My files on glk and rationality...
"Ryft" is David G. Nesbitt
Chat excerpts taken from real-time chat conversations with glk on the Dalnet IRC network. Text edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and typos are corrected. An unedited version is available upon request.
Sunday, July 6, 2003
[said in a playful context]
ChuckWagon: I personally deem it irrelevant what Einstein believed. I just think he was nuts for refusing to wear his hat in the rain.
Ryft: I personally think it's relevant, at least for me, what the great minds of our society believe. Einstein was far superior to me, intellectually, and therefore likely has very sound reasons for believing that which he does. Which sort of leads to the saying, "What we believe is not nearly so important as why we believe it."
ChuckWagon: True, but there's great minds today who believe in God. Since we can't question Einstein, I sorta stick with the living ones... guys like Compton, Sandage, etc.
Ryft: We don't need to question Einstein -- he wrote about his beliefs. We can simply read them. I own three articles written by Einstein: Religion and Science, Science and Religion I, and Science and Religion II. Plus there are the books he wrote: The World as I See It (New York: Philosophical Library, 1949) and Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950)
ChuckWagon: Sounds like a winner.
ChuckWagon: I also think of John Polkinghorne whose textbooks on physics are still used in universities.
Ryft: I am not familiar with that name.
Ryft: Scientist-turned-priest... little wonder, then, in all my scientific research, I find no mention of him. A scientist turning priest, how taboo.
ChuckWagon: Well, some of them examine the scientific data and realize... God's just flat-out gotta be there.
Ryft: Evidence tends to influence the intellectual.
glk4: No evidence for gods is observed.
Ryft: That is a statement. That is not evidence. Thank you for your personal testimony, but...Seven minutes tick by...[said to KingJehu]
glk4: Which of the scientists have observed any gods?
Ryft: Which scientists have observed dark energy?
glk4: Dark energy is a name given to the unknown process causing expansion.
Ryft: Dark energy is not observed.Two minutes tick by...Ryft: glk4 backtracks very quickly out of debates he is clearly losing. I cannot determine if this is wise or foolish.Two more minutes tick by...[said to ChuckWagon]
glk4: If the god they claim exists is not a delusion, where is it shown to exist?
Ryft: Is belief in God a delusion?Four minutes tick by...Ryft: Is belief in God a delusion?
glk4: It appears gods are illusions and delusions.
Ryft: A delusion is a belief held despite invalidating evidence. Since you claim that it appears belief in God is delusional, please present the invalidating evidence.
glk4: The evidence opposing the reality of gods is they are not observed.
Ryft: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Such a position is irrational and illogical. You do not have evidence that my coffee cup is sitting on my desk; however, my coffee cup is neither an illusion nor a delusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Since you claim that it appears belief in God is delusional, please present the invalidating evidence.Twelve minutes tick by...Ryft: OBSERVED FACTS: Fact: glk4 claims that belief in God is a delusion. Fact: a delusion is a belief held despite invalidating evidence. Fact: glk4 has not presented any invalidating evidence, and likely does not have any nor is aware of any. Fact: glk4 is exhibits irrationality on the issue of belief in God.Five minutes tick by...Ryft: Please answer.Three minutes tick by...Ryft: Please answer.One minutes tick by...Ryft: Please answer.Two minutes tick by...KingJehu: If you don't answer Ryft, I will devoice you myself. This is getting old. He has asked repeatedly.
glk4: If you want to be that way, I cannot prevent it. Galileo was silenced by the pope.
KingJehu: Why not just answer?
Ryft: Galileo answered the questions directed at him.
ChuckWagon: Galileo answered questions.glk4: What is the question?
"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right." (Stephen Jay Gould)
-- taken from glk's own website at http://www.grahamkendall.net/Main_Files/B7-Deep.txt <link>
Ryft: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Such a position is irrational and illogical. You do not have evidence that my coffee cup is sitting on my desk; however, my coffee cup is neither an illusion nor a delusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Since you claim that it appears belief in God is delusional, please present the invalidating evidence.
glk4: Delusions are claiming to see and hear things not apparent to the public, meaning they are products of the disordered brain.
Ryft: You are not at liberty to change the definitions of words to suit your argument. Fact: a delusion is a belief held despite invalidating evidence. Period. Since you claim that it appears belief in God is delusional, please present the invalidating evidence.
glk4: The total lack of evidence for gods is good contrary evidence.
Ryft: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Such a position is irrational and illogical... [refrains from re-pasting what glk should have comprehended the first time]
glk4: Either all gods exist or none of them exist is a possible case to consider.
Ryft: That is a logical fallacy (false dilemma). Try again.Two minutes tick by...Ryft: I am curious as to why you are exhibiting irrational and illogical statements and logically fallacious arguments. I am also curious as to how you can abide by that, given what you perceive your reputation and credibility to be.Three minutes tick by...Ryft:"The truth-tracking method of effective philosophic inquiry would lead us to believe a proposition when the evidence available to us justifies our believing it, to reject a proposition when our evidence disconfirms it, and to suspend judgment about it when our evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it." David H. Lund, Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2nd ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003)
Ryft:"This fallacy [argumentum ad ignorantiam] occurs in both of the following examples: There is insufficient evidence to establish that God exists. Therefore, God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist. Therefore, God exists. The reasoning in both these arguments is fallacious, because ignorance or lack of proof or evidence about a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false." S.N. Thomas, Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, 5th ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997)
Ryft:"We shall regard assertions as unsupported unless evidence is actually given to support them, whether or not anyone has evidence for them ... An argument consists of more than just a statement; it consists of a conclusion along with supporting evidence." Wesley Salmon, Logic, 3rd ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1984)Four minutes tick by...Ryft: Did you know glk4 believes strongly in something that does not exist? "The evidence opposing the reality of gods," he said, "is they are not observed." He believes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. According to his own standards, glk4 is delusional.
Pastorswife: lol Ryft
ChuckWagon: Ryft, that is a marvelous display of the self-defeating nature of what has been said. You are to be applauded.