A common critique against Christianity is that it relies on circular reasoning to prove itself. Maybe you’ve heard this objection from others or even thought about it yourself. It goes something like this:
Question: “Why do you believe that Christianity is true?”
Answer: “Because the Bible says so, and it is the Word of God.”
Question: “Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, true?
Answer: “…because, well, it says it is…”
For obvious reasons, that answer doesn’t sound very solid or convincing. ‘Because the Bible tells me so,’ might have been a satisfactory answer in 4th grade Sunday School; but now that you’re an adult, it just doesn’t cut it. At face value, it can be concerning to one’s logic… maybe even condemning to one’s doubt… because it’s an answer that is—to put it quite frankly—circular in its reasoning.
“The Bible says we should trust it because it says we should? It’s going to bat for… itself? That’s circular reasoning! Therefore, it can’t be trusted!”
Did the bottom-level ‘Jenga piece’ of our conviction just get yanked from its foundation—and at that, in such little time and with such little effort—such that the whole structure of the Christian faith can only come toppling down?
Well, not too fast. We certainly don’t want to get too illogical, especially in such little time and with such little effort.
To be sure, circular reasoning does not typically strengthen an argument. However, circular reasoning does not make a claim immediately false, either. A claim can still be true, even if circular reasoning is present; and a claim can still be false, even if circular reasoning is not.
Before we get any further, per the Bible: Are there other solid, substantial reasons for believing that Christianity true, and not just because it says so about itself? Yes. (Cite history, archaeology, textual evidence, the validity of its claims, etc.). But the point remains: The Bible affirms itself of its own truthfulness. Does that invalidate its claim? Does it validate its claim? Logically speaking: No, neither.
Let’s hash this out more, except this time with a non-religious, non-philosophical example. Take, for instance, my relationship to my birth-mother, Shirene. How can I be sure that my mom is actually my mom? Let’s apply the same question-answer structure that was used above on the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Question: “Why do you believe Shirene is your real birth-mother?”
Answer: “Because she says so, and she’s always been my mom.”
Question: “Why do you believe her claim is true?”
Answer: “…because, well, she says so…”
Now, again, before we go further: Are there other solid, substantial reasons for confirming if Shirene is my real biological mother, and not just because she says so about herself? Yes. (Check hospital records. Ask my father, Joel. DNA testing.) But the point remains: Shirene affirms herself as my real birth mother.
So, what does the circular reasoning mean and not mean in this situation?
- Does the circular reasoning validate the claim? No. Why? Because Shirene still might not be my mother.
- Does the circular reasoning invalidate the claim? Also, no. Why? Because Shirene might still be my mother.
Whether circular reasoning is present or not, it doesn’t ultimately affect—neither validating nor invalidating—the truthfulness of a truth claim. In these situations, circular reasoning is simply the source affirming itself as the basis for truth. Circular reasoning isn’t necessarily reinforcement for the claim, nor is it meant to be; and likewise, circular reasoning isn’t evidence against the claim, nor can it be used as such. It’s simply an assertion and affirmation of itself.
Now, think about it: If a claim really is true, and especially if it comes from its source, wouldn’t it only be fitting, natural, and expected for the source to affirm its truthfulness about itself? It would only be strange if it did not.
If my real mom, for example, didn’t affirm herself as my real mom, that would be… strange. Not affirming herself as my mom wouldn’t make her any more or any less of my mom. And conversely, affirming herself as my mom doesn’t make her any more or any less of my mom, either. It would just be odd if she didn’t claim to be such, if in fact, she was.
Similarly, in religious and philosophical perspectives, if a truth-claiming source did not affirm itself, it would simply be… odd. But its own affirmation of itself wouldn’t be an indictment nor an indication of its truthfulness, either.
Now, since logic takes no sides and shows no partiality, here’s what’s so fascinating:
When we apply this same question-answer framework to the ‘non-religious’ perspective, what we’ll discover is the same operating principle of circular reasoning invariably at play as well. How so? Follow the below:
Question: “Why do you believe God does not exist, and atheism is true?”
Answer: “Because reasoning and logic prove it.”
Question: “Why do you believe that your reasoning and logic are true?”
Answer: “…because my reasoning and logic say that my reasoning and logic are true.”
Ah, interesting. That is, fundamentally, circular reasoning. Why? Because the source affirms itself about its own truthfulness.
Now, again, for a third time: Are there other plausible reasons for arguing this perspective, and not just because one’s reasoning and logic say so? Sure. Maybe you’d bring up Christopher Hitchens or Bart Ehrman in your defense. But the point remains: This type of reasoning affirms itself as the basis for what’s true.
So, again, what does circular mean as well as not mean here?
- Does the circular reasoning validate its atheistic claim? No. Why? Because God still might exist.
- Does the circular reasoning invalidate its atheistic claim? Also, no. Why? Because God still might not exist.
Whether you’re religious or not, and whether a truth claim is true or not, the point is that circular reasoning is just as present in ‘non-religious’ perspectives as it is in ‘religious’ ones.
Here’s what I want us all to see very clearly: At the very bottom of every worldview is the affirmation of itself. And even more so: Whatever you put at the bottom of a worldview has to be taken at faith.[1]
Why trust our own logic and reasoning, especially in an only-material reality? Has our own logic and reasoning ever failed us? Has our own logic and reasoning ever seen the whole picture? Why trust science to tell us truth about non-material reality? Or does that very conviction assume its own worldview already, that there is none? These worldviews, inescapably, operate upon circular reasoning at the very bottom. And each is inevitably taken at faith.
The Christian’s basis for truth is the Bible, which argues in support of itself as God’s revelation to man of the truthfulness of reality. The atheist’s basis for truth is reason, which also argues in support of itself. The Muslim’s basis for truth is the Quran, which argues in support of itself. The Catholic’s basis for truth is the Pope, who argues in support of his own authority. Does this mean that all are true or that none are true? No, of course not. It just means that foundational truth claims, at the very bottom, affirm themselves. And why wouldn’t they, especially if they believe what they actually are: the basis for truth?
Speaking to Christian readers: Your answer ‘because the Bible told me so,’ is not the best case to make if you’re arguing for the Bible’s veracity. This is because its own self-affirmation is, in a way, not meant to be your strongest apologetic anyways. Go to forensic analysis, textual criticism, eye-witness accounts, extra-biblical resource, historical documentation, applied existential truths, personal testimony, and more.
Speaking to non-Christian readers: If you ask yourself enough, ‘Why’s’ and get to the bottom of your worldview, do not be shocked when you too arrive at circular reasoning in some capacity as well. Everyone has a worldview and everyone has their own ‘Bible,’ i.e., their own foundation for making sense of life that affirms itself as true. The mere use of ‘circular reasoning’ or ‘self-affirmation’ doesn’t make a claim any less true or false. It is merely a signal that it is claiming truth absolutely.
The main question, therefore, is not, “If it claims to be true, does it use circular reasoning?”
The ultimate question is, “Is its own affirmation about itself legitimately founded so that it’s most reasonable to believe in and submit to?”
Truth does exist. It can be discovered. It’s waiting to be. It doesn’t depend on our acknowledgment and admission. And at the end of the day, it will defend itself.
As St. Augustine once famously said, “The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.”
[1] Andrew Hopper, I Don’t Trust The Bible – 1 Timothy 3:16 – And That’s Why I’m Not A Christian. Sermon given at Mercy Hill Church in Greensboro, NC on April 10, 2021.
