Circular Reasoning & The Bible
Every philosophy, epistemology, and theology has, at its root, some form of circular reasoning. It's just a matter of recognizing it. By asking "Why...why...why...?" enough times, one can eventually expose the source of nearly all of one's presuppositions. I bring this up, not to expose those who use circular reasoning as if they are at fault for doing so, but rather to help us evaluate the validity of our sources.
Consider the atheist...ask them why they don't believe in God, and you will get a variety of answers. Some cite reasons that sound more like they don't have a reason while others might have had a painful life experience that caused them to not only question God, but to reject their belief in Him altogether. The former assumes that God does not exist based on no other basis of belief except what they think for themselves. This is a faulty presupposition, however, because everyone will admit that they are not perfect and that they have made wrong assumptions and decisions in the past. Why, then, should they, I, or anyone for that matter, trust in themselves as the source of definitive knowledge regarding an issue as important as the existence of God?
In the latter case, on the other hand—not to downplay the extent to which such horrific life experiences can destroy a person's confidence and purpose—they base their rejection of God on the fact that they believe God, if He even exists, should be different than they were expecting. Perhaps they believe God should be more willing to let them keep the job they lost, or keep their legs after an accident, or keep their spouse that passed away. These are crippling life experiences for sure, but are these the things that would make God good? Why would we begin to presume such things based only on our own notions, which we have acknowledged up to this point to be faulty more often than we would really like to admit? Holding to an idea for no other reason than because they simply believe it, is faulty logic, NOT because it is circular reasoning, but instead because they are not always right, so there is no reason to definitively believe that they are right in this case.
On the other hand, for the Bible-believing Christian, when asked why they believe in God, says...
"Because the Bible says that God exists."
Why should I believe the bible?
"Because the Bible is true."
How do you know it's true?
"Because the Bible says the Bible is true."
This is not faulty reasoning even though it does involve circular reasoning. It is only faulty if someone can point out an irreconcilable error in the Bible. By "error," I mean to refer only to blatant contradictions or facts that can be incontrovertibly disproved, and I do not believe there are any (cf., 2 Timothy 3:16). "Mysteries," however, are not uncommon in scripture, but just because we can't explain something does not require us to abandon it—because our knowledge is subject to God, not the other way around. Now, the believer will naturally strive to defend scripture as they are confronted with issues that challenge it, but this is not to lead anyone to conclude that the only way to believe the Bible is true is if they first successfully extinguish every issue ever raised against it. On the other side of the coin, the non-believer will likewise naturally strive to disprove scripture. But the non-believer's presuppositions are faulty for the reasons explained above, whereas those of the believer are not.
Logically, one does not need a reason to believe that something is true, but having a reason why it is not true requires one to abandon that belief. That being said, suffice it to say I still think there are a number of reasons to believe that the Bible can be trusted as true, which include, but are not limited to, the following: it is full of hundreds of prophecies regarding the life and death of Christ that were accurately fulfilled (cf., 2 Peter 1:20-21), and it is extremely accurate both historically and scientifically.
But what about the Bible's authors, one might ask? Aren't they just as fallible and prone to error as every other human? So why can we trust them who wrote the Bible? These are good questions, indeed, but I would contend that we do not trust the writers, but instead we trust God. Scripture tells us not only that it is true, but also that God is sovereignly in control, and if these things are true, then it is reasonable to believe that God, through these writers, preserved His words to us and used these fallible men to do so. "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
2 comments:
Your general approach on atheists as either basing their disbelief in God in a variety of largely personal reasons (logic, pain, disagreement with “god” as they have known it, etc) seems to hold true with what I have seen. You said, “Why, then, should they [Atheists], I, or anyone for that matter, trust in themselves as the source of definitive knowledge regarding an issue as important as the existence of God?” This is a very good question for anyone will acknowledge their own imperfection as you have said, but it is also a double-edged sword: the Christian relies on his own trust in the church and scripture just as the atheist will rely on his logic or emotions. Neither can then provide external proof to convince the other since their foundational circular reasoning differs from the other. So then we are left with one of two options (or a combination): finding a common denominator of logic and trying to convince each other or befriending those of whom you care while letting your life be an example as the spirit works on their heart. I would argue that the latter is much more effective, and the only biblical model.
