Does Presuppositional Apologetics Use Circular Reasoning?
by Massimo Lorenzini
This article answers the common objection to presuppositional apologetics that it uses circular reasoning (e.g. using the Bible to prove the Bible). My response is that everyone uses circular reasoning. When a presuppositionalist begins with the Christian worldview to argue for the same, this is circular. When one uses circular reasoning, it is usually a weak argument. However, when we are talking about an ultimate intellectual criterion, a certain amount of circularity is unavoidable. Allow me to refer you to a somewhat lengthy quotation from Michael Kruger's article "The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics" which appeared in the Spring 2001 edition of The Master's Seminary Journal (available online at www.tms.edu):
To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one's conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point. Another example: Imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, "see, it's a meter." However, the next question is obvious, "How do we know your neighbor's meter stick is really a meter?" This process would go on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium allow). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter. This same thing is true for Scripture. The Bible does not just happen to be true (the meter stick in your house), rather it is the very criterion for truth (the ultimate meter stick) and therefore the final stopping point in intellectual justification.
So, when we begin with the Bible to defend the Bible, this is done with the conviction that the Word of God is the ultimate criterion for truth. When an evidentialist begins with rationalism (and also sometimes empiricism), he is also arguing in a circle, except he doesn't even acknowledge this fact. You see, evidentialism is circular because it starts with rationality. However, the evidentialist does not even bother to prove rationality, he simply presupposes it! So, when the evidentialist begins with rationality to prove the Bible, he is demonstrating that he believes (even if unconsciously) that rationality is his ultimate criterion for truth.
On the other hand, the presuppositionalist says that the Bible is self-authenticating. It has no higher authenticating or verifying authority. When a five-year old says to his daddy, "Why do I have to do what you say?" The father need not answer with anything other than, "Because I said so!" For the child, there is no higher authority. And for the Christian, or anyone else for that matter, there is no higher authority than the Word of God. In fact, God Himself cannot refer to an authority greater than Himself:
When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself (Hebrews 6:13, NIV).
Apologetics is a moral issue (volitional) more than an intellectual one. It has to do with repenting of autonomous use of reason and submitting one's thinking to God. One must repent not only of the content of what one believes, but also of the method by which one thinks. We must repent of what we think and how we think. At issue here is one's epistemology. What is the scale by which we weigh the facts? Is it God's scale or our own? If we use our own, the facts regarding God and ultimate truth will always be found wanting because of man's depraved nature. Careful study of the doctrine of total depravity will show that no amount of evidence given to a fallen, sinful, rebellious person will ever be sufficient to bring such a person to repentance and faith.
The unregenerate sinner has built up for himself a wall by which he shields himself from the truth of God. Evidential apologetics is wholly inadequate for the task of removing the bricks within the rebel's wall. Only a presuppositional approach to apologetics is able to effectively attack and dismantle the fortress of relativism, apathy, and cynicism that the sinner has erected in an effort to barricade himself from the truth.
However, I am not saying that even a presuppositional apologetic is sufficient to lead one to Christ. The approach of presuppositionalism is to apply a presuppositional apologetic to the heart and mind of the postmodernist, shake him from his relativistic slumbers, and thereby press upon him the demand of God's holy Law and the glorious hope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But without the accompanying regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, even the most powerful defense of the faith is unavailing.
You see, presuppositional apologetics seeks to be consistent with biblical theology. The doctrine of human depravity alone is sufficient to show the inadequacy of evidential apologetics to bring a man to true repentance and faith in Christ. This fact has always been true and always will be true no matter what the prevailing worldview is, but is especially true when dealing with the unbelieving postmodernist.
So while a biblical anthropology alone bears out the fact that evidentialism is inadequate and inconsistent with Scripture, other key doctrines only drive the point home even more. In considering apologetic methods, one must also take into consideration the doctrines of general and special revelation, Theology proper, hamartiology, soteriology, and Christology. However, I cannot go into an explanation of how these doctrines relate to apologetics here.
One's theology is truly crucial in determining one's apologetic methodology. Your understanding of theology informs your epistemology. Epistemology really is the key to understanding apologetics. Man's thinking is not neutral; it's darkened, fallen, and hostile to God. Man, by nature, hates God and does all in his power to hide from Him. Therefore, man must repent of his autonomous, sinful thinking and rely upon God's revelation in order to come to a knowledge of the truth. Evidence, in itself, is not able to bring a sinful man to salvation or the truth. He will interpret all facts sinfully rather than submit to God's interpretation of those facts.
