The Genetic Fallacy
A reader writes and asks for help formulating a theological argument.
He says that his friend argues that all religious belief and non belief could be explained and had to be explained through genetics. He stated that some people just had that religious inkling ingrained in them purely through genetics and others did not.
The reader asked me if there were any glaring or subtle flaws can be found in his process of reasoning?
Ironically, in asking his question this selfsame reader pointed out the very flaws I saw in the argument that genetic predispositions, not facts, evidence, experience or reasoning, explains why men come to the conclusions they reach.
Out of courtesy I listed in order what he himself had already seen, merely underlining the logical links involved.
The genetic fallacy is a specific type of ad hominem, where an assertion is made that a man’s origins, genes, astrological influences, upbringing, culture determine his conclusions and therefore the conclusion may be dismissed without being addressed.
All postmodern, leftwing and Morlockian logic is an attempt to evade, elude, flee and cower from any arguments without addressing any points actually raised.
The utility of the genetic fallacy is that it makes no sense whatsoever, hence it can be used for all circumstances. One can say, ‘You are a man, and men commit most violent crimes, and therefore cannot be objective about the question of capital punishment’ with just as much ease one can say, ‘you are a women, and women commit few violent crimes, and therefore you cannot be objective about the question of capital punishment.’ It does not matter what term is substituted for ‘man’ or ‘woman’ or what topic is substituted for ‘capital punishment.’
In this case, there is just as much evidence, namely zero, and it would be just as irrelevant if any evidence did exist, which it does not, to say that theism is explained by genetics as to say belief in capital punishment is explained by genetics.
The friend of my reader is an embarrassment to the forces of evil. I could generate half a dozen arguments in favor of atheism in my sleep and have them be more sound and logical.
Here are the problems.
First, if your friend has a genetic predisposition to disbelieve in God, then his disbelief is not based on reality, not based on evidence, it is merely a chemical in his bloodstream effecting his thought. By that logic, no evidence on this topic or any other is trustworthy.
He saws off the branch on which he is sitting. If beliefs are genetic, no belief is based on evidence, not even the belief that beliefs are genetic. If your friend truly believed beliefs were genetic, he would never argue about it. You cannot argue a man into changing his genes.
Second, believers lose their faith and atheists convert every day of every week of the year. Hence, the genetic predisposition for faith does not actually control anything.
This is a classic example of a simple logical fallacy of irrelevance. If you say the sunrise causes the rooster crow, or you say the rooster crow causes the sunrise, both arguments are made nonsense once you see sunrises without roosters calls and hear rooster calls without sunsets.
Third, Darwinian evolution presupposes that there is a variation with the species, and that the trait is carried on genetically. In this case, there is no variation: there is no race of man that lacks religious belief.
And, if the most successful race of man is the one with the religious belief, then Darwinian logic says your friend is lowering his survival chances and the survival chance of his posterity by embracing any other belief. If belief in God is a genetic survival trait, disbelief is anti-survival.
Fourth, if belief were genetic, then whatever race of man had the trait, let us say the Jews, would be entirely immune to religious belief, and another race, let us say the Chinese, would be entirely vulnerable to religious belief. Does this fit any observed facts?
Likewise, if belief were genetic, it should run in certain families and be absent in others. Does this match with even a casual observation of the world around him?
Fifth, you can tell him that the belief that Darwinian genetics can explain human thought is a belief caused by a defective gene he inherited from his ancestor, like colorblindness.
Tell him that, due to an unfortunate combination of genes, he is unable to perceive the spiritual reality and moral reality all healthy minded humans from the dawn of time have felt.
Ask him to propose an argument against this position. Then, whatever argument he uses, adopt it yourself to show that belief in God is not genetic.
Sixth, ask him whether or not real scientific theories can be disproved? For example, Relativity would be disproved if light was measured to travel at different speeds based on the speed of the observer. Newton would be disproved if two objects dropping in a vacuum were pulled by gravity at different rates of acceleration. Whereas a witchdoctor who does a rain dance, when the rain does not come, merely assumes that more dancing in a better spirit is needed, and he keeps dancing until eventually it rains. His theory of causes and effects cannot be disproved, hence it is witchdoctory, not science.
Ask your friend to provide you with an experiment or observation that would disprove his theory of the genetic basis of religious belief.
Seventh, if religion were proved to have a genetic basis, it has no bearing on whether the issue is true or false. Colorbindness is genetic. Just because some people can see colors and others cannot does not mean that all visible light is of the same wavelength. The genes controlling the function of the eye do not make light exist or cease to exist. Likewise, here. If some people are genetically predisposed to see ghosts, or see whales, it does not mean that one is real and the other is not real. There is no logical connection between the assumption and the conclusion at all.
Eighth, if the genetic predisposition for religion did exist, how would it be different from, for example, a genetic predisposition for a skill at math, or an ear for music? Some people think more clearly than others about metaphysical matters, and some people are better at math or composing operas than others. Sometimes musical skill seems to run in a family, like the Bach family. Other times it does not. Again, even if it were proved that an ability to perceive spiritual reality were genetic, it would say nothing about the reality of what was being perceived. It would not prove the perception were accurate, nor would it prove the perception were inaccurate.
Ninth, ask him how precisely his belief that some men are prone to religion due to genetics differs from the belief in astrology? I have heard that Libras are all religious, due to being born in October. Is there even one observation or experiment your friend can name which makes his theory more sound than the theory of an astrologer?
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
