Christianity is often condemned for its circular reasoning, and postmodernism is often condemned for its contradictions. However, we cannot reasonably expect the heart of any philosophy (including Christianity) to be free of both circular reasoning and contradiction. One or both of these are of necessity at the heart of every philosophy.
Circular reasoning or contradiction are the necessary result of supporting our philosophy, or more specifically, our epistemology, on the most basic level. The problematic question is simply, "How do we know that this is how we know?" We have only two ways to answer: we must either step outside or stay within our philosophy. If we step outside the philosophy to answer this question, we contradict ourselves. For example, if we attempt to show that postmodernism must be reasonably believed, we are, to oversimplify, saying, "How do we know that reason is an invalid basis for truth? By reason." If we use reason to demonstrate that Christ or the Bible should be the foundation for truth, we reach the same contradiction.
The other option is to stay within the philosophy to answer the question. This leads to circular reasoning. Christians are guilty of this when they say something like, "How do we know that God exists? By the Bible. How do we know the Bible is true? Because it came from God."
We cannot satistfactorily support any philosophy on the most basic level. We must therefore seek to find, not conclusive proof, but good grounds for believing in a philosophy.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A good point. Most philosophies have unverifiable basic assumptions. Though some make more sense than others.
Post a Comment