Terminology Tuesday: Self-Refuting Statements
Various Names. Self-refuting statements are those which fail to satisfy their own criteria of validity or acceptability. They are also called self-referential, self-stultifying, self-destructive, and self-falsifying.Some Examples. Statements such as “I cannot express a word in English” are self-refuting because that very statement is an expression in English. Likewise, the statement “I do not exist” is self-defeating, since the statement implies that I do exist in order to make the statement.The principle of self-stultification is a handy apologetic tool, since most, if not all, non-Christian views involve self-defeating statements. Take, for example, the following self-refuting statements:
- “Be skeptical about all truth claims.”
2. “No truth can be known.”
3. “No statements are meaningful.”
The problem with (1) is that it is a truth-claim about which it is not skeptical. But this is inconsistent with its own claim. Likewise, (2) is itself a truth-claim that can be known which is contradictory to what it affirms (namely, no truth can be known). The same point can be made about (3), which is offered as a meaningful statement that no meaningful statement can be made.Defense of Principle of Self-Falsification. The principle of self-falsification is not a first principle, such as the law of non-contradiction. Rather, it is based in the law of non-contradiction. For a statement is self-refuting when it entails two statements that are contradictory, one that it makes explicitly and a contradictory one implied in the very act or process of making the first one. Hence, self-refuting statements are contradictory. And the law of non-contradiction is a self-evident first principle that is known to be such by examining the statement to see if the predicate is reducible to the subject. Undeniability Principle. The principle of undeniability is also known as the principle of self-stultification, or of self-referentiality. The flip side of undeniability is unaffirmability. Certain things are undeniable because any attempt to deny them affirms them in the very process. So, they are literally unaffirmable without denying what they affirm or affirming what they deny.
For example, the statement “I cannot utter a word in English” is obviously not true, because it is the utterance of a sentence in English, claiming not to be able to utter a sentence in English. As such, it cuts its own throat. Value of the Undeniability Principle. The principle of undeniability is used by many theists to establish a starting point for its argument for God’s existence (see GOD, EVIDENCE FOR). It begins with “Something exists” (e.g., I do). This must be true since any attempt to deny my existence affirms it in the process. For I must exist in order to deny that I exist. Hence, my existence is undeniable.Comparison and Contrast with Other Principles. However, the principle of undeniability is not to be confused with the first principle of logical thought, such as the law of non-contradiction.Difference from The Laws of Logic. The laws of logic are self-evident and rationally necessary. And logical necessity affirms that the opposite cannot possibly be true. For example, it is logically necessary for a triangle to have three sides. And a square circle is logically impossible. It is also logically necessary—if there is a Necessary Being—for it to exist necessarily. However, it is not logically necessary for there to be a Necessary Being. It is logically possible that there could have been a total state of nothingness forever (see ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT). This is not to say that there cannot be an undeniable argument for God’s existence (see GOD, EVIDENCE FOR); it is only to note that there is a difference between logical necessity (which some allege for invalidating the ontological argument) and actual undeniability (which other theists claim for the cosmological argument).Likewise, my nonexistence is logically possible. But it is not actually affirmable. Indeed, it is actually undeniable, since I have to exist in order to deny that I do not exist.There is, however, an important connection between the laws of logic and the principle of undeniability. The law of non-contradiction, for example, can be defended by showing that it is self-evident in that its predicate is either identical or reducible to its subject.
So, self-refuting statements are false because they are contradictory. And contradictions are false because they violate the self-evident principle of noncontradiction.Difference from a Transcendental Argument. The principle of undeniability bears resemblance to a transcendental argument. Both claim that certain conditions are necessary preconditions of other things. For example, I cannot deny truth (see TRUTH, ABSOLUTE) unless I affirm it by claiming that the statement “There is no truth” is true. A transcendentally necessary truth is an undeniable truth. But a transcendental argument posits something beyond what is being affirmed. For instance, it is a transcendentally necessary precondition of meaning that there is a mind behind meaning. In this sense, a transcendental argument is a kind of indirect form of undeniability. For its posits that certain things could not be true unless other preconditions prevailed.However, the statement “No sentence is meaningful including this one” is directly self-defeating because it pulls the rug out from under itself without appealing to the necessity of any other conditions. Thus, a transcendental argument involves an indirect form of undeniability.Status of the Principle of Undeniability. The principle of undeniability is not self-evident the way the traditional first principles are said to be. Some claim it is a metaprinciple, that is, a principle about principles. If so, it is neither arbitrary nor noninformative. It is applicable to reality (see REALISM). It is a principle that grows out of the very project of futile attempts to deny first principles or other statements that cannot be denied without affirming them. It is a principle that emerges from the impossible attempts to escape certain things without affirming them (either directly or indirectly) in the very process. It is not deduced or induced but adduced. It is not prescriptive but is descriptive of a process of thought that boomerangs and is self-destructive.Undeniability is not a new rule for the game of truth but more of a referee. Using the rules of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction), it simply calls attention to the fact that certain statements have eliminated themselves from the game of truth by being self-contradictory or self-destructive. In this sense the principle of undeniability indirectly “referees” the truth game by pointing out which kinds of statements are allowed into the game. It points to certain “statements” that do not really belong in the truth game because they imply opposite statements in the very process of making them. They have eliminated themselves (see also FIRST PRINCIPLES; REALISM; AGNOSTICISM).
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Self-Refuting Statements. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (pp. 703–704). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
