'No True Scotsman' would believe that nonsense!

Today, I was reading an article by Sam Harris about Muslims and their apparent inability to come to terms with the reality that is the Qur’an. Harris is talking about moderate Muslims who claim that the Qur’an is a book of peace and love, while deftly ignoring or fobbing off the passages that are unequivocally violent, judgmental, intolerant, cruel et al. Obviously, all religious books seem to fall into the dualistic trap, trying to be both things at once, leaving the ‘believer’ or ‘faithful’ to figure out on their own which hat to wear today.

Since the horrific events of 9-11, more Americans wonder about the Qur’an, and how political/social/psychological honesty can possibly flow from such an obviously conflicted source. I’ve been asking this in regard to the Bible and other religious tracts for the better part of 30 years. In that sense, I don’t think we need to hold Muslims up to a different standard - especially publicly via Congressional hearings - than any other religious group. Why didn’t we hold similar hearings on Evangelical Christianity as a result of violent or socially disruptive tactics employed by the Westboro Baptist Church or anti-abortion ‘activists’.

Such is the schizophrenic nature of a so-called ‘christian’ nation as it attempts to view those of ‘other’ persuasions. If I were Muslim, I’d be pissed off. After all, the Constitution allows me to be just as muddled in my thinking as Christians and Jews, as long as I don’t break any laws.

What kept running through my head, was the logical fallacy referred to as ‘No True Scotsman’. Here is how Wikipedia explains it:

No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.^[1]

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”

—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.

Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!

Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

So, if a moderate Muslim wishes, they can simply say that ‘No True Believer’ would cherry-pick the violent/intolerant passages of the Qur’an - instead focusing on the more pleasant passages. Yet, they do. Just like Evangelicals cherry-pick chapter and verse to suit their fearful agendas.

One thing that all believers seem to miss, is how an all-knowing, all-loving creator would impart holy books that are so ambiguous and open to flawed interpretation. Certainly the ‘creator’ ought to know that his flawed ‘children’ might get it wrong - all the while having the best, if misguided, intentions. When’s the last time you went to a movie with a teenager and wondered if you’d gone to separate films?

This doesn’t slow the ‘True Believer’, though. They simply side-step to another logical fallacy: Blaming the reader/messenger - AKA the Ad Hominum Attack. Blame the reader for misunderstanding an obviously poorly written/conceived text. There! That’s fixes everything! Except for the poorly written/conceived text. That stays blissfully the same.

There is another way of viewing belief and which aspects of belief that ‘True Believers’ choose, and it’s through social psychology and various permutations of Cognitive Dissonance.

Simply put, Cognitive Dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling you get when your closely held beliefs are at odds with perceived reality/truth. An example would be loving hamburgers and french fries - and reading that they are unhealthy. Continuing to smoke despite all the evidence that smoking is harmful, if not fatal, is another example.

People will go to great lengths to insert some sort of ‘modifier’ between the belief and that thing causing the dissonance. Smokers will point to the nearest really old person who seems to smoke and still live a long and healthy life. Fast food lovers will point to the nearest skinny, athletic person who can eat fast food and not gain an ounce.

‘True Believers’ - rather than change their beliefs - will point to others and say that they obviously misunderstood the text/concepts. Oh, and those ‘others’ have ‘politicized’ the beliefs in order to ‘justify’ their own interpretation … uh, kinda like Rep. Ellison did. Further, they will avoid associating with those who don’t share their beliefs, and find comfort in being around those who mirror their own beliefs without question, and hence reinforce the offending belief. Interestingly, politics falls into this. Having observed the Tea Party and extreme right/left wing ‘true believers’, they seem to do the very same thing.

I’ve wondered, too, if those who engage in evangelical or missionary work later in life - when they’ve become short of youthful enthusiasm and naivete -  are attempting to protect their belief systems and restore consonance. This would obviously happen when ‘others’ willingly choose to adopt the belief you’re selling. Similarly, going to church is another means of reinforcement, seeking the support of others who share your beliefs.

And by so doing, avoid any association or possible uncomfortable dissonance by ‘No True Scotsmen … or Women’.

-maven