What is the genetic fallacy?

For as long as I have been alive, I have been trapped in England. It's where I was born, it's where I was raised, and for financial reasons, it's where I must stay for the foreseeable future. But in May of 2024, I was quite privileged to be able to personally attend the wedding of two of my most beloved friends in the States. During that trip, I took a photo of me aiming an M1911 pistol at my (remotely operated) GoPro camera. I then added a black and white filter, and superimposed the American flag over the top, which has been my Facebook profile picture to this day.

One hilarious result of this is that it draws certain people's attention whenever I discuss religion or politics under my personal profile. No matter the topic, people always point out that I am an American, which must somehow explain (and therefore invalidate) my beliefs.

This is the genetic fallacy; the criticism of a belief based on its origins. Logically speaking, the origins of a belief, real or perceived, do not affect the truth thereof. True beliefs can come from weak sources, false beliefs can come from good sources, and sometimes, as with my "American heritage", you're not even correct about the source. Regardless of where a belief comes from, it should always stand or fall on its own merits.

In religious discussion, the genetic fallacy is a regular occurrence. For example, the argument from geographical distribution. It is very common for atheists to point out that religious thought is typically concentrated in particular regions. As Richard Dawkins puts it, "if you'd been born in Pakistan you'd be Muslim", and "if born in Poland you'd be Catholic".

Not only does this have absolutely no relevance to the truth of Christianity, the truth of Islam, or the truth of Catholicism, it actually backfires. Why? Well because if Richard Dawkins had been born in Pakistan, he might be a Muslim. And if he'd been born in Poland, he might be a Catholic. He was born in England, but that actually didn't make him a Christian, because the logic isn't even universally applicable. Geography doesn't determine the beliefs you will hold, any more than it affects the beliefs you should. All it affects is your chances of being exposed to certain information.

In reality, the geographical distribution of religious thought makes perfect sense in the Christian faith. Scripture even tells us "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us," (Acts 17:24-27).

The God of the Bible - with whom atheists must contend, lest they risk committing the straw man fallacy - distributes people, rather than truth. Not that He doesn't also distribute truth, as Scripture makes it quite clear that creation sufficiently testifies to its Creator that all are without excuse. Nevertheless, the Gospel (i.e. the central message of the Christian faith) began in Israel. Thus, it spread from Israel.

To give a scientific analogy, consider the discovery of germ theory. Germ theory is true, and yet the discovery of its truth was not instantaneously universal. In fact, it initially faced rather passionate resistance. To this day, there are still regions where it is unknown, obscure, disputed, or even rejected. This is not because germ theory is false or questionable, but because truth transmitted by humans will be unequally distributed.

The same concept applies to falsehoods. Evolution, for example, is false, yet there are certain regions more hospitable to it. You are far more likely to believe in Evolution if you were born and raised in England than if you were born and raised in Africa. Yet, Evolution is a lie the aforementioned Richard Dawkins affirms. Strangely, he is unwilling to apply his logic to his own beliefs.

The genetic fallacy goes far beyond mere geography, of course. It can even be something extremely silly. For example, you might believe the Earth is a sphere because you saw it in a movie. If someone then comes along and says "you only believe the Earth is a sphere because you saw it in a movie", that would be the genetic fallacy; they are criticising your belief based on its origins.

Perhaps the easiest way to respond to the genetic fallacy is to redirect it by switching out the example. It is hard, for example, to say "if you were born in Pakistan, you'd be a Muslim" to a Christian who was, in fact, born in Pakistan. Obviously, if you don't have an example to hand, it's slightly less effective, but only slightly. If even one Pakistani Christian exists (and I can personally confirm they do, as I am friends with one, and previously had online contact with another), the argument fails. Logic that cannot be applied consistently is no logic at all.

AI usage

AI was not used to produce this article.