B
billcu1
Guest
What is circular reasoning? I have come across this term in philosophic arguments.
- Status
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
It’s where you begin with the premise you are trying to prove. The logic of it may be quite sound, but the whole thing still proves nothing because it begins by presupposing its conclusion.
For example, “the Bible cannot be wrong, therefore it is inerrant” would be an example of circular reasoning.
For example, “the Bible cannot be wrong, therefore it is inerrant” would be an example of circular reasoning.
S
sousley
Guest
I don’t know but there’s a lot of it going a-round
F
Feldwebel
Guest
Regarding circular reasoning, there is the story of the old preacher who announced that he was going to prove the existence of God in his Sunday sermon.
The church was packed. Even members of the press were there.
The old preacher opened his Bible at the podium and addressed his congregation thus.
"We can be certain that God exists because it says so in the Bible."
The church was packed. Even members of the press were there.
The old preacher opened his Bible at the podium and addressed his congregation thus.
"We can be certain that God exists because it says so in the Bible."
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Strictly speaking circular reasoning is a special case of the fallacy of begging the question which is an argument that assumes as true what is to be proven. In other words, one assumes as a premise the conclusion they intend to prove. Essentially one is restating (usually in a different way) the conclusion as a premise. A classic example is: “To allow every citizen unbounded freedom of speech must always be good for the state, for it is highly conducive to the interests of a community that each individual enjoys a liberty unrestricted in expressing his sentiments.”
Another example: “Society has an obligation to support the needy, because people who cannot provide for themselves have a right to the resources of the community.”
In circular reasoning the form would be: Stating that A is proved by B; and then arguing that B is proved by A.
“My rabbi is holier than yours because he dances with angels every night after he goes to sleep.”
“How do you know?”
“Because he told me.”
“But how can you believe him?”
“Because a man who dances with angels every night isn’t going to lie.”
B
billcu1
Guest
Oh ok I see
L
Linux
Guest
Me and Linus was having a debate about God’s existential relationship with creation and the esse and essence distinction. He claimed that what I was arguing for was identical to that which is condemned by the church and that therefore my argument was wrong.
That’s an example of a circular argument. The reason its a circular argument is because he assumes in his premise that the church is right and therefore concludes on that assumption that my argument is wrong.
It was also a red herring because in a logical debate it is irrelevant what you hold to be true by faith. However he was successful in misdirecting his audience with fear-mongering, knowing that most Catholics will simply ignore the possible validity of any argument if it is said to be against what they hold by faith under fret of mortal sin.
It was also a straw-man because what he called pantheism was not actually the logical conclusion of my argument. But if you can draw similarities between two things its not that hard to deceive your audience into thinking they are the same thing.
He was also making contextual fallacies because theological statements do not consider the metaphysical nature of things or the esse/essence distinction; and so he failed to show that my argument was in fact against church teaching.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Circular reasoning:
“There is no God.”
“How do you know?”
“Because I have never seen God.”
“Why have you never seen God?”
“Because there is no God.”
Quod erat demonstrandum.
“There is no God.”
“How do you know?”
“Because I have never seen God.”
“Why have you never seen God?”
“Because there is no God.”
Quod erat demonstrandum.
- Status