|
As I said previously, I did linguistics and philosophy.
Today one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time was announced, and with the news I immediately thought about what a philosopher once told me.
Yujjin Nagasawa is a philosophy lecturer at the University of Birmingham, and he was always great to talk to. This is the guy who made Dawkins look like an idiot in an editorial (never found it myself, but I caught parts of other lecturers chatting about it.) I took his philosophy of religion class and one of the classes was about Science Vs. Religion. His argument kind of went like this:
Science and God are playing a giant game of hide and seek. At the start of the game, God had many places to hide as scientific discoveries were few and far between. God could hide in theories we now scoff at, such as divine intervention of weather systems, Earth being the center of the universe etc. But as science progresses, God is slowly running out of places to hide. He can no longer hide in those theories, so he hides in smaller areas than he's used to. One of the strongest areas for where he hides is the laws of nature and the universe. Hell, even some physicists believe in God, and that he is the one that created the laws of the universe, which is why particles act the same here as they do on the other side of the observable universe.
It seemed a stronghold, it seemed as if it would be impossible to ever find a reason for these phenomena. However, with the Higgs Boson that kind of changes the ball game. There is a tiny crack in the walls of God's fortress......a tiny crack which could break, or could infact be nothing more than cosmetic....depending on how you look at it.
I'm not an expert on this, and I'm probably going to be horribly off the mark...but if I'm not then theres more to be discussed.
The Higgs-Boson particle is one which provides us a story for the origin of mass. With the origins of mass sorted, we can then 'create' mass for ourselves. This will be a good argument for theists who say 'well where did matter come from' etc. Mass is something which is VERY important to a theist. They claim that god created everything, everything is made from mass, therefore god made mass. This is something that theists will have to address. Are we pushing man into the role of God?
So it seems that god can't hide here anymore, so where will god go? The argument is VERY ad infinitum, and will no doubt be 'well what created particles' 'what created that' etc etc. Ad infinitum arguments are SUPER annoying, they're like the child who always say Why, Why Why.
arggggg another blog that I wanted to go in depth on, but I'm getting lazy....hope people get the jist of my argument....I will clarify details and shit if people want...and I hope I can get the mental concentration to write somehting decent
 
|
Might be just poor reading comprehension on my part but i didn't find any point in your blog. It would be nice if you could clarify what you actually want to say.
|
hes saying for years science has proven god wrong, in how life work sand shit and so the only ace god had left [creating mass] now been basically taken as the higgs boson particle is researched and figured out.
hence the where can god hide now that hes all figured out? =O
|
I think you're kind of missing the point here. The Higgs-Boson particle may be one of the most amazing scientific discoveries of our time (I haven't read enough about it to be able to judge for myself), but what does it have to do with religion?
The whole point of religion, as Dawkins points out, is that it's based on the concept of faith, which is belief in something without evidence. "More evidence" is not going to change anything, because religion is not based on logic or reason, and it's not concerned with proving things or finding objective evidence. It's just something that you believe in or you don't. If religious people were going to be swayed in the face of scientific evidence, there is already a plethora out there to be read and absorbed.
Religious people may use facts and figures in debates to try and prove points, but it's different from scientific arguments. Scientists start from the evidence and then form their opinion based on that evidence, whereas religious people start from their belief and then find facts or evidence which support that belief.
|
Right from the Q&A in the press conference:
What does this mean? Did we not understand 'why do we have mass'?
Higgs is not what gives you, as a person, mass. The Higgs boson give the fundamental particles mass. Analogy: a room of journalists uniformly distributed through the room. An unknown person passes through and doesn't attract any attention. A famous person attracts a lot of journalists which makes that famous person slow down.
Here's the discussion in the TL thread following that question:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=15321272
Basically yes, this part:
The Higgs-Boson particle is one which provides us a story for the origin of mass. With the origins of mass sorted, we can then 'create' mass for ourselves.
is off the mark.
Not sure why you're using such a great discovery and your first thought is "Oh, wow, I can kick theists in the nuts with it!" ..
|
hahaha. I love seeing people acting like they have God cornered or something.
Pretty soon, you will be the one running out of hiding place.
Don't put your faith in science man. Theres coming a time where it will betray you 
|
On July 04 2012 19:40 OhThatDang wrote:
hes saying for years science has proven god wrong, in how life work sand shit and so the only ace god had left [creating mass] now been basically taken as the higgs boson particle is researched and figured out.
hence the where can god hide now that hes all figured out? =O
The higgs boson particle is neither researched nor figured out.
