leaders believed none of them were ever part of the church in the first place. I would understand why Christians who affirm the councils would think that Christians that believe that they were never part of the ancient church are “not Christians”
This is embarrassing for you Dan. You made a mistake. Admit it. Move on. This round goes to IP. You'll get him next time.
I don't know man. Inspiring Philosophy is a LOT more arrogant, so he must be right, right?
I'm glad you made this video, Dan. This clarification has helped me better understand the fallacy.
I have learnt so much about fallacies, the true Scotsman fallacy, arbitrary redefinitions in arguments from this video. I love it and I can use all this in my work. Thanks Dan!!!
Also that other guy is a jerk, mormons are as christian as the pope is catholic 😉
Are Muslims Christian for believing in Jesus?
i love that in one portion of the video, the “philosophy “ guy clearly explains what the fallacy is about, and still doesn’t understand his own logic
Jesus Christ is the Everlasting 1-Up.
Youth pastor comment
Just watched these back-and-forth videos and Dan got whipped. Furthermore, Dan comes across as an arrogant, pontificating authoritarian that would like us to believe that he is draped in a mantle of (self) righteousness. He's not as smart as he thinks he is. Dan seems to think that Doctors, for instance, shouldn't have a say in who is called a "doctor" because they are drawing an "authoritarian boundary" around themselves that excludes non-doctors who, nevertheless, think of themselves as doctors. In this case, the actual Doctors are safeguarding their profession from those who would, inevitably, defame and disgrace it. The early church policed itself and excommunicated erring members. Paul even provided instruction on who to "withdraw" from. Were they committing both "logical fallacies" and drawing arbitrary , authoritarian boundaries around themselves?
Man, I can hardly wait for Michael to rebut this.
My thing with Mormons , JW’s, and other Restorationist denominations isn’t even about the Trinity, but more that the reoccurring concept in the origin of these movements is that the original Church as described in the New Testament was “lost” in time (aka the Great Apostasy) and that the faith leaders of each movement was brought forth to restore the Church to what it originally was during Antiquity. This is different than the Great Schism or even earlier splits in that there was understandably one church until theological and sometimes political differences lead to a split between them to no longer be in “union”. Of course each of these denominations have varying stances upon being the “the one true original church” but the Restoration movement leaders believed none of them were ever part of the church in the first place. I would understand why Christians who affirm the councils would think that Christians that believe that they were never part of the ancient church are “not Christians”
so inspiring philosophy basically strawman's the no true Scotsman fallacy.....Damn
I think that might be called the 'vaguely accurate Glaswegian' fallacy.
I don’t think this is straw man fallacy bro lol
the other way this would not be a fallacy is that if every person or group being referenced within the first statement "Christians", had come to an absolute agreement on what constituted being called a Christian, then if an additional supposed "Christian" group arose in the second statement they were added to the first statement and a reshuffling of the defining aspects were again agreed upon. You'd never get to the fallacy at all. The arbitrary aspect is introduced when you cut the inclusiveness and the 'definition' becomes 'dead'.
Incorrect.
Scotsman is a national identity which is not specific to anything other than being a Scotsman. Vegan is very specific in that if you are truly vegan you never eat steak. Someone who eats steak is not a true vegan.
No true Scotsman is of Irish descent would be a viable argument.
No TRUE Super Mario Bros. fan would wear a shirt identifying Princess Toadstool as "Peach."
Boom, roasted.
When a person is themselves as a Christian. I accept that. It's not up to me to decide what a person believes
Sounds more like an issue of semantics.
I think these 2 are just talking past each other. I think inspiring philosophy was more making the distinction that there is a ground to say Mormons aren’t true Christian and that CONCLUSION not be fallacious. And Dan is just saying the presentation is.
I acknowledged and pointed this very thing out in both videos. IP and his audience are the only ones not getting it.
Thank you for this video Dan. It actually helped me understand No True Scotsman better and, well, more completely. As always I appriciate your videos very much. Keep up the good work!
I would change the eats steak to keeps house pets to make the thought process a little more challengeing. Because then it really adresses the meaning and concept of veganism.
This video sounded like a heated discussion. Put another way, Dan sounded I'll say passionate about this issue (as opposed to the video / person in it trying to prove _his_ point with his "knowledge." I liked it, but I found myself thinking, "If Dan were to do a video where HE plays both parts of this discourse, that would be _really_ interesting to watch.
Object substitution often allows us to evaluate things more clearly. Maybe if we changed it to, say, No centaurs eat licorice,' then IP might be better able to focus on the structure of the argument.
I think anyone who believes that Jesus is God, and at the same time makes a statement about what a true Christian is or isn't based on their belief about the Trinity, is missing the point entirely.
Jesus never said that his people would be called Christians. He never said his people would believe in the Trinity either. He said his people would love each other in such a way that his people would all value each other as much as each individual valued themselves.
