The Genetic Fallacy

[CatholicSoxFan]

In almost every atheist-theist debate I've seen, the atheist has brought up two things, that were, in essence, the crux of their argument.
- The "god of the gaps" strawman; you have to examine each case of attempting to deduce the most rational explanation for something individually, not just use the example of some people attributing things like rain to a limited being to try to refute the use of a spaceless, timeless entity to explain why anything at all exists.
- The genetic fallacy, which is the topic of this thread. It just astonishes me how much this is brought up; there are many versions of it, but generally, the argument goes something like this: If you were born in India, you would be a Hindu. If you were born in ancient Greece, you would believe in all of the Greek gods and goddesses. Et cetera, et cetera. What this proves is that the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in.

Well, the problem with this argument is that it is guilty of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when someone attempts to deduce something about the truth value of a proposition based on the origin of how someone came to believe it. It is quite clear that this argument doesn't work; someone might have come to the conclusion that the Earth is round on the authority of an English professor, but that is not grounds to believe that the Earth is flat. This particular genetic fallacy also has the problem that it seems relative to the time that whatever debate is taking place. If there was a debate taking place between a Christian and a pagan around 50AD, the pagan couldn't use this argument on the Christian, because the Christian the pagan was debating was most likely a convert to Christianity that was born into paganism, or into Judaism. Similarly, 50 or so years from now, when one of these Christian-atheist debates takes place, the atheist won't be able to use this argument either, because the atheist themself will most likely be a second-generation new atheist (if the movement even survives for that long.) So, the fact that modern-day atheists are most likely converts and that modern-day Christians were most likely born into Christianity in some way, is not grounds to believe that Christianity is false.
God bless.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well of course the fact that most Christians are born in religious households isn't an argument against Christianity, who thought that baloney? No knowledgeable person thinks there is a genetic link to being religious either, that is complete garbage.

Btw, I am a 5th generation atheist on my mother's side.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Well of course the fact that most Christians are born in religious households isn't an argument against Christianity, who thought that baloney? No knowledgeable person thinks there is a genetic link to being religious either, that is complete garbage.

Btw, I am a 5th generation atheist on my mother's side.

I'm glad you don't consider it a good argument, but some of the top atheists have this and the "god of the gaps" strawman as their top two arguments. Dawkins, for example, uses the genetic fallacy quite often.
EDIT: There are other forms of this fallacy that you might also be familiar with which atheists often use:
- "Well, you just believe in God because your parents told you."
- "The fact that religion can be geographically distributed just goes to show you how wrong it is." (I remember this being used in a Craig debate, if I'm not mistaken)

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm glad you don't consider it a good argument, but some of the top atheists have this and the "god of the gaps" strawman as their top two arguments. Dawkins, for example, uses the genetic fallacy quite often.
EDIT: There are other forms of this fallacy that you might also be familiar with which atheists often use:
- "Well, you just believe in God because your parents told you."
- "The fact that religion can be geographically distributed just goes to show you how wrong it is." (I remember this being used in a Craig debate, if I'm not mistaken)

Strawman are an illogical plague on both sides and must be destroyed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As it were, beliefs are influenced by upbringing (obviously, if you are taught a religion as a kid you are more likely to be of that same religion as an adult), however, plenty of people convert between religions, become atheist, or go from atheist to religious. I am sure there are people who believe in god just because their parents told them, but that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the faith in and of itself.

 

[JGG]

Are you suggesting that God of the Gaps is reasonable evidence of God?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you suggesting that God of the Gaps is reasonable evidence of God?

Me? No, I think it is dumb when people use god as the explanation for stuff we just haven't found another explanation for.

 

[JGG]

Me? No, I think it is dumb when people use god as the explanation for stuff we just haven't found another explanation for.

I meant the op

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I agree, it's not a good argument in that it has nothing to say about whether or not theism is false, but it can be a helpful way to get some people to start thinking about why it is that they believe what they believe.