Todays results show that a Higgs Boson Particle was found. Not the Higgs Boson Particle. As said in the press conference, it will take about 3-4 years until further confirmation. THAT is when the actual research and trying to figure it out will start.
|
Ah, so he's saying that basically if humans figure out the origin of mass, that they potentially could "be God", that is, do something God alone can do. Perhaps we couldn't create it (which I suppose would beg the ad infinitum argument you dislike so much of "humans can understand how mass comes about but cannot create it themselves, which is something reserved for God), but at least understanding how mass comes about would, in essence, put humankind closer towards understanding the laws of the universe, which was heretofore unknown and reserved supposedly for the realm of God. If humans literally could create matter/mass themselves, then humans really could be looking at literally "being God", because the thing is, it goes against everything we know in science to create matter or mass. Whether or not you want to say God is hiding behind this, the truth is that we very probably will never be able to create energy, and that this is truly the realm of "God", real or not.
Btdubs, what did Nagasawa have to say about Dawkins? Looking at what he has to say there, I'm pretty sure they didn't disagree about the existence of a god; maybe he disagreed with Dawkins's reasoning or about another topic entirely?
Edit: but yeah I actually forgot to say, the Higgs boson (and yeah, it was a Higgs boson) that was found.....does not revolutionize physics, rather it confirms one of the components of one of the models of elementary particle interaction etc. And we have to spend several years actually elucidating its qualities and its place in the universe.
@FuRong: Dawkins has always had a very supercilious or arrogant argument in that regard. Religious people do not necessarily initiate their belief from faith itself nor base it on faith alone. Many religious people perceive the scientific truths differently: as concepts which originated from a God, etc. If it were really so obvious that all the facts incontrovertibly pointed to the lack of the existence of God, then there would be no agnostics, who, you might argue, look at the facts instead of blindly believing in an entity and thrive on confirmation bias.
By claiming that theists fundamentally believe existence of God because they ignore facts, you are asserting that the interpretation of said facts adopted by atheists to indicate a lack of a God is the only one. Perhaps the God is not the perfectly kind God etc described by some theists, but there is not a single obvious interpretation that should lead everyone not to believe in the existence of a God.
Though.....this could turn into a... religion thread (the kind that ends up in closed). Maybe I shouldn't. :/
|
Link this article where Dawkins is rebutted, I'd like to read this.
|
On July 04 2012 19:46 don_kyuhote wrote:hahaha. I love seeing people acting like they have God cornered or something. Pretty soon, you will be the one running out of hiding place. Don't put your faith in science man. Theres coming a time where it will betray you
What makes you believe that? All of human civilized history points to the opposite.
|
I'm not kicking theists, I'm saying that a cannon of argument is running out of things to hide to. We're slowly whittling down the idea that god is behind all things. I understand that faith is a separate entity, I'm talking logically with arguments. I'm not bashing theists. It's about a thread of argument that is slowly being rebutted.
He slamed Dawkins' logic behind his arguments, basically saying his arguments against god are full of fluff, and I think Dawkins conceded on some point? I'd be interested in reading them too as I never got the chance.
I know it doesn't revolutionise physics, but it does move it from theoretical physics to physics...which is definitely a good thing for the scene. They now know that what they study is in fact real, and that they haven't been playing darts in the dark for the last 20 years.
On July 04 2012 19:46 don_kyuhote wrote:hahaha. I love seeing people acting like they have God cornered or something. Pretty soon, you will be the one running out of hiding place. Don't put your faith in science man. Theres coming a time where it will betray you
Where excactly did I say I was atheist? Is it so unbelievable that there would be christians who are interested in arguing logically for the existence of God? Isn't it also plausible that said person would be willing to concede points, or talk about how certain arguments are slowly losing their potency?
In fact, I am atheist. This is due to an overwhelming amount of education about the bible and christianity. I went to a Catholic primary school, which gave me a deep belief in God, then I turned after I went to a Church of England school, and I studied history for a bit and also looked into the history of religion. You can have your faith in the almighty, don't threaten me with Hell, when I know full well that I live a good life, and if God can find faults in me that a theist doesn't have, that don't revolve around me massaging his ego, then I will take my eternal punishment in Hell. I donate to charity, I help people, I've volunteered for years, I spread knowledge to children, I help the elderly, I help the young, I work hard, I'm respectful to other people, I may offend others but who doesn't. If I turn up to God and his only reason for sending me to hell is that I didn't believe him, then he's not much of a all loving God is he?
|
Believers will just say god created this particle, the usual stuff. And it's just being researched, it isn't confirmed yet and it won't be anytime soon.
|
To quote Brecht:
I advise you to think about how your behaviour would change with regard to the answer to this question [whether I beleive in God]. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can help you at least insofar as I can tell you: You already decided: You need a God.
|
United States128 Posts
There is a real lack of scientific understanding (particle physics), and lack of understanding in the theology in this blog.
