by Chris Alexion, Copyright October 30, 2005, all rights reserved. 225 views
Begging the question, known in Latin as petitio principii, is the fallacy of circular reasoning. We beg the question when we discretely assume the point we're trying to prove. Enter twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell:
"There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment….It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell….I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world."
- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
Russell's argument about Christ's "moral defect" only works if we assume that eternal punishement is false. But this assumption can only be true if Christ's teaching is false. (Russell, at any rate, brings in no independent authority to disprove hell.)
In other words, Christ is wrong because He teaches hell, and we know hell is wrong because Christ is wrong. Hmm.
1 • Mac Gal • November 05, 2005 • 8:28 PM
Hi Sarah,
I read what you said and do not agree. I do not believe as a Christian I need to turn my brain off & just believe. I fully believe and stand on the absolute infallible & inerrantness of scripture! Why? Josh McDowell says it well & I get details mixed up, so I won't even try to give specifics. I will say that time and all nature around us matches what God's word says. Written by the hands of many men, over a time span of thousands of years. It fits together without contradiction. Actual events in time were correctly predicted before hand. So many specifics match…. yet in the end, faith is needed to climb up in God's lap and trust fully in His written word as total absolute truth. I believe not just because I'm supposed to, but because what I know and see matches with it. When it does not, or science does not, we've more to studym search out & learn.
Mac
2 • Dory • March 11, 2006 • 9:26 AM
I agree with Sarah that circular reasoning is necessary for your most basic assumptions, and none of us can avoid it entirely. The usefulness of that understanding is this: It reveals a persons heirarchy of beliefs. Using Chris's quote of Russell as an example, we learn from it that Russell is willing to discount the claims of Christ and His witnesses because he judges them by a higher (in his mind) standard: the nonexistence of Hell or his judgment that Hell would be an immoral thing for a god to create.
Many people discount spiritual claims on the basis of a lack of empirical data, revealing their basic metaphysical and epistemological assumptions: that only the physical world exists and knowledge can only be gained through an empirical process. (A self-refuting claim, by the way.)
In contrast, Sarah's example of the person of faith trusting the Scriptures, reveals a basic metaphysics that is willing to accept both a physical and a spiritual reality and an epistemology that includes a basic belief that God has revealed Himself to mankind through the Scriptures.
My point is, that while circular reasoning is to be avoided when possible, it is unavoidable when dealing with basic assumptions of one's worldview. However, it is very useful for the apologist to recognize circular reasoning when he hears it–for it reveals the worldview of the speaker, and allows him to challenge those things that exalt themselves above God.
It's nice to find an old friend on the web, Chris! I just found your blog today through your entry to the Christian Carnival, which I am administering. Blessings to you and your family.
Dory Zinkand of Wittenberg Gate.
3 • Chris • March 11, 2006 • 4:24 PM
Good to hear from you, Mrs. Zinkand! I had no idea you were the Dory from Wittenburg Gate. Hope all is well with you guys.
Great points. I totally agree.
Chris
4 • Dory • March 12, 2006 • 11:00 PM
I linked to you from Wittenberg Gate. I don't see a way to send you a trackback. Anyway, I hope it sends you a visitor or two. I hope to see you in the Christian Carnival a lot in the future.
Dory
5 • gemma • May 21, 2006 • 6:37 PM
I just want to say that your assertion that Russell is begging the question is false. You have misread what he said. Russell was not saying
"Christ is wrong because He teaches hell, and we know hell is wrong because Christ is wrong."
Russell's objection is that he believes that the concept of Hell (i.e. everlasting punishment) is immoral and unjust. He finds it incompatible that a loving caring person would wish to see anyone subjected to eternal suffering. So he saw a defect in Christs character - that he believed and allowed people to go to hell. That is the point he was making. Russell was a master logician so you will be hard pressed to fault him on issues such as these.
Thanks,
Gemma
6 • Cruz • September 01, 2006 • 3:49 PM
In other words Gemma, Russell assumed that hell is wrong therefore it is wrong. Circular reasoning to the core! Regardless of Russel trying to point out inconsistancies between Christ character and His acceptance of hell, in order to see hell as an inconsistancy Russell has to assume that hell is wrong.
——-