Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!
* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.
|
Hi Ryan,
Yes, that is a prime example of the no true scotsman fallacy.
Not necessarily. Making generalizations is often helpful; it is the hasty generalization that is problematic. Similarly, stereotyping is both a useful and necessary heuristic; but stereotyping (the fallacy) can also be problematic under several conditions (see fallacy link for details).
Of course, if one has that option. It is also helpful to agree on criteria that qualifies or excludes one from being a "Christian." Note that this isn't objective—in lieu of objective criteria, a shared understanding will do. If those involved in the discussion agree that in order to be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus was divine, then "those are true Christians" can be non-fallaciously used within that context assuming the subset referred to do not believe that Jesus was divine. On a related note, precision in language is far more truthful, honest, accurate, and productive. Here are some examples: Virtually all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. The last example is the most precise and most useful in debate or argumentation. Words such as "most," "some," "many," etc. can be used to deceive while technically not being wrong. "Many" is a good example that is virtually meaningless. "Many people are saying... " comes to mind. Hope that helps. |
|||
answered on Sunday, Jan 03, 2021 07:57:35 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|