Argument.
The argument can be formulated as follows:
P1. If God exists, belief in God would not depend strongly on birthplace or upbringing.
P2. Belief in God does depend strongly on birthplace and upbringing.
C. Therefore, probably God does not exist.
Response.
The argument notes that people often believe in the religion of their parents or culture. While this is sociologically true, it does not follow that the belief itself is false. The reasoning rests on a genealogical fallacy—the idea that the origin of a belief determines its truth. But the truth of any belief is independent of how or where a person came to hold it.
We can express the problem this way:
- People’s political beliefs, moral intuitions, scientific misconceptions, and even everyday assumptions also vary by geography and upbringing.
- Yet we do not assume that all such beliefs are false simply because they are culturally shaped.
For example, a child raised today by a university professor would likely believe in modern science and democratic norms. But we would not conclude that democracy or science is false merely because people learn them from parents, schools, or local culture. Or a child raised by two atheists may be quite likely to be an atheist themself, but it says nothing about the truthfulness of their beliefs.
Therefore, cultural dependence by itself cannot determine a belief’s truth-value.