First, "we can create mass". I'm almost positive that someone with a grade school diploma can explain why you are wrong here.
Secondly, "well, what made the particles...", that is exactly what science is attempting to riddle out. Its not an ad infinitum argument, it is the reason that we make discoveries in the first place. IE: We discovered the sun at the center of our system, because we asked ourselves why the orbits of the celestial bodies around us did not follow an elliptical path around us. The core of science is all about asking why, why why.
Lastly, you are correct that physicists, engineers, and other intelligent people believe in God. They see the discoveries of science as PROOF that God exists. Others see the discoveries as proof God doesn't exist. It is all in the eye of the beholder on this question.
That statement might confuse some, so I'll try to explain. Science is based on observing phenomenon and discovering why things work the way they do. Through these discoveries many phenomenon have been observed so readily and constant that these observations have become "Laws". There are laws governing how particles interact with each other, there are laws governing all the physic, from the celestial bodies down to particle physics. These laws were simply observed and recorded, no-one knows exactly "Why" all of matter, mass, and time follow these laws, but we know that they do. Some people believe that God's proof of existence is found in the natural order of these laws.
From a philosophical standpoint, they do not believe that all of matter would just RANDOMLY follow these laws. That is the division in thought. Some people believe that everything randomly fell into place and randomly fell into these natural orders. Others believe that since all of matter follows these very precise patterns, it is proof that there is a Creator behind it.
Hopefully this helped clear out some assumptions you made.
|
On July 04 2012 20:57 Arcanefrost wrote:
Believers will just say god created this particle, the usual stuff. And it's just being researched, it isn't confirmed yet and it won't be anytime soon.
This is true, but again it is pushing back the ground on which God can hide in, hence the analogy. I like that they push the boundries that little bit more, it shows desperation in an argument. It also allows you to make the argument look weak as they keep changing the hiding places
On July 04 2012 21:01 Deleuze wrote:To quote Brecht: Show nested quote +I advise you to think about how your behaviour would change with regard to the answer to this question [whether I beleive in God]. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can help you at least insofar as I can tell you: You already decided: You need a God.
Is it impossible to talk about religion, in a way where I'm not trying to convert the masses? That quote refers to people trying to change peoples minds about it, and also is about agnostic people. I'm trying to talk about an argument, and talk about implications to the argument as to do with the Higgs Boson.
There is a real lack of scientific understanding (particle physics), and lack of understanding in the theology in this blog.
First, "we can create mass". I'm almost positive that someone with a grade school diploma can explain why you are wrong here.
Secondly, "well, what made the particles...", that is exactly what science is attempting to riddle out. Its not an ad infinitum argument, it is the reason that we make discoveries in the first place. IE: We discovered the sun at the center of our system, because we asked ourselves why the orbits of the celestial bodies around us did not follow an elliptical path around us. The core of science is all about asking why, why why.
It was also against grade school diplomas that we could transport light containing information around the world 150 years ago when early universities were around. I'm saying that there is a possibility, the particle (from what I read, may be wrong) is one which mass is made up of. Explain why I'm wrong at a retards level ^^
The second point wasn't in the view of science, it was in the view of the theists. The Ad infinitum argument is used throughout theism. Before the advent of science, people would make the logical 'jump' to God. 'Why does it rain?' 'Because God commands it so'. etc. As science has made breakthroughs, the argument takes a step back 'Big bang? Well what made the big bang?' 'Quorks? What made them?' They keep pushing it back until they feel the argument must jump to God in order to 'close the loop'....maybe I used ad infinitum incorrectly, but the point is is that the argument reverts back to that leap.
I know science is driven by why. Thats simple to understand....I wouldn't possibly say that science works any other way o.o
|
United States128 Posts
So you glossed over the entire post because you missed out on the "Energy cannot be created or destroyed" portion of 8th grade? You are basically stating that science (physics specifically) and everything that it is based off of, is fundamentally wrong when you say you can create energy (IE: mass/energy/matter)
I work in a physics lab, I hope you understand that everything that we have ever accomplished in science is based on observation of these laws and working with them. Every class you take beginning with chemistry is built on the concept of energy being an absolute and only changing forms. This builds into biology, organic chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, particle physics, inertia, Newtonian physics, Bernoulli principles, fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, nuclear physics etc etc etc.
I think I'll also comment on the "What made it" argument. An Athiest believes that the universe randomly came to be. It started as an infinitely small compact arrangement of all mass, energy, and matter in the universe. This then exploded and gave birth to the universe. A Theist believes in a spiritual being that always has been and always will be. This being created all of mass, energy, and matter in the universe.
