In his debate with Kyle Butt on the existence of God, atheist Blair Scott said:
You have the genetic side of it. You also have the nature versus nurture so that the genetic part (the limbic system) of our brain, which makes us preset, if you will, to have religious or spiritual beliefs is inherent in us. So then it comes down to nature versus nurture. You’re all Christians not because Christianity is true. You’re all Christians because you don’t live in Tel Aviv. You’re all Christians because you don’t live in Tehran. And you’re all Christians because you don’t live in Sri Lanka. If you lived over there, you would be Hindus, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. That is the nature versus nurture. You’re predestined to believe in God, but you’re a victim of geography. You’re a Christian because you were born and raised in the United States which is predominantly Christian.1
The claim is: You’re a Christian only because of where you live.
This is often called the “geographic argument” or the “accident of birth” argument. It claims that religious belief is determined more by when and where you’re born, and by who raises you, than by whether a belief is actually true.
For example, India has a population of about 1.4 billion people, and roughly 1.2 billion of them are Hindus. Afghanistan has around 44 million people, and over 99% are Muslims. There are about 345 million people living in the United States, and roughly 60% claim to be Christians. Since I am a Christian who was born in the United States, the accident-of-birth argument concludes that I am a Christian only because of where I was born.
There is a grain of truth here: where you’re born and who you’re raised by does influence what you believe. But that’s not the whole story.
Despite that grain of truth, this argument commits the genetic fallacy. It assumes a claim must be true or false based solely on its origin.
To illustrate: I believe Islam is a false religion. My Muslim friend claims that stealing is wrong. Since that claim is coming from a Muslim, it can’t be true that stealing is wrong. My other friend is typically trustworthy. He says that Jesus never existed. Since I trust my friend, it must be true that Jesus never existed.
In each case, the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. The claim is being judged entirely by its source. You may not know the name of the fallacy, but you can tell something’s wrong. A claim doesn’t become false because of where it comes from, nor does it become true because of who says it.
Yet the geographic argument is often presented by atheists as if it’s a logical slam dunk against Christianity.
For example, Donald Demetriades, while discussing the God of the Bible with John Lennox, said:
Had I been raised in New Deli I probably would have been Hindu. Raised in Pakistan, Muslim. Raised in fifth century BCE in Athens, a polytheist trying to please Zeus and Poseidon. Raised in Bozeman a hedonist. If our worldview is so contingent on when where and by whom we were raised, then how can we say that one is more correct than the other?2
When this argument is made by someone who comes from a predominantly Christian region—like Mr. Scott and Mr. Demetriades—it becomes self-defeating. By their own admission, they were raised in a Christian culture, yet they believe they “overcame the odds” to arrive at their current views. Their own conversion proves that geography alone is not decisive.
So what should you say the next time someone uses the geographic argument to disprove Christianity?
The answer is simple: so what if my culture is predominantly Christian? What follows from that? Nothing. It’s a sociological observation, not a rational objection. Beliefs should be examined based on evidence.
If you had been born in ancient Assyria, you would almost certainly have believed the earth was flat. If you had been born in ancient Scandinavia, you likely would have believed that thunder came from Thor, the god of thunder. And if you were born in certain parts of Asia, you would very likely believe in astrology—the claim that your destiny is shaped by the stars.
Yet today, whether you’re an atheist or a Christian, you almost certainly believe the earth is round, that thunder is caused by lightning—the discharge of built-up electrical energy—and that the stars have nothing to say about whom you will marry. Why do you believe those things? You might say it’s because you’ve studied them and know they’re true—and that’s fair. But in a real sense, you also believe them because of when and where you were born and who raised you. And none of that takes away from the fact that thunder isn’t from an Avenger.
In the same way, being taught from birth that Jesus was a historical person who worked miracles, died, was buried, and was resurrected does not mean those events never happened.
The geographic argument also makes one more huge mistake. It implies that Christianity is a Western religion. But it’s not. Christianity began in the Middle East and spread because of the reality of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. We share the gospel with all nations because it’s a truth for everyone, not just one culture.
Finally, this argument assumes all “Christianity” is the same—and it’s not. Many people claim to be Christians without ever seriously studying Jesus from His word. That’s what this site exists for: digging deep into His word and carefully studying Bible questions.
If you’ve got a Bible question, let’s study it. Contact us here.