You can only know that your epistemology is correct if it squares with the divine standard inherent within man via the divine image (sensus divinitatis) and also witnessed by God's fingerprint in the whole of creation (general revelation). However, the greatest epistemological precision can be had only via Scripture (special revelation). Only as you are conscious of your epistemology and checking it by the divine standard of revelation, can you be in a position to judge truth claims. Otherwise, if you reject the divine standard, you have no assurance that your epistemology is correct and accurate and you are in no position to weigh any kind of truth claim. All becomes hopelessly meaningless and futile and rational thought itself is impossible.
If Christianity is true, and it is, then we must argue from the basis of it. We cannot grant a sinful, rebellious man neutral ground upon which to weigh the evidence for God since there is no such neutral ground. Autonomous use of reason is the problem not the solution! Think of it, autonomous human reasoning led to the fall of man in the garden. How could it ever possibly lead one to God? One can have epistemological autonomy only if he possesses intellectual self-sufficiency. Man is not intellectually self-sufficient anymore than he is existentially self-sufficient or independent. Rather man is a finite, dependent creature of God. He is dependent upon God for knowledge as much as he is for oxygen, food, and water for his existence (Acts 17:25).
This is God's world. There simply is no neutral ground to stand upon and evaluate the evidence for God. All creation is evidence! (Rom 1:18-20). We all live and move and have our being in God (Acts 17:28). Imagine all of God's creation is like a huge bubble. One cannot go outside of that bubble and examine it. There is no external, neutral ground to stand upon. There is no way to judge facts atomistically and neutrally. Facts only have their meaning by their place within the larger worldview. One's worldview determines the interpretation of facts. If one has a naturalistic worldview, facts will be interpreted in way that is consistent with that worldview. Presuppositionalism strikes at the foundation of those unbelieving worldviews. It calls the unbeliever to repent of his ungodly thinking and think God's thoughts after Him. We do not simply pile up evidence upon evidence and ask the unbeliever to weigh that evidence on his ungodly worldview scales. Rather, we call upon him to use God's worldview scales! This is a call to repentance.
You see, believers and non-believers have no epistemological common ground. They don't share the same scales by which they weigh facts. They have ontological common ground as creatures created in the image of God. So the only common ground is ontological, not epistemological. This becomes the point of contact with the unbeliever—the fact that they are created in the image of God and are aware of it however much they seek to suppress it (Rom. 1:18-20).
I sympathize with the evidentialist position because I was also an evidentialist for most of my Christian life. I simply knew no other way to approach apologetics. Even after being exposed to presuppositionalism, it took me many months to understand and finally embrace it. I can tell you that once I saw it, it was like a breakthrough and I fell in love with it. These truths are not readily apparent. You may have to wrestle with them for some time before you see it. It requires you to step back and look at truly foundational issues (systematic theology, epistemology) and how they affect your apologetic methodology.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Presuppositional apologetics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Presuppositional apologetics is a school of Christian apologetics, a field of Christian theology that attempts to (1) present a rational basis for the Christian faith, (2) defend the faith against objections, and (3) attack the perceived flaws of other worldviews. Presuppositional apologetics is especially concerned with the third aspect of this discipline, though it generally sees the trifold distinction as a difference in emphasis rather than as delineating three separate endeavors. Presuppositional apologetics developed in and is most commonly advocated within Reformed circles of Christianity.
The key discriminator of this school is that it maintains that the Christian apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview) because there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian, and apart from such "presuppositions" one could not make sense of any human experience. In other words, presuppositionalists say that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions (presumably those of the non-Christian) in which God may or may not exist, and which leave human experience unintelligible.
Presuppositionalists contrast their approach with the other schools of Christian apologetics by describing them as assuming the world is intelligible apart from belief in the existence of God and then arguing exclusively on (purportedly) neutral grounds to support trusting the Christian Scriptures. Specifically, presuppositionalists describe Thomistic (also "Traditional" or "Classical") apologetics as concentrating on the first aspect of apologetics with its logical proofs for the existence of God. Aquinas himself insists that many crucial truths can only be known through scripture, and none of his arguments are intended to show the entire Christian picture; presuppositionalists criticize this "block house" method for failing to start at the level of the controlling beliefs of worldviews and implicitly allowing non-Christian assumptions from the start. Their goal is to argue that nonbelievers' assumptions require believing in some things about God, man and the world which nonbelievers claim they don't believe.
Evidentialist apologetics, on the other hand, focuses especially on the first two aspects of the discipline by offering various archaeological, historical, and scientific evidence to support both the probable existence of God and the truth of the Bible, and refute the major objections to the same. While presuppositionalists don't believe that classical arguments are good enough on the grounds that they don't show enough about God, they also think evidentialists simply haven't given a strong enough demonstration, and have started out by granting the assumption that human experience is intelligible without appeal to Scripture, thereby defeating their own cause. Evidentialists demur from this assessment, claiming that presuppositionalism amounts to fideism. The evidentialist's conclusion is that the Bible is most probably accurate about what it reports, and thus the whole of Biblical revelation follows.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
They make an assumption and then twist logic and reason around that assumption. Instead of shying away from circular logic, they embrace it.
