Aside from sin, post-modernity is likely the most prominent disease in the human mind today (Some might even argue that Post-modernism is sin). Post-modernism is, in a nutshell, the idea that everyone has his or her own truth. It is found in many cultures and worldviews, including tribal, new age, atheist, eastern religions, Baha’i, and such, but is also found in individuals’ thinking in discussions regarding subjects like abortion (e. g. Roe v. Wade), Homosexuality, religion, politics and just about every other area of life. Learning how to detect them in conversations will help you and your conversation partner get to the truth.
A Self-Refuting Statement is a truth-claim that does not sustain its own weight; It fails to meet its own standard.
A Few Simple Examples to Start:
“I cannot speak a single word in English.” This is simply a test for you to see the error in such a statement. How does this statement fail under its own weight? For one thing, If someone were to say this, it would be in English, cancelling out the inability to be able to speak a word in English.
“Never say ‘never.’” Another test. Although this is a colloquial saying that basically means, “Don’t give up!”, this is an easily understood example of a self-refuting statement. It fails under its own weight because it breaks its own rules. It fails to meet its own standard, which is that is says the word, “never.”
These next examples can get a little trickier, but these are the ones that you’ll encounter in conversation with many post-modernists, and honestly, you might encounter this from several types of people if they are logically backed into a corner…
“There is no absolute truth.” If it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, then there is at least one absolute truth (which is, that there is no absolute truth).
But seriously, if there is no truth, then what is the point of learning anything? Not only is this logically fallacious, but it is also simply ridiculous. So, when someone tells you there is no truth, ask him if this is true.
“It’s intolerant to assume that your view is better than someone else’s” When someone says something like this to you, the reason it is self-defeating is because there is a “view” in this statement that assumes being tolerant is a better view. It assumes that people should tolerate other views. Not only is this self-defeating because it breaks its own rule, but it is also possibly very dangerous. What if one’s view is cannibalism or homosexual genocide? Should we be tolerant to those religious views? Obviously not. In any event, it is clear that this also fails under its own weight, and that it does not meet its own standard.
When you hear something like this, it is normally a response after something is said. For instance, if I were to say that Mormonism is false, a person might reply with the idea that I need to be tolerant of views that are not the same as mine. Not only does this elevate tolerance above truth (which is logically catastrophic), but it is as discussed, also is self-refuting.
“Do not judge” As soon as this statement leaves a person’s mouth, they are guilty of making a judgment. Similarly, even if a person asks the question, “Are you judging me?” the assumption is that it is wrong to judge. But again, they fail to meet their own standard.
“The scientific method is the only way to know truth” This statement, like all the statements in this list, is a truth claim. It asserts the truth and assumes that the scientific method is the only means of knowing truth, but the problem is, what is it that says this statement itself is true? The scientific method cannot be done on the statement, “The scientific method is the only way to know truth.” Therefore, there must be another means of discovering what is true. It fails under its own standard.
“History cannot be known” If history can’t be known, then the second this statement is uttered, it becomes history, and as such, is unknowable. This is simply false because it is self-refuting. You’ll often hear this as an argument against the historicity of Jesus in some capacity or another.
Then they might change it to “Distant history cannot be known” and by then the question rises of where to realistically draw the line, but their strongest reply is often, “recorded” or “documented” history. Unfortunately for them, the Bible is a collection of documented and recorded history. The goal here is to show them that they are being bias and not following the truth where it leads.
“It is arrogant for you to assume that you know what is true” This claim assumes to know the truth with certainty that it is arrogant to know the truth with certainty. When someone says this, after finding out whatever field of expertise they are in, show him that it would be logically inconsistent to say that we can know something about expertise X, but not possibly anything about expertise Y. In other words, if he separates fields of knowledge, he reveals his biases. Christianity is based on the Resurrection, which is a historical event. So, if he says that we can know what science teaches, but history is unknowable (as discussed below), then this is logically inconsistent, but on top of that is also self-refuting. To be logically inconsistent results in conclusions that are false. So, consistency in thinking is the highest goal in some sense.
“Words don’t really matter” If words do not matter, then why was this statement made? Again, this is self-
refuting. When some people are logically backed into a corner, it is like they don’t want to seem erroneous in their thinking, so they compromise the integrity of everything that was discussed, in order to seem to win the argument. Unfortunately, this is not only logically fallacious, but also foolish and results in the opposite of saving face. When a person feels logically backed into a corner, it is often because their own way of thinking took them there.
Other times, you might hear something similar to this fallacious argument from a Muslim, about an English translation of the Quran. That those English Qurans don’t matter like the Arabic Qurans. The problem with this is that the truth is in the object, so, when someone is speaking and he or she is describing objects in reality, those objects can be described by any combination of sounds that come out of our mouths. It does not change the object that we are describing just because we talk about the same thing in different languages. Our words absolutely and infinitely matter. This is why Jesus says, “By your words will you be justified and by your words will you be condemned” –Matthew 12:37. Our words do matter, and they often matter more than we think or are led to believe.
“Truth cannot be known” This is refuted with a simple question: “How do you know this is true?” When asked this question after making such a claim, it will often stop a person in his tracks. The reason is because you will cleverly point out that this statement is self-refuting. From here a person could go to the idea that words don’t really matter (immediately above) in order to save face.
“What is true for you isn’t true for me” If this is correct, then the person making this claim has this truth, and it does not apply to you because it is true for them and not true for you. All you must do is ask “So, is this statement true for both of us?” By doing so, you reveal how this statement fails under its own weight, and that he actually believes that truths do apply to not only himself.
“You shouldn’t force your morals on people” Often when one is in a debate concerning abortion, this kind of argument will arise. The problem here is that this statement itself is a moral statement, and he or she who made such a statement is forcing this morality on you. Anytime you hear the word “should,” or “shouldn’t, or “ought,” or “right” or “wrong,” or “good,” or “bad,” or even “moral” or “immoral,” a person is making a moral argument, as opposed to a non-moral argument. So, listen for these words when having a discussion with someone, but also take note that if one resorts back to saying something like this, you’ll know how to refute this illogical thinking.
I think that oftentimes, the reason many of these statements are made is either because the person does not want to appear a certain way, whether that appearance is ignorant, or being in a certain camp. Or the other reason is because people place more weight on relationships than they do the truth. They might be trying to cave to the relationship in order to protect it as opposed to causing tension in the relationship. People will often protect relationships at all costs, likely because it is perceived as a means for survival or simply because they are seeking to eliminate relationship stress. I say this because I want you to see where people are possibly coming from. This can help us in our quest for gentleness and respect. At other times, possibly grown out of a motive such as mentioned above, people just simply reason through such statements because they have never thought beyond them.
Remember that above all, you are trying to win the person, not necessarily the argument. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:22 that he becomes all things to all people that by all means he might save some. Similarly, Peter directs us in 1 Peter 3:15 to “Set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that you have within you but do this with gentleness and respect.” Notice again that we are to do this with gentleness and respect. We are ultimately trying to guide someone into thinking correctly. This is the thing about apologetics, it is not that God needs defending, because what kind of God would need anything, but that people need help thinking and understanding.
Written by Nace Howell through the grace of the Lord Jesus
© Nace Howell, 2022
Comments
Post a Comment