Four Self-Refuting Statements Heard on College Campuses Across America

If I began this post by asserting, “I can’t write a word of English,” you’d probably recognize the contradiction. My sentence betrays its own claim, doesn’t it? Such is the nature of self-refuting statements. Wikipedia describes such utterances as “statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.” You might be surprised how often people are prone to saying something that is self-refuting, but there are number of common statements we hear (or use) every day that fall into this category:

“Don’t bother me, I am asleep right now”
“I’m not going to respond to that”
“I can’t talk to you right now”

There are times when our words collapse under their own weight. Aaron, my good friend at PleaseConvinceMe.com recently posted a more exhaustive list of some of these statements as they appear in philosophical or academic circles. As I train university aged Christians around the country and listen carefully to their common college experiences, I’ve started to collect some of the more popular self-refuting statements uttered by college professors. Here are the top four:

“There is no objective truth” / “Objective truth does not exist”
Perhaps the most obviously self-refuting, this claim (or something similar to it) is still uttered in many university settings according to the students I train. Like all self-refuting claims, it can be cross-checked by simply turning the statement on itself. By asking, “Is that statement objectively true?” we can quickly see that the person making the claim believes in at least one objective truth: that there is no objective truth. See the problem?

“If objective truth does exist, no one could ever know with confidence what it is” / “It’s arrogant to assume you know the truth with certainty”
Once again, the professor who makes such a claim appears to be confident and certain of one truth: that no one can be confident or certain of the truth! The statement falls on its own sword the moment it is uttered.

“Science is the only way to determine truth” / “I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process”
University students report this statement often, and it may take a little more thought to recognize as self-refuting. When a professor makes this claim, we simply need to ask, “Can science determine if that statement (about science) is true?” or “What scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?” It turns out that there is no scientific process or procedure can be employed to validate this claim. It is a presumptive philosophical statement that is outside the analysis of science.

“It’s intolerant to presume that your view is better than someone else’s’” / “Tolerance requires us to accept all views equally”
An even more hidden self-refuting statement lurks here in this common errant definition of tolerance. Folks who hold to this corrupted view say they accept all views as equally true. But if you make the claim that some ideas are patently false and have less value than others, they will quickly reject your statement. In other words, they will accept any view as equally valuable except your claim that some views are not equally valuable. See the inconsistency? People who embrace this definition of tolerance cannot consistently implement their own view of tolerance.

This last claim related to tolerance may be the future battleground of self-refutation. Most of us, as Christians, recognize this assertion and have been accused of intolerance at one time or another. The exclusive claims of Christianity related to salvation (through faith in Christ alone) place us in the bulls-eye for such criticism. In my next post, I’ll examine the true nature of tolerance as we help each other navigate the concept and learn to defend the classic definition.  

Comments

[scbrownlhrm]

Erkki,

“I am basically defining existence as "reality", not claiming "existence IS reality = true"”

Then you say, “I guess this complete non-existent text doesn't matter anyway”

This is a series which states a contradiction.

You say in the first line that you define existence as being “real” AND you say existence being “real” is not “true”. Thus you are asserting that a real thing is not a true thing, that it is not true that it really is real.

The second line attempts to give you wiggle room by trying to put some room between the word “real” and the word “true”.

If “real” is not “true” then nothing is True, and, also, nothing is real. Thus you are saying this:

“There is nothing real” is a True statement, and, you are saying this, “Real things exist” is a falsehood.

I mean to hold you to this Real/True differentiation.

Saying Real Things Exist, or, saying Real Things Do Not Exist just is a truth claim ABOUT reality, Erkki.

If you mean to say real things do not exist, that is a truth claim ABOUT reality.

If you mean to say real things do exist, that is a truth claim ABOUT reality.

Thus you are left with these, one of which is True:

A) No real thing exists
B) Some real thing exists

Then you do it again:

“Obviously this theoretical uncertainty is not much of an issue in real life”

Now here by “real life” do you mean, when you employ the word ‘real’, which:

A) Existent
B) Non-Existent

Which is true?

Do you mean to say, “Obviously this theoretical uncertainty is not much of an issue in non-existent life” or do you mean to say, “Obviously this theoretical uncertainty is not much of an issue in existent life”?

Erkki, you just are making quite sweeping and grand truth claims ABOUT reality in all of these lines you are using.

If you mean to deny that Actual-ITY exists, then I will leave it at that nonsense on your end. However, as you stated earlier, it is obvious that Actual-ITY exists. Actual-ITY is thus Real. It is thus True that a Real Entity exists. ‘Exists’ and ‘Real’ and ‘True’ all fall into place, that is, unless you mean to make another truth claim ABOUT reality with this: ‘Actual-ITY does not exist’.

Either way you ARE making truth claims ABOUT reality. But I think we agree that Reality/Actuality exists.

Please correct me if I am wrong about this shared agreement.

Now, thus far the following are still intact, still valid:

ITY = Exactly 1 empirically speaking.
ITY = Exactly 1 theoretically speaking.
ITY = Exactly 1 rationally speaking.

Your second point about multiple realities fails to change any of that, given the Multi-Verse being but slices of Actual-ITY.

[scbrownlhrm]

Ultimate Reality is Self-Existing.

Ultimate Reality Cannot Not-Exist.

Ultimate Reality is Everlasting.

Ultimate Reality is Unchanging.

Ultimate Reality is One.

Ultimate Reality is Truth in the Empirical.

Ultimate Reality is Truth in the Theoretical.

Ultimate Reality is Truth in the Rational.

[marvin]

Ever see a car 'burn off'? Well, the last dozen posts seem to have that quality. All smoke and noise but not going anywhere. Mental gyrations like those are impressive to those who are not going anywhere of importance. If you really mind your p's and q's you would find that this kind of mental gymnastic is made for the avoidance of biblical truth. It's a playing the philosopher while Rome burns. Being alienated from God and the gospel while pretending to own truth like a marionette that you can dance at your own whim. Yet the dance never defeats the death and sin that abounds in this world.

Now, granted its fun to watch the dance, but its also vain and fruitless. Its a win at tic-tac-toe where the winner pretends its the same as winning over cowardice, or winning over bitterness and un-forgiveness. The lengthy debate about truth rambles on but no one is following Christ for it. Jesus has truth and is truth, not just abstractly but really as it pertains to knowledge of truth from God's perspective.

Humanity does not love or know by a "mode" univocal to God. Though such word-play sounds deep, its a mud puddle that deceives the mental gymnast into thinking he's really got something.

[scbrownlhrm]

Marvin,

Agreed.

When I meet a cocaine addict, I pray for him, tell him of Jesus, and ALSO tell him of his cocaine and its "errors" or "harm".