Begging the Question
Making full arguments can be hard. It is always easier if you can assume the argument and convince others you have proven yourself. Such does not make it right.
In any kind of argument or discussion, an attempt to presume the truth of the conclusion within the structure of the argument or discussion represents the logical fallacy which we have come to call begging the question. It has received this name on account of the way Aristotle originally described it in his Topics: Aristotle spoke of “asking for the initial thing” as a banal and fairly uncreative way of managing within a dialectical formal debate conversation. In those conversations, there would be the “initial thing,” the thesis under discussion, and then respondents would ask yes or no questions against in an attempt to challenge the validity or consistency of the thesis. In that kind of conversation, to ask, or thus to beg for, the question itself would not prove very productive in any kind of argumentation. The Latin name for the fallacy, petitio principii, is a more or less direct translation of Aristotle’s original concern, “asking for the beginning/starting point,” and has since been understood as meaning “assuming the premise.” “Begging the question” would be more properly petitio quaesiti in Latin.
While the original Aristotelian concern would involve a questioner in the discourse, today the fallacy of begging the question tends to come from the person who would be advancing or making the argument in the discussion. Begging the question falls under the greater category of circular reasoning, which is what makes it fallacious: by assuming the proof, no actual proof is adduced or presented, and the statement or thesis simply remains an assertion.
Much of what is called “begging the question” in modern rhetorical discourse is not, strictly, “begging the question.” “Begging the question” seems to have become the catch-all phrase to point out a host of potential fallacies: dodging a question, raising the question, inviting the question, or suggesting the question. Many use it to speak of a question being left unanswered. Many have confused “begging the question” with “calling the question,” the latter of which represents a parliamentary procedure which would compel the end of discussion and voting on a motion. If someone has intentionally avoided and neglected a question or concern in an argument, they have dodged the question or left the question unanswered. If an argument in a discourse generates a new concern or interest, then it has raised, invited, or suggested the question. None of these are “begging the question,” in which someone advancing the argument has asserted their conclusion as part of their proof.
One way begging the question might take place involves a simple re-statement of a claim. Ironic examples of these can be found throughout the dictionary in those circumstances in which a word’s definition is often a re-stated form of the word, as when a nominal form of a word is described as the “state” or “condition” of its verbal form. More complicated forms of this fallacy might involve using the definition of a term as part of the evidence for a claim, as if the definition could really advance the argument. At many other times, begging the question takes place as a part of a larger effort of circular reasoning.
Begging the question quite frequently takes place in contexts and situations in which the one advancing the argument wants to rely upon the expectation the audience will understand the claim as self-evident or so consistent with common sense or common reasoning as to not require any kind of real substantive proof. If this expectation does not already exist, the one advancing the argument might well be attempting to thus suggest it, perhaps obscured by some rhetorical panache.
To this end a lot of political discourse features begging the question: politicians will frequently make all kinds of claims and repeat them endlessly as if they were self-evidently true, or as if “we all know” this is the way things are, when in fact the claim remains quite deficient in terms of evidence and poorly reflects the reality of our time and place. Those who believe the politician well advances their ideas and represents their way of looking at things will tend to uncritically agree. Those who prove critical of the politician might try to refute the claim(s) with evidence or attempt to make some other kind of rhetorical appeal, but most often for naught. There seems to be very little accountability in our current political discourse, and so politicians freely use circular reasoning and beg the question constantly without suffering any real consequences for doing so.
Religious discourse is not immune from begging the question; if anything, religious discourse ends up awash in circular reasoning in which the conclusions are asserted as part of the proof. You will rarely find anyone begging the question in matters regarding which abundant evidence can be found: whether the Apostles believed Jesus was the Christ based in what has been revealed in the New Testament, for example. We do not need to beg the question regarding whether baptism was the normative response in faith upon hearing the Gospel in the New Testament; we can point to many examples to demonstrate the truth of the proposition (e.g. Acts 2:1-41, 10:1-57, 16:31-33, etc.). Instead, the question will more likely be begged regarding those claims and propositions for which explicit evidence is lacking in the New Testament or other spiritual resources, or possibly as a result of someone having taken the truth of those claims or propositions for granted. One unfortunate example might involve the Bible as the Word of God: many will attempt to argue, with perhaps a little more rhetorical flourish, how the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible is the Word of God. A more full and complete argument would involve understanding how Jesus and the Apostles reckoned the words of Scripture as the written witness of what God had communicated to the prophets and in Jesus by means of the Apostles, involving Hebrews 1:3, Matthew 18:18, 2 Peter 1:19-21, and other passages.
As Christians, we do well to make sure we avoid begging the question as we seek to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. We will be most tempted to beg the question in those circumstances in which there is not as much explicit Biblical evidence as we would like, and all the more so in those aspects of our faith which we have accepted as self-evident or regarding which we have never considered any kind of reasoning for its truth. We do well to further study any argument or claim in which we might be tempted to beg the question. Sometimes that study should lead us to be able to make better and more effective arguments for the truth of the matter. Sometimes that study will lead us to maintain confidence in the truth of that claim, but as one to be asserted in humility with the recognition of proof as relatively lacking. But sometimes that study will lead us to recognize we accepted an argument or claim as true when it really did not best reflect the evidence available, and we can repent and make better, more accurate arguments and claims in ways which will glorify and honor God in Christ. May we avoid begging the question and promote the Gospel of Christ to the best of our ability, and entrust ourselves fully to God in Christ through the Spirit!
Ethan R. Longhenry
Works ConsultedBegging the Question (accessed 2024/22/07).
The post Begging the Question appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
