Talk:Sye Ten Bruggencate/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

I've been watching[edit]

I've been watching this article take shape, anxiously waiting for it to actually describe ten Bruggencate's positions before rubbishing them as circular and what have you. It doesn't do a very good job and sort of reads like a hit piece. Will the author be offended if I get in on this? Ten Bruggencate's approach to presuppositionalism needs to be described a lot better (a) so it can be contrasted with those of competent apologists like John Frame and Greg Bahnsen and (b) so the article can touch on what you're really getting at: the natural consequences on public perception of being an extremely intelligent but impulsive amateur apologist possibly with bad judgment. He's a real dick, but he's not acting inconsistently with his understanding of reformed theology a la van Til. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone should mention the calvinist school of presuppositionalist apologetics he derives his thought from. This is an extension and application of TAG which is derived from calvinists Cornelius Van Til and his disciple Greg Bahnsen. The extra twist Ten Bruggencate puts on it is to add the extremely dishonest debating tactic of denying his atheist detractors ANY say in the argument due to them "not having any foundation" to argue for anything, since the "laws of logic" are maintained by God. Youtube user C0nc0rdance has pointed out that the argument can be equally applied against a personal God, and for ontological realism. If one accepts that the laws of logic, mathematics, nature are intrinsic in nature as attributes of it, and thus objective, and making them dependent on the whims and maleability of a personal God, makes them both subjective and unreliable. Sye is inconsistent on this, since he a) Sometimes say that atheists are able to "apply" logic because they secretly really believe in God and willingy commit the sin of rejecting Him. b) Nevertheless say that they cannot use that logic to disprove God because their logic relies upon it in the first place. The foundational error he makes is the false dichotomy between "material" and "immaterial". A system is something more than the sum of its parts, yet still fully material. Computer software is another example. Laws of logic, nature, mathematics and morality could easily be said to belong to categories that do not fit this dichotomy.Xilu carim (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger Effect[edit]

User:ORavenhurst reverted me here, without explanation. I think he is wrong, the D-K effect is NOT about "his own inability to differentiate between a description of X and an analysis of the description itself", nor is it about the "[delineation between] what something describes from what it means". Could someone please explain in what way the D-K effect applies here? Thanks! -- (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the D-K effect is basically when someone thinks they're great at something when they're not. A corollary of it is making the assumption that "because I can't do X, no one else can either". I.e., they feel as if they're at the top of the expertise/knowledge pile and no one is higher - which is false, and it's the D-K effect that contributes to that illusion. This isn't too dissimilar to Demski's bastardisation of irreducible complexity that effectively boils down to "I don't have the imagination/expertise to see how this evolved, therefore no one else can either". Scarlet A.pngpathetic 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


So, this article admits atheism lacks an absolute standard :o)?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Wha? --Ymir (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)