Skip to content

Course 19 · Lesson 5.4

The genetic fallacy, and when explaining the origin of a belief matters

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 19 outline

Module 1: The Secular Age: Humanism and Naturalism

  1. What secular, secularism and secularization mean
  2. Secular humanism: its claims and its moral vision
  3. Philosophical naturalism and its alternatives
  4. Christian responses to naturalism and humanism

Module 2: Science, Evolution and Faith

  1. Models of science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue, integration
  2. What the theory of evolution claims and what it does not
  3. Christian positions on creation and evolution
  4. The history of the conflict story and its critics

Module 3: Criticism of the Bible

  1. The rise of historical and literary criticism
  2. What critics claim about authorship, sources and development
  3. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant responses to criticism

Module 4: Truth, Relativism and Postmodernism

  1. What postmodernism is, and why the term is hard to define
  2. Truth, language and interpretation
  3. Moral relativism: descriptive, cultural and philosophical forms
  4. Christian responses to relativism and postmodern thought

Module 5: The Masters of Suspicion

  1. Marx on religion, ideology and economic life
  2. Nietzsche on Christianity, morality and the death of God
  3. Freud on religion as illusion
  4. The genetic fallacy, and when explaining the origin of a belief matters

Module 6: Power, Corruption and Morality

  1. Church, state and political power in history
  2. Institutional failure and abuse
  3. Critiques of Christian morality and how Christians reply
  4. Judging a faith by its failures: what follows and what does not

Module 7: Mind, Meaning and Nihilism

  1. Consciousness and the limits of materialism
  2. Meaning and purpose in secular and Christian thought
  3. Nihilism, despair and Christian hope

Module 8: Writing a Response

  1. Stating a challenge in its strongest form
  2. Building a structured response
  3. Conceding what is true in the critic’s case

All courses

Program / Course 19: Modern Challenges / Lesson 5.4

What you will learn

  • Define the genetic fallacy and give clear examples of it.
  • Explain why explaining the origin of a belief does not by itself show it is false.
  • Identify cases in which an account of origins does properly bear on whether to trust a belief.
  • Apply the distinction to the arguments of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud and to Christian arguments.

The big idea

The genetic fallacy is the mistake of judging a claim true or false because of where it came from. A good idea can come from a bad source, and a bad idea from a good one. But the matter is not simple. If a person learns that a belief was formed by an unreliable process, he has reason to look at it again. Marx, Nietzsche and Freud each give an account of how religious belief arises. Their accounts do not refute it, but they raise the question of whether the process was reliable, and that question deserves an answer on both sides.

Key terms

Genetic fallacy
Arguing that a belief is false, or true, only because of its origin, such as the motives or background of those who hold it.
Ad hominem
Latin for to the man. An argument that attacks the person instead of the claim. It is sometimes a fallacy and sometimes a fair point about reliability.
Debunking argument
An argument that a belief has a cause that does not track the truth, and so that confidence in it should be lost.
Reliable process
A way of forming beliefs that usually produces true ones, such as careful perception or sound reasoning.
Defeater
A fact that gives a person good reason to lower or give up a belief.
Hermeneutics of suspicion
Ricoeur’s name for reading that looks for hidden motives behind a claim. It is used by Marx, Nietzsche and Freud.
Tu quoque
Latin for you too. An answer that says that the critic’s own view has the same weakness. It does not by itself show he is wrong.

Background

Logicians have named the genetic fallacy for over a century, and it appears in textbooks of informal logic. It is closely connected to the fallacy of ad hominem and to the dismissal of an argument because of its source. The standard examples include saying that a medical treatment is useless because it was discovered by an unpleasant man, or that a mathematical theorem is wrong because a rogue first proved it.

The masters of suspicion in the previous lessons all offered what are called genealogical accounts. They say that religion is a product of economic conditions (Marx), the resentment of the weak (Nietzsche) or the wish for a father (Freud). Because they were so influential, the question of what such accounts show has become one of the main questions in modern debates about religion. A good student learns both the lesson of the fallacy and its limits.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The fallacy and why it is a fallacy

A claim is true if things are as it says. Whether things are as it says does not depend on who first said it or why. The chemist Kekule is said to have found the ring structure of benzene after a dream. If this is so, the dream is a strange source, but the structure is correct or not on other grounds. A claim is tested by evidence and argument, not by its history.

This applies to the Christian side too. It would be a mistake to say that a criticism of Christianity must be false because its author was bitter or an atheist, or that a Christian argument is false because the author is paid by the church. In every case the question is whether the claim is supported.

Step 2: When origin does matter

Suppose a man learns that his belief that a stranger is dangerous comes only from a strong prejudice. He then has reason to doubt his belief, because the process that produced it does not track the facts. Or suppose a student learns that he trusts a book only because it was assigned by his favorite teacher. Reliable and unreliable sources matter. Evidence about origin can be evidence about reliability.

For this reason philosophers distinguish between using origin as the whole argument (fallacy) and using it as a reason to inspect the evidence (legitimate). A debunking argument has two parts: a claim about the cause, and a claim that the cause is not reliable. The second part needs an argument. It cannot be taken for granted.

Step 3: Applied to the masters of suspicion

Suppose Freud is right that belief in God arises from the wish for a father. That would show only that the process includes a wish. It would not show that the process is unreliable. If God exists and has made humans with a sense of him, a wish for a father might be part of how they are made to seek him. The Christian can then say that debunking requires an independent argument that the belief is false.