I think there is a good discussion here. It answers one begging question: why do some Christians use unintelligent arguments and refuse to see reason when it is shown to them.
__________________
Last edited by Shakyamunison on Sep 28th, 2006 at 09:51 PM
The same reason people of all faiths do it: to feel invulnerable. If they can convince themselves they are right, then that's something they can hold above everybody who might disagree with something.
Whereas you or I could be shown or persuaded that we are wrong, the certainty that they are correct means they need never be proven wrong or change their minds.
__________________ "If clowns warred on monkeys, and the monkeys had guns, and were trained to use them, who would win?"
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I am a religious person. However, the teachings of my religion are humanistic and do not require blind faith. Therefore, if tomorrow the basis of my faith where to be disproved, I would adjust my beliefs accordingly. The focus of my religion is on the human condition; so common arguments between Christianity and science do not have any real impact on my belief. The weakness of Presuppositional Apologetics is that they spend too much time defending their religion rather then living their religion.
I didn't intend for my comment to be seen as a generalisation of all religious people; rather I was saying that some people in all religions do have blind faith.
__________________ "If clowns warred on monkeys, and the monkeys had guns, and were trained to use them, who would win?"
Death only gives another set of choices.
He who dies with the most toys. Still dies.
Last edited by Trickster on Sep 28th, 2006 at 10:25 PM
Of course every worldview must have an "ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point" like it is described in the article, that is called premise, but the problem is that YOU are the one assuming the premise.
Premises need to be assumed to be true by SOMEONE human mortal that is believeing that premise to be true.
It is you or someone else who choose by himself to believe in that, no external rational justification is possible beyond this.
Oh look, Christy is spamming the religious forum. Again. Posting some one else's words because he's too dumn to think of any himself. Again I think I may pass out from the shock of it.
And you just know Live didn't actually read the thing himself. All those hard words...
__________________ "Men curse the Communist Party, but eventually it may release them. If hell were endless, then God would be worse than our Secret Police."--Pastor Valentin
All this nonsense from rather absurd Christians- rather like their attempt to brand people as Philosophical naturalists- avoids the important point.
Yes, Science and rationalism makes an assumption about empirical and observable evidence. But the value of science and rationality has proven itself so absolutely and totally that trying to make out that the Bible is as good a starting point as Empiricism is completely ludicrous.
Look at the world we live in, JIA. A world of civilisation and technology. The medicines that sustain us. The cities we build. The technology that makes cars, planes and- rather more relevantly seeing as to where this debate is going on- electricity, computers, the internet and web forums possible, is ALL based upon the application of this rational scientific process, of deducing how the world works by observation and rigorous testing of the theories we make to explain these observed phenomena.
EVERYONE is linked into this process. You can take a Descartes-style sceptical view if you wish and say that it might all be illusiory, but no-one (least of all Descartes) really lives like that. We all use technology, we all eat food distributed by technology in a civilisation made possible by technology arguing in a form only made possible by technology, all made possible by the scientific method and its apllication towards understanding our world.
We are all innately, absolutely and totally bound up within it. And a damn good thing too. Few can deny the benefits civilisation and technlogy have brought to the world. And all of this is based upon the concepts that you find yourself confronted by in this forum- the need for reliable evidence behind ideas.
We apply this method to everything we see, every idea, every concept, to see whether it is right or wrong- normally somewhere between the two- and to see what is nonsense and what is not, what can be improved and what is worthless.
For some strange reason, religion holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny, and should be accepted just because it says what it is. Well, the world does not work like that any more. Because every single other thing that we do in the world is subject to such scrutinty, people are looking at relgiion the same way- simply with the same rules that we look at everything else with.
As a result, some important parts of the religious establishment are entering into a proper debate on these issues. Applied philosophically, relgion is a valid concept.
But many- like you- are simply falling back to old dogma, and making riduculous threads like these ones here, clinging onto such outdated ideas as if they can still have value in a world that has gained and advanced so much by embracing a method which your approach falls foul of when it comes against it.
The Bible as the starting point for your reasoning has no value. People expect your arguments to hold to the same standards as normal standards of rational and logical behaviour, by such rules, you cannot use the Bible to validate the Bible. You must independantly value it as a source first, and you cannot.