No matter what else you might say about the "new" atheists, they do seem to be making it more difficult for people to go on believing something just because it's what they were raised to believe. Religious or not, I think most of us would see that as a good thing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In almost every atheist-theist debate I've seen, the atheist has brought up two things, that were, in essence, the crux of their argument.
- The "god of the gaps" strawman; you have to examine each case of attempting to deduce the most rational explanation for something individually, not just use the example of some people attributing things like rain to a limited being to try to refute the use of a spaceless, timeless entity to explain why anything at all exists.
- The genetic fallacy, which is the topic of this thread. It just astonishes me how much this is brought up; there are many versions of it, but generally, the argument goes something like this: If you were born in India, you would be a Hindu. If you were born in ancient Greece, you would believe in all of the Greek gods and goddesses. Et cetera, et cetera. What this proves is that the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in.

Well, the problem with this argument is that it is guilty of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when someone attempts to deduce something about the truth value of a proposition based on the origin of how someone came to believe it. It is quite clear that this argument doesn't work; someone might have come to the conclusion that the Earth is round on the authority of an English professor, but that is not grounds to believe that the Earth is flat. This particular genetic fallacy also has the problem that it seems relative to the time that whatever debate is taking place. If there was a debate taking place between a Christian and a pagan around 50AD, the pagan couldn't use this argument on the Christian, because the Christian the pagan was debating was most likely a convert to Christianity that was born into paganism, or into Judaism. Similarly, 50 or so years from now, when one of these Christian-atheist debates takes place, the atheist won't be able to use this argument either, because the atheist themself will most likely be a second-generation new atheist (if the movement even survives for that long.) So, the fact that modern-day atheists are most likely converts and that modern-day Christians were most likely born into Christianity in some way, is not grounds to believe that Christianity is false.
God bless.

There is no "New Atheist Movement". The only difference between new atheism and old atheism is that new atheists aren't burned at the stake for their beliefs. While I always appreciate concern for the lasting power of atheism, your concern is better spent elsewhere....

Young American adults abandon religion in record numbers

You see, it's not so much a "new movement" or passing fad of some sort. What you're witnessing is the slow death of archaic beliefs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In almost every atheist-theist debate I've seen, the atheist has brought up two things, that were, in essence, the crux of their argument.
- The "god of the gaps" strawman; you have to examine each case of attempting to deduce the most rational explanation for something individually, not just use the example of some people attributing things like rain to a limited being to try to refute the use of a spaceless, timeless entity to explain why anything at all exists.
- The genetic fallacy, which is the topic of this thread. It just astonishes me how much this is brought up; there are many versions of it, but generally, the argument goes something like this: If you were born in India, you would be a Hindu. If you were born in ancient Greece, you would believe in all of the Greek gods and goddesses. Et cetera, et cetera. What this proves is that the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in.

Well, the problem with this argument is that it is guilty of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when someone attempts to deduce something about the truth value of a proposition based on the origin of how someone came to believe it. It is quite clear that this argument doesn't work; someone might have come to the conclusion that the Earth is round on the authority of an English professor, but that is not grounds to believe that the Earth is flat. This particular genetic fallacy also has the problem that it seems relative to the time that whatever debate is taking place. If there was a debate taking place between a Christian and a pagan around 50AD, the pagan couldn't use this argument on the Christian, because the Christian the pagan was debating was most likely a convert to Christianity that was born into paganism, or into Judaism. Similarly, 50 or so years from now, when one of these Christian-atheist debates takes place, the atheist won't be able to use this argument either, because the atheist themself will most likely be a second-generation new atheist (if the movement even survives for that long.) So, the fact that modern-day atheists are most likely converts and that modern-day Christians were most likely born into Christianity in some way, is not grounds to believe that Christianity is false.
God bless.

While I'll admit the genetic fallacy is annoying, I honestly don't see it much (although I don't doubt you do) so it's difficult for me to say that it's always used incorrectly.

