Physics

[painkiller]

Goose, were those pit bulls and not just bull terriers? There is a difference. People often discriminate against all bull terriers by assuming they are a viscious breed. I bet those dogs were REAL smart, smarter than most people, and pretty salty to boot. Maybe they should've ordered their own beers. ;-)

[tigerregis]

While this question is a reality, it is NOT addressed to anyone in this thread.
My late father in the face of nonsense, would rhetorically ask
"Why are there more horse's asses than horses?"

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Reading webster slightly differently: It does not say there is no evidence, merely that none is REQUIRED. A horse of a different color, yes?

I need to add to the Webster to make its intention and history clear (regular text in the following by Sailaway21, that in quotes mine):

merely that [no evidence] is REQUIRED "...by the mind involved, in order for it to accept a given proposition as true."

At best, one would have to stretch the Webster to something like:

"No evidence is needed because the issue at hand is painfully clear."

No such option, however, exists in an honest mind. The painfully clear smacks us to pain with evidence.

If there's no evidence for something, it doesn't exist. There's no bypassing the need for evidence/proof/argument in the Classical Western tradition, the line between barbarism and civilized civilizations.

Back to the Webster:

In other words, the mind involved, for whatever reasons, is willing to believe something, of the outmost significance in this discussion, without subjecting it to reason, ie, looking for evidence.

Tertulian put the larger issue at hand best:

“Credo quia absurdum” (I believe because it is absurd.)

Spend a moment thinking of the hatred for facts and this life in that statement, and how easily such a mind turns to/can be IDed as, power lusting.

Like I tried to say above, the culture, finally permeated by the work of Hume, Kant and others, took a huge turn towards subjectivism about 100 years ago. This Webster definition is a great example of it.

Personally, I think the mentality behind the Webster definition is somewhat worse than the one behind the Oxford.

The Webster def's mentality almost snickers at the thought of looking for evidence; the pre-1922 Oxford def hints at a faulty epistemology.

Tangent:

This resentment of needing facts/argument in order to accept a given proposition as true, is far more evident/blatant on one side of the political Aisle. No coincidence that Communism was adopted on the spot by the most mystical cultures on Earth. As one German historian put it: "Communism didn't find these people -- they went looking for it."

If I can find the time and energy, I'll try to post what I sort of committed to above.

Respectfully,

Ragnar,

[sailaway21]

Rag's,
I get your distinction, but would submit that there are spiritual experiences that men have that are significant enough in, and of, themselves to convince these men that a Higher Power, spiritual in nature, exists and whose existence does not require further proof. The continuing quest for knowledge of the nature of this Higher Power, and His creation, are known, respectively as theology and science. For some, the infusion of a thirst for knowledge in both areas is felt to be a God-given blessing and provides depth, meaning, and a wonderful complexity to their lives.

[RAGNAR]

I can't believe I left out a crucial point:

Note the "I'm defying reason, what of it?" element in both Tertullian and Webster.

Tertullian comes to us as a relic of the age ruled by faith, the Dark Ages.

The Oxford edition I've quoted reflects the can-do, love of this life disposition of the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, and Victorian Era.

Though not a stand-alone argument, this is the sort of minor hint one finds all the time Re the return of mysticism in the West.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

I get your distinction,

What I was hoping to point out with the distinction is that the phenomenon of faith, no matter which perspective it's described from, is the acceptance of a given proposition for which there is no evidence. (The nature of human consciousness does not allow us to consider esoteric experiences as evidence -- no matter how real or profound the person having said experiences believes them to be.)

If that's been done, I can then explain why I think reason and faith are polar opposites, then explain why I find science and faith to be incompatible, ending my [tedious] part of this thread. (Tedious = I've reached an age where going over "A is A"-level issues is difficult -- they're integrataed too deeply for me to retireve them with ease. I never stored or integrated this stuf with an eye towards needing to explain them.)

For the record: I do not consider faith and reason/science to be opposite sides of the same coin -- they're never in the same context. Where one is, the other is not.