Reasoning

As a Presuppositional Apologist, reasoning (which assumes the use of logic), comes up quite frequently. Everyone, believers and unbelievers alike, uses logic. Sometimes the unbeliever uses logic better than the believer. However, the Christian is the only one that has a basis, or foundation, that grounds logic. The unbeliever uses it, yes, but he or she cannot give an account for why they use it. They cannot justify why it is important to be logical or hold a foundation for why we have logic in the first place. Why are we all held accountable to an unchanging, universal law like logic in a material universe? How do we get such laws in a material universe? How and why should we hold to logic in a random chance universe that doesn’t care about us? How can the unbeliever ground reasoning and the use of immaterial laws like logic? I would like to hit some of these questions and shine some light on the subject of reason from a presuppositional framework. My prayer is that God uses this to help and edify His church. Giving Christians an apologetic defense for such questions by giving them a better understanding of the unbelieving worldview.

The unbeliever has no basis for the logic they hold to. They cannot think or have a conversation without first assuming the laws of logic. They will hold everyone accountable to consistency and truth (law of non-contradiction). Why, as a random result of evolutionary process, in a universe that doesn’t care about us say that we need to hold to these universal unchanging laws? Where do they get such laws in their worldview? This is where the believer pushes back. We lovingly show the unbeliever that their worldview cannot account for or give the necessary preconditions to ground an immaterial law like logic. In a material universe, where would one find a law of logic? Could we find one out in nature or could we lose one in say a washing machine? No, because they are not material in nature. So, how can an immaterial law be in a material only world? How can the unbeliever account for these laws that they use all the time? They cannot account for them. This has plagued unbelieving philosophers for ages. Now, if you get someone that says, “yes the laws are real and they are not material,” we can push them to consistency to see how they ground such a law. When we push the unbeliever to give us an account that justifies the laws of logic, they generally go to their senses. They say things like, “My senses validate that the laws are real”. This is begging the question. It assumes laws of logic is true as they would have to use these laws to make sense of their senses in the first place. They may go to their experience for the justification, saying, “My experiences validate they are real and give me the grounding for them”. Again, question begging is at play. Experiences can only be interpreted using senses which already assume that the laws of logic are real and true. The unbeliever can never land the plane and give an account of where these laws come from. It eventually turns into circular reasoning and they will just continue to validate experiences based on senses and senses based off experiences. They push the believer to be consistent but sadly they themselves cannot.

We as believers have a grounding for reason and logic. We do not live in a random universe, and we are not random results of evolution. God created everything and governs all things (Gen. 8:22, Col. 1:17). We live in His world (Psalm. 24:1), and we are made in His image (Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1). Our reasoning comes from God as we are made in His image, thus our thinking reflects His thinking. We think logically because our God is a logical God. Logic reflects The Creators thinking. These laws are consistent because our God is consistent. These laws are unchanging because our God is unchanging. These laws are universal (extending everywhere) because our God is universal (omnipresent). God upholds the world and brings it to its intended destination. So we have a basis to say the laws of logic are fixed and will not change from day to day. We, as believers, can count on these laws to always be present and unchanging. The laws make complete sense in our worldview.  We have a grounding for these laws that most take for granted and never think about; all the while using them throughout their entire life.

In this final section, I want to hit what I would call the pinnacle of the apologetic fight regarding reason. If the unbeliever pushes hard enough against the Christian, this question will come up. This is assuming that we have already laid the foundation that our ultimate authority is God’s Word (Scripture). The unbeliever can push back to the point that this question comes up. The question goes something like this, “You say Scripture is your ultimate authority but don’t you have to use reason (or your reasoning ability) to interpret or make sense of Scripture?”. It could also be said as, “Don’t you have to use your reasoning to even come to the place that God is real or there could be a God in the first place?” The unbeliever is trying to push the believer to admit that their own reasoning is their ultimate authority, not God and His Word. If the apologist hasn’t thought through or heard these questions before, it could be a stumbling block for them. I would like to address this, and try to make this as understandable as possible. These questions assume a false “neutrality”, saying that somehow logic is separate from God. The unbeliever is asserting that reasoning is on one side of the scale and God is on the other side. Almost assuming that reasoning is a tool by itself apart or separate from the Almighty Creator. Logic or reasoning is not in a vacuum sitting out in space somewhere. Reasoning can never be apart from God. (Acts 17: 28) Paul says “for in Him we live and move and exist”. The ESV translates the word “exist” as “have our being”.  Logic is never separated from God, it cannot be. We live in His world and think thoughts after Him. In other words, we don’t reason to God but instead our reasoning comes from God. So, since our reasoning is never separate from God, but instead comes from Him and we live in His world, we can’t escape it. Our reasoning never becomes our ultimate authority. Our thinking and reasoning ability is never separate from God. Being that it is never separate from our Creator, it can never be our ultimate because it never existed on its own to begin with. To appeal to an ultimate is to appeal to something outside of yourself. Something separate from yourself. Our reasoning is not separate from us. Our thinking models God’s thinking. We must appeal to something outside of us to make the claim of something being our ultimate. This is why Scripture is still our ultimate authority. It exists outside of ourselves and thus we appeal to it. It gives us the preconditions to ground laws like logic that reflect the God who revealed Himself in His Word.

God and His revealed revelation is the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. If we don’t start with God and His word first, we could never ground the plane of logic.