Revised 1/25/2020
“A critic uses the Genetic Fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant." Retrieved 1/25/2020 https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Genetic
Example A) A Neo-Nazi organization publishes research showing the superiority of the ‘white’ race.
If I were to argue the research is probably false because the source was a Neo-Nazi organization, some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue it is very reasonable to discredit the research because of the lack of credibility of the organization putting out the research. They are a biased source and historically Nazis have written and pontificated falsehoods. Here an appeal to origins is very relevant and provides good reasons to argue the study is probably flawed or at least not to be trusted.
Example B) An ancient culture claims their god assisted them in battle.
If I were to argue the claim is probably false because the source was an ancient culture, some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue no. First, that ancient culture could be a biased source. Second, ancient people were prone to attribute events to supernatural beings and were superstitious. Third ancient cultures were prone to make up stories or evolve myths. Thus an appeal to origins and likely origins is very relevant. I have good reasons to argue the claim is probably just another tall tale.
Example C) A ancient country believed there is a State god watching over them, defending them or punishing them.
Lets suppose that psychiatrists have demonstrated humans have a psychological need for a father figure. Then I can argue the country’s belief is rooted in their psychology and that their deity probably does not exist. Some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue that here an appeal to origins or likely origins is very relevant and I have good reasons to claim the country’s belief is probably false.
Example D) A ancient country has a book they believe is divine.
I examine the book, (for example the Bible) and it has significant and numerous parallels to ancient near east myths, rituals and laws and that the book’s origins are likely in ancient near culture, myth rituals and laws and therefore their belief is probably false. Some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue that here an appeal to origins or likely origins is very relevant and I have good reasons to assume their claim is probably false.
Example E) An ancient culture XYZ, claims a dying and rising person/god event occurred.
Lets suppose there were several ancient cultures with similar sorts of claims of people dying and arising or dying and rising god(s). It seems the origin or likely origin of XYZ’s story is in such ancient myths, and therefore their belief is probably false. Some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue that here an appeal to origins or likely origins is very relevant and have good reasons to claim the event is probably just another ancient myth.
Example F) A religious fundamentalist writes a book disparaging fairly well accepted science, for example Evolution, or that the Universe is billions of years old. The book includes 'new' discoveries, novel interpretations of scientific data, The individual claims that their 'research' is being blackballed by the established scientific community and a conspiracy exists against their religion.
If I were to argue the book is probably false because the source was a religious crank, some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue it is very reasonable to discredit the book because the book's motivation was in a felt conflict between the science and the religion. Here an appeal to origins is very relevant and provides good reasons to argue the book is probably flawed.
In summary, for each of the examples above I have not 'proven' any of proponent's position FALSE. However, the proponents historical record, the qualities of the proponent, the origin or likely origin of the proponents beliefs are very often relevant to determining the probable falseness or truthfulness of those beliefs. Psychiatrists, Biologists, Neurologists, Economists, Anthropologists, Sociologist etc: have put forth cogent reasons, data and theories, for the potential origins of people’s religions and beliefs in god(s). Examples include Father Figure, Opiate of the Masses, Agency seeking, Tribal Survival, Politics etc: etc:. An appeal to those reasons, data and theories are very relevant to the determination of the veracity of the religions and their god(s). If those theories, data and reasons are good, then it is more likely the religions and their god(s) are rooted in human culture and psychology etc: rather than the religion being true and their god(s) really existing.
No comments:
Post a Comment