Round One: Circular Reasoning

Hi! I’d just like to go on record here and now to announce to you and the world that I am… Batman.

Alright, everyone calm down. I know the majority of you already want autographs, and the paparazzi are rolling up even now for photographs. But maybe some of you are skeptics. Some of you might doubt my claim. Okay, fine. Let me just ask you this: Have you ever seen Batman and me at the same time in the same place?

Yeah, that’s what I thought. I rest my case, I am Batman.

Silly, right? And I am joking with all of that, but my joke (like most jokes) is done with the attempt to pursue a reaction or to prove a point. The point I’d like to make is that circular reasoning is not foolproof. We can go round-and-round saying that I’m Batman and that since you’ve never seen us simultaneously my argument is a valid one.

Circular reasoning is an argument one tries to prove valid on its own claims. In a sense it’s going about in circles. It doesn’t always work. But it can work.  We use circular reasoning a lot more than we think. For example, if we wanted to prove the merits of science we would have to reference science. If I want to praise the benefits of a certain meal I would compare or contrast it to other meals. A movie is judged according to other movies in the film industry.

Maybe poets can wax eloquent and create abstract comparisons (metaphors, etc.) to address something likened to something else. But most of us adopt circular reasoning in our arguments. And the truth of the matter is no one really seems to mind…

…until it comes to the Bible.

For some reason the Bible is off limits from circular reasoning. We are told that we are not allowed to use the Bible to prove the Bible. But we never hear a scientist being told not to use science to prove (or disprove) science. A chef is never told not to cook or reference condiments, meals, taste, and other culinary experiences. That’d be ludicrous!

Yet when it comes to the Bible circular reasoning is off limits. And to make matters worse, is that we believe the critics and back down. So let me ask: How do you prove the Bible without using the Bible?

Without our Bibles, we lose most of our understanding of who God is, what salvation means, and so much more. Yes, nature proclaims the glory of God. I’m not denying that nature may be a good teacher, but I will affirm that nature is an insufficient teacher.

But to prove the Bible (its inerrancy, its authority, its historicity, etc.) without the Bible leaves us in a fuddled mess. We are bewildered with what to do next. And we leave others confused too. But we needn’t cower before our critics. An argument with circular reasoning is not always an invalid one. We don’t deny that sometimes it’s not the best argument, but neither is it moot. In fact, it is a valid one in our case and we have every right to use it.

Come back next week to see how we can best use circular reasoning to prove the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.