Tuscany, Italy
August 25, 2016
I noticed my original article on 'Begging the question' did not receive much viewership, but it was 2007. I therefore will republish and continue with my Pirie review, simultaneously (See, I am not a total moron, as I tell the toddlers). As readers will know, I am not whatsoever apologetic for recirculating old material with newer material, as I do not believe in 'reinventing the wheel.' Time is short and I am a busy man.
Begging The Question & Circulus In Probando
'It consists of using as evidence a fact which is authenticated by the very conclusion it supports.' (56).
From the original article below from 2007, in the next section, I grant what Professor Blackburn is stating and acknowledge that such arguments can often be reasonably held to. Again, Blackburn's balance on such philosophical issues is very useful.
I will once again state what I did in 2007, that I still very much attempt to make my arguments as non-circular as possible. I have spent many hours on both of my Blogger sites, rewording premises so that they do not overly assume the conclusion.
Pirie further states:
'It fails to relate the unknown or unaccepted to the known or accepted. All it gives us is two unknowns so busy chasing each other's tails that neither has time to attach itself to reality.' (57).
Pirie notes (in this secular text, my add) that convincing proofs for religion and ideology would make it much more difficult for intelligent people to disagree with them. (57). He also warns against the use of supposed scientific knowledge with circular reasoning. A new theory in line with old theories is accepted, he suggests, but these are not often objectively proven. (57). He warns that scientific knowledge from argumentation may be consistent and circular, simultaneously. (57).
It seems to me that attempting to separate premise from conclusion as much as possible, within reason, is valid.
Rather than stating:
Premise
People have a 'God-shaped hole in the heart'.
Conclusion
Therefore the Bible is true.
Better to seek objectivity, even with spirituality as these are not mutually exclusive, contrary to some with hyper-theologies.
An obviously limited and non-exhaustive example follows:
Premise
The Hebrew Bible is documented religious history.
Premise
The New Testament is documented religious history.
Premise
The New Testament presents a bridge to and from the Hebrew Bible by prophetic and theological means.
Premise
The New Testament presents the culmination of God's plans for this creation through the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.
Premise
Rationalism and philosophy of religion can provide arguments for the existence of an infinite, eternal, non-material first cause.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Christian faith and philosophy is reasonable to hold to.
---
Begging the question
February 12, 2007
In books and on blogs I see the term begging the question thrown around a lot. Here is a look at how three philosophy texts define this term.
Simon Blackburn in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy writes that begging the question assumes what is at issue in an argument. Blackburn (1996: 39). Although persons are commonly accused of begging the question there is no logical definition of those kinds of arguments that beg the question. Blackburn (1996: 39). In the widest sense any valid argument may beg the question since its premises already contain its conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39). Blackburn explains that these types of arguments can still be reasonably held. Blackburn (1996: 39). I do however, attempt to avoid arguing my conclusion in any one of my premises although a premise could allude to a conclusion, although I attempt to avoid this as well. Blackburn writes that a best definition of begging the question would be if a clear premise would not be accepted by any reasonable person who is initially prone to deny the conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39).
David H. Sanford within The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines begging the question under the heading of circular reasoning. It is described as reasoning that traced backwards forms it own conclusion and returns to that starting point. Sanford (1996: 124). Sanford explains that presuming a truth of a conclusion within a premise thwarts the attempt to increase the degree of reasonable confidence that a conclusion is true. Sanford (1996: 124). It is better when putting together different types of arguments to establish separate but related premises that would ultimately support a conclusion rather than weakening an argument by assuming the conclusion within a premise and therefore not providing actual evidence for the conclusion.
David A. Conway and Ronald Munson in The Elements of Reasoning explain begging the question (Petitio Principii) as when the issue at hand is begged and not really addressed. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is when some reason offered for some conclusion is not really different from the conclusion itself. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is stating a conclusion that also serves as a premise. Conway and Munson (1997: 132).
In my view it is not begging the question to define a viewpoint without argumentation or to state that if a certain view is assumed correct then a related point could be assumed correct in a hypothetical context. If a person defines a theory in response to a contrary view it is not begging the question because the person is merely pointing out the differences between two different perspectives and not arguing for or against those perspectives. Also if a person states that if an assumption is correct then another assumption may be true is also not begging the question since the person would be offering hypothetical analysis and not an argumentation on the truth of the claims. Begging the question would be if a person specifically argued the conclusion of an argument within a premise.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Begging the question’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
SANFORD, DAVID H. (1996) ‘Circular Reasoning', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