"Christian" is a term that men came up with and adopted to convince each other that they follow Christ. There is no divinity attached to it, and Jesus never put his stamp of approval onto it.
Honest Christians ought to let go of the pride they've wrapped around themselves with regard yo that term, and perhaps come to terms with the fact that there is highly likely to be plenty of people who don't identify as Christian whom Jesus would find favor in.
Of course Jesus didn't define christians that's why we do it. You can't just call yourself a christian and say muhammad is a prophet of allah that's nonsense
Christianity is not the same as being a vegan. You can boil down veganism to the lack of animal products in a diet. What is the definition of Christianity and who determines this? Catholics? The creeds? Lots of people before and after the creeds never signed up or agreed with them. It’s like saying before the exact wording of the nicean creed, there were no / or hardly any christian’s
Dear Dr Dan , I have been following you through your podcasts ever since I first saw your interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I think you are brilliant and very enjoyable. Do you know of and collaborate with Dr David Bokovoy?
No uncle Angus did not commit the ntsf. Just because uncle Angus identifies as a vegan the very fact that he eats steak violates the definition of what a vegan is.
If another person said they were a bible scholar but had no degrees or education in the New Testament Dan would be justified in saying that they are not a New Testament scholar.
Just because your argument is not detailed doesn’t mean you committed the ntsf
Dan. Bro. Wtf. You have lost ya marbles
I don't think he misrepresented all three sources. He only misrepresented the primary source by Antony Flew. I read the other two (at least what's shown on the screen), and unlike the primary source, they don't claim that it's necessary for the redefinition to exclude the counter example by using words like "true," "genuine," or such.
The first source by Stuart Hanscomb even says that it's also known as an ad hoc rescue, which shifts the focus to the arbitrary redefinition rather than the fixating on words like "true" or "genuine." Note how he is the only one to highlight the redefinition from being purely geographical to describing a specific attitude. The second source doesn't say anything about these words except in the examples.
In my opinion, it'd be best to separate the two fallacies ad hoc rescue and no true Scottsman. First, while in many cases a no true Scottsman is an ad hoc rescue, notice how in the "no true democrats" example provided by the second source, an altercation was not made. However, the point is that by appending the word "true," even if not exclusive to the response, all potential counter examples could be ignored, and consequently untrained listeners could be deceived. Thus, it may be seen as an ad hoc rescue, though if that requires an explicit shift of definition, then the "no true Democrat" example cannot be sufficiently called an ad hoc rescue.
I will also note that it is helpful to distinguish between true and by name if certain metaphysical assertions are taken to be true. For instance, accepting the Catholic worldview, one may consider themselves Christian, but we could say he's not a "true Christian," i.e, one who God would consider to be a humble servant, and that could be established via Catholic doctrines, and I don't believe that would be committing a true Scottsman fallacy since in this case the word "true" does not lead to an ad hoc rejection of counter examples, as the definition would have been well stipulated.
To conclude, I believe IP and Dr. McClellan are covering two different fallacies, thanks to common errors found in most logic books (ironic, I know). I also believe the main way to avoid the fallacy is to simply make it clear whether we're using a stipulative or a lexical definition. The true Scottsman fallacy, as far as I understand, could only be made in examples where the argumenter intentionally confuses between what's lexically known and what's stipulative, whereas in the Catholic example I mentioned, no such confusion could occur.
Let me know if I got anything wrong! Thanks
TL;DR
I don't think any of the sources got it right. No true Scottsman should not involve an arbitrary redefinition. Rather, it's going from a lexical understanding to a stipulative definition *without* noting the differentia.
Thank you for this follow up. I sorta got it in your previous video, but it really clicked this time around!
First time I've ever disagreed with Dan.
I don't care how someone identifies. Words have meanings.If you eat steak, you are not a vegan. Philosophy does tend to lead to nonsense.
Similarly, anyone can call themselves a Christian. That doesn't make it so, not when there is a thing called lying.
What an actual Christian is, is a more difficult question. If it's just an identity then it truly has no meaning, except a social one. I was brought up as a Christian, and I see the name used as a talisman by crooks who want to appear good. I think there needs to be a minimal set of beliefs that define a religion.
His argument is one from absurdism, post-modern bullshit.
completely agree. Also a former Christian. Dan is just doing the "how can you really know how something is defined". If take Dan's philosophy to everything, it will lead me to a belief that nothing means nothing. I can deconstruct every definition of everything.
No, he is being rather technical and precise
I identify as Dan McClellan and you misrepresent what being Dan McClellan is 😤
This was so necessary
I know it’s sort of a different wheelhouse, but I wish Dan would do a course on Fallacies… this breaks down can make some of the tougher ones make sense
Thank you Dan for doing this cuz I seen this guy debate many people many times and it doesn't comprehend the typical fallacies and this is a great example of you calling him out thank you
"One true and living [Mario Game]"
Excellent.
Disappointed that you didn't invoke the fallacy fallacy at 2m40