epistemology
Circular reasoning in presuppositional apologetics
Arne Verster6 min read
Contents4 sections
Aa
The following was adapted from Greg Bahnsen's Lecture titled, Van Tillian Apologetics, Part 2.
Bahnsen on circular reasoning
Some who follow Van Til's philosophy give the impression that circular reasoning as such is acceptable. We note them; we do not follow them. It matters a great deal which kind of circular argument we endorse.
Someone might assert:
Your argument comes down to this: The Bible is true because the Bible is true!
That is not the argument we put forward. Consider Bahnsen's debate with Gordon Stein, where Stein accuses Bahnsen of exactly the reasoning we are criticised for. But Bahnsen never argued that the Bible is true merely because it asserts its own truth. R.C. Sproul, among others, has pressed the same objection.
Nonetheless, our reasoning does involve a form of circularity, as it is predicated on the authority of God as revealed in Scripture.
The authority of God communicated through Scripture shapes our method, and we use that method to affirm the authority of God as revealed in Scripture. That is a circle. A more accurate description is that our system of thought is internally consistent, and any system of thought must be internally consistent.
Our approach presupposes the authority of Scripture in order to substantiate that very authority. This is not the crude fallacy of asserting the Bible's truth solely because the Bible claims it, but the circle is still there, and the objector will press it.
So what is the alternative? Autonomy? Then by what method do we reason, and is human reason the final authority? "Reason alone" settles nothing, because "reason" is understood in a great many different ways. Whose reasoning, then? Descartes'? Kant's?
What does the sceptic aim to demonstrate through reason? That God does not exist and that humans are autonomous. We must then question how he intends to validate reason as the supreme standard. What will be his reference point?
The sceptic faces a dilemma: he must appeal either to reason or to something other than reason. If he appeals to something other than reason, then reason is not his ultimate authority. If he appeals to reason, he is validating his ultimate standard by the same autonomous reasoning that is in question.
Faced with this dilemma, the sceptic might assert that his system of thought is internally consistent. Yet, our system, grounded in the authority of God's Word, also claims internal consistency. We use Scripture as the foundational standard to argue that it should indeed be our ultimate guide.
This leaves us with two apparently circular arguments. It does not leave us unable to talk: we can argue across a difference this deep.
Let's posit that reason is the ultimate authority for one worldview, while God's Word holds that position in another. Under the authority of God's Word, several foundational truths are resolved:
- The existence of moral absolutes is affirmed.
- The basis for logical reasoning is established.
- The foundation for scientific induction is secured.
Conversely, if human reason is deemed the ultimate authority, it leads to problematic conclusions:
- Logical reasoning becomes untenable.
- The scientific method lacks a foundational basis.
- Ethical standards become indefinable.
Both positions involve circular reasoning, but the sceptic's circle undermines the very possibility of acquiring knowledge. Nor can he retreat into ignorance on all fronts, since to assert 'we know nothing' is already to claim that we know something. The sceptic's position is untenable.
The question then arises: How do we ascertain the truth of the Christian worldview? Van Til offers a compelling argument for God's existence as the linchpin of our ability to know anything at all. Without God, he argues, the foundation for proving anything disintegrates.
The Circle of the Globe :)
Jason Lisle on Circular Reasoning
The following was adapted from Jason Lisle's article titled, The Ultimate Standard
Jason Lisle writes the following:
Revelation is the giving of some of God’s thoughts to man. The question is how do you know that these thoughts are from God? How do you justify them? So the question I am going to ask you is, “How do you know that the Bible is revelation from God?” Can you answer this without any degree of circularity? Bahnsen says you can’t. For any answer you give will implicitly assume the truth of the Bible.
Presuppositional apologetics holds that reasoning must take place within the Christian worldview if it is to attain knowledge at all. Outside that framework beliefs remain fundamentally unjustified, because knowledge originates with God, as stated in .
Begging the question, the petitio principii fallacy, is an argument that assumes its conclusion as a premise, and so becomes circular. But circular reasoning isn't fallacious in itself; a circle can be vicious or virtuous. A vicious circle is one whose circularity is arbitrary, and that is the petitio principii fallacy proper.
Conversely, a virtuous circle involves rationally necessary premises, hence not arbitrary and not a case of petitio principii. For instance, the argument that the existence of logical laws is necessary because arguing against them requires their use is circular but virtuously so, as it logically presupposes the very logic it seeks to validate.
Similarly, the argument for the Bible as divine revelation incorporates an element of circular reasoning. To establish the preconditions of intelligibility—necessary for proving anything, including the divine nature of the Bible—we must presuppose the Bible's revelation. This circularity is not only inevitable but also virtuous, as rejecting this presupposition would lead to a state where knowledge is unattainable.
Some further thoughts
Let's consider sense perception as an example. How do we establish the general reliability of our senses? Some might elevate sense perception to the status of their ultimate standard. Bahnsen points out that to justify the general reliability of sense perception, one must either:
- Use their senses.
- Appeal to something other than their senses.
Choosing the second option undermines the authority of sense perception. However, justifying senses with senses entraps the individual in circular reasoning. It's not inherently rational to assume our senses always operate correctly; indeed, we know instances where they do not. Thus, the circular reasoning employed by those who rely solely on sense perception for justification is arbitrary and fallacious.
Nor can ethics, the laws of logic, and scientific induction be derived from the senses alone. As Bahnsen stresses, the senses without reasoning convey very little.
Why, then, is the Christian circle not deemed arbitrary?
Jason Lisle argues for its rational necessity. Just as disputing the laws of logic requires their use, challenging the Christian worldview invariably borrows presuppositions that originate within it. And to attempt a proof of the Bible's authority without presupposing its divine inspiration is to render the notion of proof itself unintelligible.
This line of reasoning forms the basis of a transcendental argument, highlighting that certain presuppositions are indispensable for making sense of our experience and knowledge.
Closing Thoughts
The proof of the Bible isn’t a vicious circle such as “The Bible is God’s Word because it says it is.” Rather, the proof is that the Bible says it is God’s Word and makes knowledge possible. This is something the Bible itself indicates (, ). The Bible proves itself and is the only basis for proving anything else. It’s not a simple (vicious) circle, but a spiral that goes beyond itself and justifies our other beliefs. The proof of the Bible is the impossibility of the contrary. If the Bible were not true, we couldn’t prove that anything is true.
Jason Lisle, The Ultimate Standard