What Are Self-defeating Statements?
by J. P. Moreland
There are no moral absolutes, so you ought to stop judging the moral beliefs and behaviors of others!" A crucial flaw in one's views is when one makes a self-
defeating (also called "self-refuting" or "self-referentially incoherent") statement.
What exactly is a self-defeating statement? It is a statement with three characteristics. (1) It establishes some requirement of acceptability for an assertion (or sentence, proposition, or theory). (2) It places itself in subjection to this requirement. (3) It fails to satisfy the requirement of acceptability that the assertion itself stipulates.
A statement is about a subject matter. The subject matter for "All dogs are mammals" is dogs. When a statement is included in its own subject matter and fails to satisfy its own standards of acceptability, it is self-defeating.
Some examples of self-defeating statements are these: "No sentence is longer than three words." "I cannot utter a word of English" (spoken in English). "I do not exist." "There is no truth." "There are no truths that cannot be verified by the five senses or by science."
In identifying a self-defeating statement, we must exercise great care in making sure that the statement actually refers to itself, that it is a part of its own subject matter. For example, the claim that one cannot utter a word of English is not self-defeating if asserted in French. More importantly, the statement "There are no moral absolutes," though false, is not self-defeating. Why? The statement is a philosophical assertion about morality and not a claim of morality.
To be a claim of morality, an assertion must be a moral rule such as "Do not kill," "Abortion is wrong," or "One ought to be tolerant of others." "There are no moral absolutes" is not itself a moral rule. Like a statement made in English about all French statements (for example, "No French statement is longer than three words"), "There are no moral absolutes" is false. But since it is not included in its own subject matter, it does not refer to itself and therefore is not self-refuting.
Another important example is "There are no moral rules, so one ought to refrain from passing judgment on others." Is this self-defeating? It's hard to tell because the word ought is ambiguous and comes with different meanings: A rational ought occurs in "Given the evidence, one ought to conclude that the defendant is guilty." A rational ought places an intellectual duty on someone, and a violator is irrational, not immoral. An aesthetic ought occurs in "One ought to play this piece with great emotion." This places an aesthetic duty on someone, and a violator is guilty of failing to produce beauty. A moral ought occurs in "One ought to keep one's promises." This places a moral duty on someone, and a violator is immoral.
The ought in "There are no moral rules, so one ought to refrain from passing judgment on others" is either a rational or a moral ought. If the former, the assertion means "Given all the evidence, there just are no moral rules, so one has an intellectual duty to stop judging that others have violated absolute moral rules when there are none." Though false, this statement is not self-defeating because it is not itself an example of asserting a moral obligation. Rather, it asserts an intellectual duty, and a violator would be irrational, not immoral. But if the ought is a moral one, then the sentence is self-refuting: "There are no moral rules, so one has a moral duty to follow this moral rule—do not judge others."
Some statements, such as "2 + 2 = 7," could not possibly be true. Others, such as "There are no dogs," happen to be false but could have been true. Self-defeating statements do not just happen to be false; rather, they are necessarily false. For example, it is impossible for these statements to be true: "There are no truths" and "Only what is testable by science can be true." Among other things, this means that no amount of future research will show that a self-refuting statement was true after all. This is important, because a statement like "Only what is testable by science can be true" is not itself testable by science, so a skeptic cannot say that, while there may be no current evidence for its truth, someday science will advance to the point of proving that it is true after all.
Are Scientology and the Bible Compatible?
by Philip R. Roberts
Scientology is a cryptic new American religious movement begun in the 1950s. Ron L. Hubbard (1911–1986), a science fiction writer, founded it. Although his parents were largely nonreligious, Hubbard was exposed to Eastern religions, New Age thought, and various spiritistic groups, such as Meister Crowley and the Process.
Scientology makes occasional reference to Jesus Christ in its writings and uses as its symbol a cross with starbursts at each end. But even though it refers to itself as a church and may at times use Christian terminology and symbolism, it is clearly nonbiblical in its view of God, Jesus, Scripture, salvation, and other important doctrines. In fact, it may be challenged whether Scientology is a religion at all. It is largely a pseudo-psychological therapy movement. Ron Hubbard originally sought admission for the movement in the American Psychological Association. After being rejected for membership by the APA, Hubbard framed Scientology as a religion.
Scripture
The Church of Scientology does not subscribe to the view that God inspired a holy book, such as the Bible, that serves as divine revelation. Instead it lists as revelation Dianetics (1950), authored by Hubbard, as well as The Factors and The Axioms and Logics. The former book attempts to instruct adherents in the practice of Scientology, while the latter works are simply statements of the principles and beliefs of the movement.
No elements of Scientology's texts bear the mark of divine inspiration. There are no fulfilled prophecies in them and neither are they a narrative of God's love and redemption as is the Bible.
God
Scientology's earlier writings mention God, but they place their stress mainly on an individual's abilities to gain godlike qualities and become "full cause" over the universe. Hubbard obviously rejected the Christian understanding of God, particularly the concept of the Trinity.
Scientology adheres to a view of deities similar to that of Buddhism, using "allness of all" terminology. Its founder therefore could comment that man is part god and can attain a godlike nature.
Jesus Christ
Scientology does not accept the biblical concepts of Jesus as God the Word incarnate. It also places no emphasis on the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus. Rather, it views Jesus as a proponent of reincarnation and other Eastern mystical concepts. Hubbard taught that Jesus was "a shade above clear," or that Jesus met the standards (slightly at best) of living above the negative influences of His previous lives. Scientology's upper-level materials tout the concept of Jesus as God as being a fiction that ought to be removed by "auditing."
Man
Scientology views man's spirit as being the product of evolutionary processes. It rejects biblical concepts of man as being the creation of God and being fallen due to sin, with the need for repentance, faith, and salvation. Instead, Scientology maintains that we are primarily spiritual beings, that is, "thetans," and creators of the universe. The goal of life is to "clear" oneself of one's reactive mind and become "total cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time."
Salvation
The goal of Scientology is to press for the evolutionary improvement of oneself as a spiritual being. The removal of engrams (negative previous life experiences stored in the mind) through "auditing" by a Scientology auditor using an electronic meter makes life improvement possible. The movement rejects all concepts of a biblical understanding of salvation.