A recent blog entry by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, recently came across my desk that made the outrageous claim that one cannot chose one’s religion. If one’s family is a Muslim, you will be too, no matter what you actually practice — genetically speaking.
He relates this piece of news by suggesting that Obama cannot choose to be a Christian, because his family was a Muslim. He suggests that, genetically, Obama is a Muslim no matter what he practices.
If this doesn’t pass the basic logic smell test for you, then you’re not alone.
Like other world religions, Islam not only is a religion but also comprises largely endogamous ethnic groups. When a group of individuals remain largely or entirely endogamous (marry only other members of the group and not outsiders), forming what geneticists call a deme, they become genetically distinct over time.
This is a dubious claim at best that falls under the “red herring” logical fallacy. Here’s why.
Genes contain the code for all of our physical, and some would argue, much of our mental traits and personality. It is the building block of all life — not just human life — on Earth. Our eye and hair color is determined, for instance, by our genes, which are passed down in families from parents to children.
Religion, unlike eye or hair color, is not something we’ve discovered as a genetic trait. There has been no discovery of a “religion gene.” So while Kanazawa provides the analogy of Michael Jackson and his apparent attempts to become lighter-skinned, it is a false analogy. Skin color is encoded into our genetics. Religion is not. If it is, I would ask Kanazawa to point out the gene (or set of genes) religion is encoded on.
Kanazawa uses genetics here as a red herring — a typical logical fallacy. While certainly it is true that people who marry within their same ethnic (or religious) group will have more similar genotypes, religion itself is not encoded onto that genotype. Free will continues to exist in every generation, and every generation is therefore free to choose the religion they would like to follow and practice. If anything, it is cultural and societal norms that push us toward a specific religious practice — not our genes.
So while there may be an association (or correlation, if you will) between a certain genotype and a certain religious practice, the actual practice of religion — and one’s identity — is not encoded anywhere within your genes.
It’s like arguing that since most people in Newark, Delaware marry other people from Newark, Delaware throughout the past two or three centuries, Newark, Delaware is encoded into one’s very genes. Does that make any sense?
But Kanazawa makes other generalizations that demonstrate how his argument is just so much smoke and mirrors, based upon a specific political or religious opinion — not so much science or hard data:
Muslims, both in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, are a largely endogamous ethnic group, just as Catholics and Jews are throughout most of the world.
In fact, there are only certain specific factions within major religions that enforce strictly endogamous religious groupings — that is, marrying only within your own religion. It is not all of Christianity (as Kanazawa claims), nor is it all of Islam.
And because one’s religious is a choice unlike one’s eye or hair color at birth, it is just as readily changeable as what one chooses to become in life — such as the President of the United States.
I’m all for a blog entry about the interesting practice of marrying only within one’s religion. But when it’s turned on its head as some sort of odd attempt at saying that people’s free will doesn’t exist when it comes to their religious choices, I see politics at work, not scientific discovery or sharing of scientific data. Especially disappointing for a blog entitled, The Scientific Fundamentalist.
Read the full article: If Barack Obama Is Christian, Michael Jackson Was White
7 comments
I think DocJohn is absolutely right. Having read the article, the URL to which was published on PC yesterday by Pachyderm, I’ve thought that it was, in publishable language, a complete pile of, shall we say, nonsense. It’s interesting that Psychology Today, which I had thought was published by a professional organization of qualified psychologists, would let this kind of article be published. The author is, apparently, a regular columnist in Psychology Today. I wonder if his other “contributions” (which are accessible from within PT’s website) are as idiotic as this one.
First things first: I do NOT believe Obama is a Muslim. He’s professed faith in Jesus Christ, which according to variety of Protestantism I was brought up in, makes him a Christian forever. As an atheist now, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight and don’t really care – but it still seems clear to me that by stating that you adhere to a certain religion and are attempting to follow its precepts (in Obama’s case, Christianity), you’re providing pretty strong and nearly inarguable proof that you are indeed a member of that religious group.
That said, it seems that there ARE certain religious groups that believe that the religion is transmitted through the parent. There are branches of Judaism that consider anyone with a Jewish mother to be Jewish for religious purposes, even if they leave the faith or convert to another religion. Of course, the people of the faith they convert to probably wouldn’t consider them Jewish for religious purposes post-conversion. I don’t know a whole lot about Islam, but according to a BBC article I just pulled up, “In Islam, the father determines the religion of his children,” no matter what choices the child later makes or how the child is brought up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8424599.stm). So for Muslims believe that, Obama would be considered a Muslim. My takeaway from that is that anyone who believes Obama is a Muslim just because his father was is apparently an adherent of at least one tenet of Islam themselves.
Hello
Just like to reply to Edianes`s comment in regards to choosing a faith in Islam. I am a Muslim and in the Quran it states that every person is influenced by the religion of their parents up until a certain age (until they can understand and choose) but of course they then choose which one they want, which evidentally talks about free will in Islam.
Have a nice day
Peace
I agree that a specific religion would not be genetically encoded, though a tendency toward spirituality in general might be. I have to disagree about free will … we do not choose who are. Anyone with mental illness can tell you that. Free will is an illusion.
Thanks, Peace! As I said, I don’t know much about Islam. In that case, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for anyone at all to consider him Muslim.
“Religion, unlike eye or hair color, is not something we’ve discovered as a genetic trait. There has been no discovery of a “religion gene.” So while Kanazawa provides the analogy of Michael Jackson and his apparent attempts to become lighter-skinned, it is a false analogy. Skin color is encoded into our genetics. Religion is not. If it is, I would ask Kanazawa to point out the gene (or set of genes) religion is encoded on.”
Michael Jackson and his apparent attempts to become lighter-skinned, : this sentence shows that the author does not know about Michael Jackson having vitiligo. This way rumors and lies go around the world. Better to do your homework before writing…..
I realize this is a very old post, but I couldn’t resist. I find it interesting that Kanazawa’s blog doesn’t permit comments – did it when the post was fresh, or is he simply too cowardly to permit any discussion of any of his nonsense?
I have to wonder – my mother was raised as a Southern Baptist, and my father was raised as a Methodist. What would that make me? And what about my father’s cousins? Their father was a Protestant who married a Catholic! My mother’s brother was a Southern Baptist who married a Mormon, so there are questions about their children as well! It’s a wonder all those mixed marriages have produced offspring at all, isn’t it?
Perhaps Kanazawa is the one who needs a bit of a refresher regarding genetics?
Comments are closed.