In Marx’s case, the claim is that beliefs serve class interests. This is true of some beliefs. It is also true of the beliefs of Marxists. Nietzsche’s case is the same. If religion arises from resentment, so, perhaps, could the critic’s own sense of superiority. These tu quoque replies show that the method is dangerous for everyone. They do not settle the question of truth. The debate must move to the evidence.

Step 4: A fair standard for both sides

A fair standard asks four questions of any account of origin. Is the account itself well supported? Does the cause named reliably produce falsehood? Does the account apply equally to the critic’s belief? And what do independent arguments say about the claim? Christians should ask the questions of their own explanations of unbelief, such as that it comes from pride or a wish to sin. These explanations may sometimes be true, and they too do not show that unbelief is false.

The practical result is a discipline of conversation. Do not answer a critic by diagnosing his motives. Answer his argument. And do not accept a critic’s diagnosis of your motives as a refutation. Ask what follows from it, and what evidence there is.

  1. Is the argument about whether the claim is true, or about where it came from?
  2. Does the account of origin show that the process is unreliable?
  3. Would the same account explain the critic’s own belief?
  4. What independent evidence bears on the claim?
  5. Am I using an account of the critic’s motives to avoid his argument?
  6. Is the account of origin well supported?

Examples

A clear fallacy

A speaker says that the idea of equal human rights must be rejected because it arose in a particular country and century. Where an idea arose has no bearing on whether it is sound. The proper question is whether the arguments for it hold. (A constructed example.)

A fair debunking

A juror learns that a witness identified the defendant only after being shown his photograph repeatedly. The juror reasonably doubts the identification, because the process by which it formed does not reliably track who was present. (A constructed example.)

A reply that does not settle

A Christian answers Freud’s account by saying that atheists have bad fathers. A listener thinks it a clever reply and a poor argument. Both Freud and the Christian offer origins, and the question of truth remains untouched. (A constructed example.)

Different perspectives

Philosophers and logicians

Most logicians say that arguing from origin alone is fallacious, while accepting that origin can bear on reliability. Contemporary philosophers write about debunking arguments in ethics and religion, and disagree about how strong they are. Some argue that debunking arguments, if sound, could undermine more than their authors intend, including trust in reason.

Catholic

Catholic thinkers hold that faith, though a gift of grace, has reasons, and that the believer need not fear examining the origins of his belief. The Church teaches that reason and faith, rightly used, do not conflict. In the tradition of the discernment of spirits, believers have long been taught to ask why they think and feel as they do.

Orthodox

The Orthodox ascetic tradition teaches a sober watch over thoughts and desires, and warns against delusion arising from vanity. This kind of self-suspicion is practiced within the faith. An Orthodox reply to a debunking account can therefore agree that motives may distort faith, while holding that the remedy is repentance and guidance and not abandonment of faith.

Protestant

Plantinga has argued, in the Reformed tradition, that the question of whether belief in God is rational depends on whether it is formed by faculties working properly, and that this depends on whether God exists. Therefore a debunking account cannot be neutral. Critics reply that this makes the question circular. The two sides continue to debate.

Why it matters

The fallacy matters for the whole course. Without it, a student will either be overawed by every account of how religion began, or will dismiss such accounts as irrelevant. With it, he can say what they show and what they do not, and he can hold himself to the same standard in his own arguments.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The genetic fallacy means that origins never matter.

Correction: Evidence about origin can give reason to doubt the reliability of a belief. It is a fallacy only when treated as proof of falsehood.

Misunderstanding: Pointing out that a critic’s motives are bad answers his argument.

Correction: It does not. His argument stands or falls on the evidence.

Misunderstanding: If Freud is right, God does not exist.

Correction: Freud’s account concerns why people believe. It would not show that God does not exist, and Freud said as much.

Misunderstanding: Only critics of religion commit the fallacy.

Correction: Believers commit it when they say that unbelief arises from pride or sin and so can be ignored.

Knowledge check

Define the genetic fallacy with one example.

It is the mistake of judging a claim true or false because of its origin or source, and not on its merits. For example, to say that a mathematical result is wrong because the man who found it was dishonest is a mistake. The result must be tested by proof. Origin does not decide truth.

When does information about the origin of a belief properly matter?

When it shows that the process which produced the belief is unreliable, for example when a witness’s identification was shaped by suggestion. Then the origin gives reason to doubt and to examine the evidence more carefully. A debunking argument must show both the cause and that the cause is not reliable, and the second step needs support.

How does the fallacy apply to Freud’s account of religion?

If belief in God arises from a wish for a father, it does not follow that God does not exist, because a belief may arise from wish and still be true. Freud granted this. His account remains a reason to examine the evidence, and the believer should do so, as should the unbeliever, whose own beliefs may have motives.

What is a tu quoque reply, and why is it limited?

It answers a critic by showing that his own view has the same weakness, for example that Marxist ideas also serve interests. It exposes the danger of the method for everyone. It does not show that the critic’s claim is false, so the question of truth must still be settled by evidence and argument.

Think it through

  1. Have you ever dismissed an argument because of who made it?
  2. What would you want to know before accepting that a belief of yours was formed unreliably?
  3. How could a friend raise your motives without insulting you?
  4. How do you treat explanations for unbelief that start with sin or pride?

Independent assignment

Spotting the move

In your notebook, collect four examples from articles or conversation in which someone explains where a belief came from (for example, the belief that the poor deserve their poverty, or that religion is false). For each, say whether the explanation is used as proof of falsehood, as a reason to check reliability, or both. Write 300 to 500 words on your conclusions. Do not send it.

Further study