[responsivevoice_button]

We are going to take a look at an article from Creation Ministries International by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati about whether using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular:

All philosophical systems start with axioms (presuppositions), or non-provable propositions accepted as true, and deduce theorems from them. Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms as well, which are the propositions of Scripture (a proposition is a fact about a thing, e.g. God is love).

So the question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and is consistent with the real world.

https://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning

The problem with this idea is that many worldviews do not actually start with “axioms”. That is mainly the idea of those that accept foundationalism. There are alternatives to that model. Those would be the systems of skepticism, infinitism, and coherentism(the various mixes of this and foundationalism). Secondly, even in foundationalism, people don’t accept that at the foundations of their worldview are “axioms”. The idea of unprovable postulates that are arbitrarily assumed isn’t the same as ideas about properly basic beliefs. Some may posit there are different means by which our basic ideas are justified(non-inferential knowledge).

My point is simply to point out that it isn’t true that axioms are at the heart of every worldview. I think it would be a great retorsion for atheists that think that idea, but I don’t think it is a good model for worldviews. The reason for that is because I don’t think the Christian worldview is unprovable. I think we have to presuppose it in all our reasoning. So, it is hardly unprovable, it has been revealed!

If we were to start with Christianity as merely axiomatic, then it seems we have a problem with Provability. Take the following argument:

P1. If something exists then the Christian God exists.
P2. Something Exists.
C: Therefore, the Christian God exists.

It seems this argument is valid and sound. I don’t see how someone that accepts the axiomatic view explains it. They know the argument is true and the premises valid, but they can never accept this argument as actually true because it would render the axioms as pointless. The issue is that the Bible directly states these things and we know them given divine revelation.

Furthermore, in practice, it is hard to see if axioms actually end up being ultimate. We would need certain methods to distinguish between proper axioms and improper axioms. So, unless at the base of every system is arbitrariness, we would need some criterion to distinguish such. The issue is that would entail the axiom isn’t one’s ultimate standard. But rather that method becomes one’s ultimate standard. Dr. Chris Bolt comments on this:

Once a person is questioned concerning his acceptance of axioms, he will answer by suggesting that some contradiction results from rejecting the axiom in question. But how does he know this? Surely it is only by way of Reason or Senses or similar means that axioms are known and/or defended. So it is a bit of a toss-up as to whether or not an axiom is more ultimate than the Reason or Senses etc. by which that axiom is known and defended. Of course, one might also simply accept an axiom as such. But then what is to prevent someone else from doing the very same thing, leading us back to the arbitrariness that plagued the first understanding of presuppositionalism described above?

https://choosinghats.org/2012/01/formal-faith/

My friend Chris Matthew noticed an inconsistency in this position:

Not only is Sarfati’s position bereft of the ability to prove and justify, he seems to be inconsistent with himself. He asserts that (1) axioms are “non-provable propositions”, but then goes on to say that (2) “axiomatic systems” must be verified according to whether they are “consistent with the real world.” But then, what does it mean to say that these axioms are non-provable? (1) and (2) suffer from inconsistency.