“You’re only Catholic because you were born in
America. If you were born in Iraq you’d
be Muslim.” So runs a common objection to religion in
general. Religious belief, so says the
objection, is not based on truth, but on geography and custom. And if religion isn’t based on truth, it
shouldn’t be believed. How can we answer
such an objection?
First, we must concede that
religion is, generally speaking, geographically predictable. Looking at a map of the world, religious
groupings are generally geographic, and people tend to be the religion of their
families. But we have to ask further, what does this say about the truth claims
religions make?
Nothing. The objection may say something about anthropology
or human psychology, but this objection says nothing about whether or not the
claims of any religion are true. The objection short-circuits questions about
evidence or truth, and that is the fatal flaw in the objection. How, then, can we respond?
First, if the person making
the objection happened to be raised Catholic or Christian, it can be pointed
out that the objector’s own experience contradicts his objection. If the objection holds that “you’re only
Catholic because you were born into a Catholic family,” the objector should be
Catholic! The objector himself is a counter-example
to his own argument.
More fatal to the objection,
however, is that it is a clear example of a logical fallacy known as the Genetic Fallacy. The Genetic Fallacy is when a belief is attributed
solely to someone's history or the belief’s source. For instance, “you’re only a Democrat because
your dad was,” or “you’re only a capitalist because you were born in
America.” The fallacy fails to assess
the claim on its own merit. But a good argument must have bearing on the truth
or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and
they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present
form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.
Moreover, the objection and
the fallacy it entails can cut both ways.
One could similarly reply to the objector that he is only skeptical
because he was raised in a skeptical culture, or a culture antithetical to
religion, or because he went to a secular university with atheist
professors! This might drive home to the
objector the problem of the fallacy.
The bottom line is that
religious claims need to be evaluated on their truth or fallacy, on the
evidence for the claims, and the merits of the arguments. This objection is irrelevant to any of those
questions. It’s an intellectually lazy
red-herring that refuses to engage the
real issue of truth.