This week, I had an experience that made me laugh. I was online discussing an important subject—one which is regularly in the news. A person who responded made a hilarious assumption about me; since this subject has political ramifications, the assumption was about my political leaning. You see, I have had people on both the left and right make assumptions about me. One person on the far right called me a socialist (I am not). Another person on the far left called me a Nazi (Nope, not that either). People often assume I am the opposite of them on all issues because I disagree with them on a single issue or a select few.
I brought this up because of why it made me laugh. It made me laugh because it is based on an ignorant, far too common approach. We place people into categories, whether accurate or not. A person on the right is assumed to hold a complete set of positions. The same is assumed about those on the left. In this, we see a version of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Take several political views and assume all on one side agree, and persons on the other hold the antithesis of those positions. Doing this reduces people to a simple dichotomy. It also assumes that all who hold specific characteristics agree on all issues.
Consider the following:
- The person on one side supports A, B, C, D, E, and F.
- For the sake of this discussion, we will label this group “the Right.”
- The person on the other side supports the antithesis of A, B, C, D, E, and F.
- For this discussion, this group will be labeled “the Left.”
These letters can be for whatever you wish. To be on a particular side is assumed to mean agreement on every position. But this overlooks so much. Suppose a person agrees with A, B, D, and F but views C and E differently? Is this person on the right or left? Are they moderate? Centrist? I hope you see the problem. It has been one that has hounded me for a long time because I don’t fit neatly into any one category—at least not without some explanation and exceptions. On specific issues, I may disagree with either side. On some points, I disagree with both sides.
Earlier, I said this was a version of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Consider a conversation:
- Person A: All Scotsman love haggis.
- Person B: I’m a Scotsman, but I don’t like haggis.
- Person A: Then you are no true Scotsman.
A Texas version of this would be:
- Me: A Texan never adds beans to Chili.
- Other: My uncle in Texas adds beans to Chili.
- Me: Then your uncle is no true Texan.
Of course, I’ll go to my grave saying this last one is true, but that doesn’t matter now. It is still a fallacy. It is possible for a Scotsman not to like haggis. It’s also possible for a Texan to put beans in Chili—accidents happen.
We need to stop this thinking: “If you disagree on any single issue, I’ll assume you disagree on everything.” It’s silly and lazy. The biggest problem is that it gets in the way of meaningful discussions. If we agree on everything, our discussions are echo chambers. If we disagree on everything, how do we initiate a discussion?
Another problem specific to us as Christians is the tendency to demonize our opponents. If you disagree on everything, it is easy to classify you as an enemy of the faith and perhaps an evil person—not just unsaved but actively evil! Once this is assumed, we begin expanding that category. You disagree with me on most things: evil! You disagree with me on half of things: evil. You disagree on a few things: evil! You disagree on anything: evil! In time, no disagreement is tolerated because it is considered evil. Such divisiveness is precisely the opposite of the unity we are to seek.