You later said “The Bible-believing Christian, when asked why they believe in God, says...’Because the Bible is true.’” I would take issue with this point, as you might have guessed based on my previous blog entries, as I don’t believe that the typical Christian believes in God because they believe the Bible is true. This naturally leads into a “Chicken and the egg” scenario where you would have to believe the Bible is true before you believe God is true, but would never believe that the Bible is true before believing that God is true. I would entirely reverse the above statement to say “The Bible-believing Christian believes the Bible is true because they believe in God, and knows what they know about God because they believe in the Bible.” Now maybe that is nuancing what you said, but I think that people first come to have an inner faith in God (in a very general form) through personal revelations, cultural experience, or the lives of those around them as lead by the Spirit. This faith then leads them into trusting the sources of information about God such as the Bible and the church, which lead them into a greater knowledge about who God is.
You wrote, "It is also a double-edged sword: the Christian relies on his own trust in the church and scripture just as the atheist will rely on his logic or emotions." This is a reasonable assessment of the foundations of the Christian's and non-Christian's trust. But my exposition was not intended to question a person's ability or even their inclination to trust (because both groups of people trust in something), but instead to question in what each person's trust is founded. The atheist trusts in himself, his logic and emotions, apart from the Bible, which for every person has failed them more than once.
This is not to say that logic cannot be used to provide reasons for belief (otherwise, I wouldn't be posting any of this) or that emotions are not carefully weighed when making a decision as monumental as believing or not believing in God. The Christian also uses logic and emotion, but the primary difference in this instance is that these tools are subject to the Bible. Every Christian I'm sure has erroneously used logic and emotion to understand or explain the Bible; I have indeed been rebuked for a wrong belief, but this does not point to a problem with the Bible, but instead to a problem with me. Because I can be wrong, I also subject myself to the church because many believers together can understand the Bible better than I can on my own; and in turn, the church subjects itself to the Bible. Admittedly, neither I nor any church can stand up to such a tall order and often fall short of it, but God will graciously hold up His universal church, sustaining her until He comes for her once and for all.
Now, no person--absolutely no person--would choose to subject their reason to an external source such as the Bible unless their hearts were transformed from the inside out. In other words, a person's faith and belief in God (as I believe scripture explains) comes not from themselves, but "it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). Faith is given to us in such a way as to remove the veil that was in front of our faces, a veil that utterly prevented us from wanting to subject our reason, hearts, and lives to the authority of the Bible. God, then, is solely "the author and perfecter of our faith," and we come to trust Him and His Word because He actuates our belief for us (Hebrews 12:2).
Now regarding your choice of two options when trying to convince another person of the God of the Bible: "finding a common denominator of logic and trying to convince each other or befriending those for whom you care while letting your life be an example as the Spirit works on their heart." I completely agree that the latter is much more effective. So why did I write all the things I wrote? "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). All of this is not an explanation of how I came to be a Christian, but instead it is a reason that I cite in defending my faith now that I already am a Christian. God, of course, can use those who incorporate these ideas as a persuasive tool in order to transform the hearts of others, but I admit that, in my experience, a life well lived in close community is most effective.
Lastly, you stated, "I don’t believe that the typical Christian believes in God because they believe the Bible is true." Well said, and point taken. Let me rephrase my question...instead of asking why do you believe in God, let me ask, "What reasonable defense can you give for believing in God?" This implies less of "how did I come to believe it?" and more of "what sense does it make given that I already believe it?" I love what you wrote, stating, "The Bible-believing Christian believes the Bible is true because they believe in God, and knows what they know about God because they believe in the Bible," and defends such a belief in the Bible using the Bible, I would add.
Post a Comment