A Self-Sustaining Fallacy

Circular Reasoning in Christian Apologetics

Mar 29, 2025

In one of Pauls letters, he writes, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). This verse is often cited by believers as proof that the Bible is divinely inspired. But this raises an obvious question: how do we know scripture is inspired by God? Because the Bible says so. This statement is not a reasoned argument; it is an assumption that validates itself - a textbook example of circular reasoning.

One of the most common logical fallacies found in Christian apologetics is circular reasoning. This occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed within its premises, making the argument self-referential and ultimately invalid. Despite its obvious flaws, circular reasoning is often used to reinforce theological claims, particularly in the defence of the Bible’s authority.

The Classic Example: "The Bible is True Because It Says So"

A well-known example of circular reasoning in apologetics is the claim that the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. This argument typically follows this structure:

The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible says that God’s word is true.
Therefore, the Bible is true.

At no point does this argument introduce an external verification for the claim. It simply assumes that the Bible is true and uses that assumption to prove itself. This is akin to someone saying, "I never lie, and you must believe me because I just told you so." Such reasoning would be dismissed in any other context, yet in religious discussions, it is often treated as persuasive.

The Insulation Against Criticism

Another feature of circular reasoning in apologetics is how it is used to insulate religious beliefs from scrutiny. A common tactic is to claim that those who reject the argument do so because they lack understanding, are spiritually blind, or have hardened hearts. This is a way of dismissing criticism without addressing the actual objections.

For example, consider the statement I used in A First Cause or Infinite Digress?: "Denying an argument can sometimes be seen as proof that one lacks understanding of it."
I deliberately included this line to demonstrate how easily unverified claims can be embedded within an argument and accepted without question. This kind of assertion subtly shifts the burden onto the skeptic, implying that disbelief stems from ignorance rather than a legitimate issue with the argument itself. Apologists frequently use similar tactics to protect biblical claims from critical examination.

The Self-Validating Loop

Circular reasoning is not only used to defend the Bible but also extends to theological doctrines. Take the claim, "God exists because we can see His handiwork in the world." This assumes that what one sees in the world is necessarily the handiwork of God, without demonstrating that a deity is responsible in the first place. Similarly, claims such as "Christianity is the one true religion because it produces spiritual fulfilment" rest on an unfounded assumption that any fulfilment must come from divine validation rather than psychological or social factors.

Why This Matters

Recognising circular reasoning is crucial because it exposes the fragility of many apologetic arguments. If a claim cannot stand without presupposing its own truth, then it lacks genuine evidentiary support. In any serious discourse, assertions must be backed by independent verification rather than self-referential claims. If Christians truly want to make a case for their beliefs, they must do so without relying on arguments that merely reinforce themselves without outside justification.

Conclusion

Circular reasoning is a hallmark of Christian apologetics, yet it remains one of the weakest forms of argumentation. By assuming the conclusion within the premise, it fails to provide any actual evidence, relying instead on self-reinforcement. Whether it’s the Bible "proving" itself or dismissing skeptics as simply lacking understanding, these tactics reveal more about the weaknesses of religious claims than their strengths. If faith is to be defended intellectually, it must move beyond logical fallacies and provide arguments that withstand scrutiny without depending on their own assertions for validity.

Share Deconstructing Faith and Scripture

Deconstructing Faith and Scripture

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?