What is Circular Reasoning?

This is part 2 of Circling on God (part 1 is here). In this section of the paper Bryce seeks to define what circular reasoning is and to demonstrate that all reasoning involves circularity.

——-

The method of argumentation used by most traditional modern thinkers is the inductive method of reasoning. To prove something inductively is to begin by examining particular facts or evidences and to extrapolate conclusions from them. Proponents of this type of thinking presume that the conclusion should be drawn logically from the premises or evidence given, or the conclusion should depend upon the evidence that supports it. This is also referred to as “linear” reasoning because the subject reasons in a “straight line” from the evidence to the conclusion.[2]

According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, a sequence of reasoning is circular when “one of the premises depends on, or is even equivalent to, the conclusion.”[3] While several distinctions may be made among different types of circularity, this paper will focus on the particular type of circularity referred to by philosopher Douglas N. Walton as the “dependency conception.”[4] In this type of circularity the conclusion must first be true in order for the premises to be true. In other words, the conclusion is assumed to be true by the proponent before beginning the argument. Circular arguments depend on basic presuppositions that are assumed at the outset of the argument. This view lies at the heart of the presuppositional apologetic proposed by Cornelius Van Til which will be examined in more detail later, but what is important to understand at this point is that circular reasoning involves arguing for a certain conclusion inside the structure of a presupposed context.

Philosophers and logicians have traditionally viewed this type of reasoning as fallacious, or at best, useless since the skeptic is not likely to accept the conclusion the proponent is trying to prove simply because the skeptic was asked to accept it. Quoting from Walton:

The fallacy of begging the question is a species of failure to carry out the burden of proving one’s thesis by utilizing premises that the arguer can accept, independently of one’s own conclusion to be proved. For it is in the nature of persuasion dialogue that the other arguer will reasonably be disinclined to accept that conclusion without proof or argument. [5]

Walton assumes that the skeptic in an argument will regard certain types of evidences (premises) as valid and others as invalid before even beginning to argue. It is the task of her opponent, therefore, to provide her with evidences she approves of and that do not depend on the conclusion being argued. If the proponent of the argument, however, provides evidence that logically depends on the conclusion he is trying to prove, the skeptic has no reason to accept that evidence as valid since it depends on the yet unproven conclusion. Thus, claims Walton, this is a useless type of argumentation.

While secular philosophers and unbelievers in general claim to not be guilty of this type of “logical fallacy” since they claim to reason using “unbiased,” “objective” methods to know what they know, Van Til argues that anyone who engages in reasoning at all must, and does, reason in a circle. He writes, “We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man.”[6] When attempting to answer the question of God’s existence (or any other question, for that matter), everyone assumes certain things to be true before they even begin to reason. They assume things like the laws of logic, the laws of reason, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of sense perception and countless other beliefs through which they interpret the world.

Clearly, circular reasoning involves assuming that which one is trying to prove. All circular reasoning involves presuppositions upon which one’s circle rests and anyone who reasons at all engages in circular reasoning. The question then becomes: on what presuppositions does a person’s reasoning circle?

[1]“Circular reasoning” is also commonly referred to as “begging the question” because instead of giving evidence to support a particular conclusion, the arguer “begs” his opponent to accept his conclusion before he begins to prove it.

[2]John M. Frame, “Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic,” Westminster Theological Journal 47 no2 (Fall 1985): 288.

[3]Ted Honderich, Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 135.

[4]Douglas N. Walton, Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991), p. 2.

[5]Ibid, p. 128.

[6]Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998), p. 518.

——-
Next: Van Til’s Method of Reasoning and Common Objections to It