On Tuesday night, Feb. 9th, Dinesh D'Sousza and John Loftus debated the existence of the Christian God at the University of Illinois. The full debate is not yet available on line but there are some clips on Youtube.
In one of the clips, Dinesh attempted to answer John's argument that people tend to adopt the religion into which they were born. John argues that if you were born in India to Hindu parents, you are likely to follow Hinduism. If you are born in Saudia Arabia to Muslim parents, you are likely to adopt Islam. Similarly, if you are born in the U.S., you are likely to be a Christian. John's point is irrefutable. Statistics easily confirm it. So, how does Dinesh respond?
He argues that John is guilty of the genetic fallacy , the idea that an argument is wrong based on the origin of that argument. Dinesh says that if you were born in Oxford, England as opposed to Oxford, Mississippi, you would be more likely to believe in evolution. If you were born in New York as opposed to New Guinea, you would be more likely to believe in Einstein's theory of relativity.
There are so many problems here, I hardly know where to begin.
First, John's argument is not an example of the genetic fallacy. An example of the genetic fallacy would be that an argument originating from a bad source must be bad or conversely, an argument originating from a good source must be good. For example,
(1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
(2) The tooth fairy is real.
(1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war.
(2) Eugenics is a bad thing.
John is not saying that Hinduism is bad because India is bad or that Christianity is good because the U.S. is good. He is simply making the socially scientific observation that people are most likely to adopt the religion of the culture in which they are born.
Second, Dinesh's example is not analogous to John's. The theory of evolution is something that can be investigated and repeated. It has been established as a scientific fact. The overwhelming number of scientists believe in evolution. The same is true of Einstein's theory of relativity. Religion, however, is not something that can be investigated scientifically. Religion is based on faith (as shown in my previous posts). There is not an overwhelming consensus around the world among educated folks that any one religion is true such as there is with evolution or Einstein's theory of relativity.
Third, the reason that someone born in Oxford, Mississippi or New Guinea might not believe in these scientific theories is simply because its more likely that the persons born in those two places have less education than those born in Oxford, England or New York. On the other hand, the reason why someone born in Saudia Arabia is likely to be a Muslim is because of the dominance of that religion in that culture. In addition, while John's contention is easily demonstrable by statistics; Dinesh's rebuttal is not. It is simply an ad hoc argument intended to divert attention (red herring fallacy) away from the real issue.
Some have said that Dinesh won the debate. That may be true based on the technicalities of scoring a debate but its not true based on the substance of what was said (at least not what I have heard up to this point). Dinesh is a polished speaker and an experienced debater. He knows how to sway an audience. Oratory, however, is not a substitute for valid arguments.