I do think it's interesting that you used the words "deduce the most rational explanation" while describing the "god of the gaps" fallacy. What exactly do you mean? You do realize that the "supernatural" can never be considered the "most rational explanation" for anything at all...don't you? If the supernatural cannot be demonstrated in any way, then it remains nothing more than bare assertion...and bare assertion is no more "rational" than any other bare assertions.

 

[durangodawood]

....What this proves is that the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in....

Well, the problem with this argument is that it is guilty of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when someone attempts to deduce something about the truth value of a proposition based on the origin of how someone came to believe it.

???

Are you saying the argument as you outlined it does NOT prove that "the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in"???

 

[poolerboy0077]

someone might have come to the conclusion that the Earth is round on the authority of an English professor, but that is not grounds to believe that the Earth is flat.

Right, but the point of referencing the fact that people generally believe based on the prevailing religions of their region is to give them pause before formulating their lives around an ideology that's typically the product of culture and circumstance, rather than an employment of valid epistemology. A fallacy would be committed here only if said atheist interlocutor said that your belief is false on account of this. Thus, if a person comes to the conclusion that the Earth is round solely based on authority when that same person could easily verify this, regardless of having arrived at the right answer objectively, that person would have no way of actually knowing whether they were right or not. The same person could have easily accepted that it was flat and be convinced that it was true. Consider that all believers of the various faiths think they are right. What's needed is a clear epistemology to begin to uncover the truth, and mere authority and faith isn't going to get you there.

 

[quatona]

In almost every atheist-theist debate I've seen, the atheist has brought up two things, that were, in essence, the crux of their argument.
- The "god of the gaps" strawman; you have to examine each case of attempting to deduce the most rational explanation for something individually, not just use the example of some people attributing things like rain to a limited being to try to refute the use of a spaceless, timeless entity to explain why anything at all exists.
- The genetic fallacy, which is the topic of this thread. It just astonishes me how much this is brought up; there are many versions of it, but generally, the argument goes something like this: If you were born in India, you would be a Hindu. If you were born in ancient Greece, you would believe in all of the Greek gods and goddesses. Et cetera, et cetera. What this proves is that the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in.
Well, the problem with this argument is that it is guilty of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when someone attempts to deduce something about the truth value of a proposition based on the origin of how someone came to believe it.

Except that the conclusion you have outlined above neither explicitly nor implicitly mention the truth value of religions.

It is quite clear that this argument doesn't work; someone might have come to the conclusion that the Earth is round on the authority of an English professor, but that is not grounds to believe that the Earth is flat. This particular genetic fallacy also has the problem that it seems relative to the time that whatever debate is taking place. If there was a debate taking place between a Christian and a pagan around 50AD, the pagan couldn't use this argument on the Christian, because the Christian the pagan was debating was most likely a convert to Christianity that was born into paganism, or into Judaism. Similarly, 50 or so years from now, when one of these Christian-atheist debates takes place, the atheist won't be able to use this argument either, because the atheist themself will most likely be a second-generation new atheist (if the movement even survives for that long.) So, the fact that modern-day atheists are most likely converts and that modern-day Christians were most likely born into Christianity in some way, is not grounds to believe that Christianity is false.

Agreed. The (correct) conclusion you paraphrased above doesn´t support the notion that any of these religions are not true.
And since I have rarely (if ever) seen this being claimed a proof for the untruth of a particularly religion (although sometimes brought up in refutation of a particular argument for Christianity´s truth value), it´s not much of a concern to me.

We are still looking for good arguments as to why Christianity is true, though.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In almost every atheist-theist debate I've seen, the atheist has brought up two things, that were, in essence, the crux of their argument.
- The "god of the gaps" strawman; you have to examine each case of attempting to deduce the most rational explanation for something individually, not just use the example of some people attributing things like rain to a limited being to try to refute the use of a spaceless, timeless entity to explain why anything at all exists.