Any other starting point is no better than one using the made up rules of fairy land as the basis of truth. The person you quote is wrong. If you want to demonstrate Christianity is true, then you must argue it from the position of rationality, because that is the only standard that counts.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Sep 29th, 2006 at 09:30 AM
Why do you state that "religion" holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny? Are you and Imperial Samura related? You two sound very much alike.
The Bible is repelete with scientific facts. In fact, the world around you is a testament to God's sublime/eminent intelligence, wisdom, and understanding. I would like to see the schematic diagram of the universe that you have created and sustain by your power, might, and wisdom (this challenge applies to every unbeliever on this forum as well. I don't want anyone to feel left out). Why...why don't scientists apply the same logic to the origin of the universe that they do to everything else? How can a college graduate with all those letters before and after his/her name come to the brilliant deduction and conclusion that this perfectly working universe just evolved? Take a look at this Saleen S7 Twin Turbo.
(please log in to view the image) (please log in to view the image)
As sophisticated as this exquisite machinery is, it is not remotely as involved, intricate, sophisticated and complex, as even one cell in the human body. Yet you believe that cells, matter, energy, all life, nature itself, the universe, and natural laws just sprang into existence by itself and for no reason.
I have no words in my extensive vocabulary to describe such utter, rank, and unmitigated foolishness. Yet your own scientists tell you that all things are a result of cause and effect. But when it comes to life you believe it just happened by itself and for no reason. That is as absurd as me affirming that the Saleen S7 in the above picture just found itself in my driveway (I don't have one I am just speaking hypothetically). That no intelligent designer was responsible.
[You: Where did this amazing car come from?] (Let us just say for discussion sake that we could live for eons of years.)
[Me: you are not going to believe this: it just evolved!]
[You: This complex, sophisticated, state-of-the-art machine from another world just evolved?]
[Me: that's right!]
[You: JesusIsAlive, I don't mean to offend you but...are you taking expired medication?] [Me:No, why do you ask?]
[You: You just said that this splendid, magnificent conveyance that seems to defy and transcend human understanding just evolved--for no reason—and found itself in your driveway.]
[Me: Well, that is what the scientists of our day say, and you know they have all the answers. If anybody ought to know where matter came from it would have to be them.] [You: But JIA, it does not make sense that something this complex just evolved. There had to be an intelligent designer…there just had to be.]
[Me: I told you that it evolved over billions of years from a washer to a nut to a bolt and so on. There are even fossilized washers in the ground. Scientists are unearthing them as we speak.]
[You: I believe otherwise. Here is what I believe: I believe that this car had an intelligent designer/manufacturer.]
[Me: That is absurd. Science says that this car evolved and it can be proven.]
Do you follow what I am saying?
This is what I experience as a Christian, except in this example I am the believer in the Intelligent Designer and you are the believer in evolution.
Last edited by JesusIsAlive on Sep 29th, 2006 at 08:45 AM
"Why do you state that "religion" holds that it should be exempt from such scrutiny?"
Simple, because it completely fails such scrutiny, as you prove here every day. It only survives by holding itself exempt. And if you did NOT exempt yourself, then your entire reason for opening this thread is wasted, because by accepting such scrutiny you must follow the rules, and therefore not use the Bible to justify itself.
-
"The Bible is repelete with scientific facts"
Err, lie... it is mostly full of conjecture and fabrication
-
"Yet you believe that cells, matter, energy, all life, nature itself, the universe, and natural laws just sprang into existence by itself and for no reason. "
Err, assumption, I never said that, though if it is so, so what?
-
"I have no words in my extensive vocabulary to describe such utter, rank, and unmitigated foolishness"
I certainly have no words to describe how idiotic that statement is. It boils down to "This cannot be possibly true because I don't like the idea'" From a rational view, your attempt to counter this idea is ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason why there [should be a reason behind it all, and absolutely no reason why your belief in God is a better reason for the cause of it all than it springing into existence. Again, this is by the rational view that these things must be judged by.
One important difference between Science and Religion is tha Science is purely concerned with the truth, not whether that truth is palatable or not.
-
I am not a 'belivever' in evolution, JIA. I am convinced by the established facts that it is so. Belief is not necessary in the face of evidence.
All of that great big post you just made... and that seemingly completely irrelevant disucssion about a car... does not do one single thing to repudiate my points, which is that the rational standard of science is the only one which is to be taken seriously in such debates. Hence, your circular reasoning in using the Bible to justify itself is invalid.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Sep 29th, 2006 at 09:17 AM
And when most people see this debate and they see you trying to answer an accusation that you use the Bible to justify the Bible, with quotes from the Bible (instead of, say, logical and reasoned argument) who do you think they will see as the fool?
Sonnet, I think you will find people will still argue because that allegory is gibberish.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
KMC Community Forums
Sep 28th, 2006 08:49 PM