(Emphases mine.)

Firstly, I have yet to see any such an explanation.

Secondly, it is not rational to actually expect theists/theism to come up with any such explanation.

 

[Paradoxum]

In almost every atheist-theist debate I've seen, the atheist has brought up two things, that were, in essence, the crux of their argument.

I haven't noticed that. But then I haven't watched any debates recently.

- The "god of the gaps" strawman; you have to examine each case of attempting to deduce the most rational explanation for something individually, not just use the example of some people attributing things like rain to a limited being to try to refute the use of a spaceless, timeless entity to explain why anything at all exists.

I agree that this (and the genetic fallacy) aren't arguments against belief. Rather they are reasons to question beliefs. God has been used before to explain things we simply didn't understand, so there are reasons to be skeptical of God-did-it explanations.

The reason this is brought up is to get people to think more seriously about whether they could be wrong.

- The genetic fallacy, which is the topic of this thread. It just astonishes me how much this is brought up; there are many versions of it, but generally, the argument goes something like this: If you were born in India, you would be a Hindu. If you were born in ancient Greece, you would believe in all of the Greek gods and goddesses. Et cetera, et cetera. What this proves is that the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in.

I again agree that this isn't a good argument against there being a God. The point should be to get people to really think about why they believe, and how their reasons are better than those given by others who you disagree with.

Well, the problem with this argument is that it is guilty of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when someone attempts to deduce something about the truth value of a proposition based on the origin of how someone came to believe it. It is quite clear that this argument doesn't work; someone might have come to the conclusion that the Earth is round on the authority of an English professor, but that is not grounds to believe that the Earth is flat. This particular genetic fallacy also has the problem that it seems relative to the time that whatever debate is taking place. If there was a debate taking place between a Christian and a pagan around 50AD, the pagan couldn't use this argument on the Christian, because the Christian the pagan was debating was most likely a convert to Christianity that was born into paganism, or into Judaism. Similarly, 50 or so years from now, when one of these Christian-atheist debates takes place, the atheist won't be able to use this argument either, because the atheist themself will most likely be a second-generation new atheist (if the movement even survives for that long.) So, the fact that modern-day atheists are most likely converts and that modern-day Christians were most likely born into Christianity in some way, is not grounds to believe that Christianity is false.
God bless.

I'm not sure it applies to atheism quite as well. (Weak) atheism is a lack of belief, so you can't say you are atheist just because your parents are atheist. All babies are atheist anyway.

Again, this doesn't prove Christianity false.

 

[variant]

I agree, it's not a good argument in that it has nothing to say about whether or not theism is false, but it can be a helpful way to get some people to start thinking about why it is that they believe what they believe.

No matter what else you might say about the "new" atheists, they do seem to be making it more difficult for people to go on believing something just because it's what they were raised to believe. Religious or not, I think most of us would see that as a good thing.

Religion has traditionally been decided by your geography, which is hard to believe true ideas could depend on.

 

[durangodawood]

Religion has traditionally been decided by your geography, which is hard to believe true ideas could depend on.

Really? Geography seems an excellent basis for true ideas.

 

[variant]

Really? Geography seems an excellent basis for true ideas.

The science of geography yes, but not, "I believe X because I live in Y part of the world".

Ideas like say, science or mathematics aren't usually regional, people believe them because of how useful they are at explaining things.

 

[essentialsaltes]

???

Are you saying the argument as you outlined it does NOT prove that "the biggest factor for believing in a religion is what your parents believed in"???

No, he's (correctly) saying that if you learn a thing at your parent's knee, this has no particular bearing on its truth value.

That said, and contradicting the OP, I do not commonly see atheists using this argument: "Because you learned your religion from your parents [and people on the other side of the world learned their different religion from theirs], your religion is false."

It does come up, but usually when the theist seems to be lacking some perspective about the variety of religious experience in the world.