The Atheist has faith in the random chaotic nature of the universe as observed by the precise natural order of the universe as observed through natural laws. (contradiction?)
The Theist has faith in a creator through the precise natural order of the universe as observed through natural laws.
|
First off, as others have pointed out, you seem to seriously misunderstand the significance of the search for the Higgs boson. If we find it, we will not have figured out where matter comes from, we will have made some sense out of why point particles have non-zero mass. This has nothing whatsoever to do with creating matter.
Second, modern science learning more and more about the inner workings of the universe has essentially nothing to do with religion, unless you're some sort of fundamentalist nutjob. The only reason we hear so much about some sort of ideological war between science and religion is because a ton of people have a very flawed view of what religion is, what science is, or both. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist (note: not agnostic, atheism is a faith-based position just like theism is). A quote that's relevant to this situation, from a recent book about the Royal Society and the 17th century scientific revolution, is "Newton's intent in all his work was to make men more pious and devout, more reverent in the face of God's creation. His aim was not that men rise to their feet in freedom but that they fall to their knees in awe."
I would strongly recommend you read Dawkin's "Unweaving the Rainbow". God doesn't need hiding places for those who believe he's out there. He built the hiding places too.
Also, here's an amusing anecdote taken from Wikipedia article on Peter Higgs, namesake of the particle in question: "Higgs is an atheist, and is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle", because the term "might offend people who are religious". Usually this inappropriate nickname for the Higgs boson is attributed to Leon Lederman, the author of the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, but the name is the result of the insistence of Lederman's publisher: Lederman had originally intended to refer to it as the "goddamn particle"."
|
On July 04 2012 23:45 Iranon wrote:
First off, as others have pointed out, you seem to seriously misunderstand the significance of the search for the Higgs boson. If we find it, we will not have figured out where matter comes from, we will have made some sense out of why point particles have non-zero mass. This has nothing whatsoever to do with creating matter.
Second, modern science learning more and more about the inner workings of the universe has essentially nothing to do with religion, unless you're some sort of fundamentalist nutjob.
I agree with what you say about the Higgs Boson, but I have to take issue with your statement that the development of modern science has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps you meant it in a different way, but the theory of evolution has obviously had a very strong affect on religion and its popularity.
Theories about the origins of the universe (and life) and how the universe works generally detract from the "incredulity" argument that many religious people use; i.e. that if something seems impossible to have happened naturally and works in amazing perfect ways (the human body, say) then it must have been created intelligently. As we learn more and more about things, then new possibilities emerge that don't require an intelligent creator to work. Just how it used to be unthinkable that humans could exist on Earth as a result of random chemical interactions, people today would have more advanced, detailed moments of "this is unthinkable" or "there is nothing to support this naturally, so it must be divine".
More to the point, even if people believe in something based on blind faith they still need a space where that belief can exist. I.e. God has to exist *somewhere* and he has to be doing something. If, in theory, everything were explained by science (including creation of the universe and its laws), then God effectively wouldn't exist because there's nowhere left to hide. So in that sense modern science has everything to do with religion, as it has the potential to *prove* religious people wrong. Of course there will be some deniers, but I think most people try to incorporate scientific discoveries into their religious world view (i.e. that evolution exists, but God created the laws that made evolution possible, and that lots of the wording in the bible was metaphorical).
On July 04 2012 23:45 Iranon wrote:
The only reason we hear so much about some sort of ideological war between science and religion is because a ton of people have a very flawed view of what religion is, what science is, or both. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist (note: not agnostic, atheism is a faith-based position just like theism is). A quote that's relevant to this situation, from a recent book about the Royal Society and the 17th century scientific revolution, is "Newton's intent in all his work was to make men more pious and devout, more reverent in the face of God's creation. His aim was not that men rise to their feet in freedom but that they fall to their knees in awe."
I'm not sure if you mistyped, you said that you're an atheist...but NOT an agnostic, and then went on to say that atheism is a faith-based position like theism? Wouldn't make sense to call your own position faith-based as most rationally-minded people would take that as an offense. I do think that atheism is logically justified when you're talking about Gods with specific characteristics (i.e. the Christian God), but not when applied generally (whether there is a creator of the universe or not).
Anyways its a good question the OP asks, I think that we have a long long ways to go before we can claim that we know everything and that there's nowhere left for God's potential existence to hide. The Higgs boson is fairly small potatoes as far as that argument goes. By far the more convincing one to most religious people is how everything in the universe came to be so perfectly structured, ordered, and fine-tuned. Which will of course require a lot of research into theories on how the universe was created and how the laws came to be what they are (which may be impossible to discover from Earth unless we make some major breakthroughs in probing the early structure of the universe).
And of course God could exist outside of our universe and created it from some unusual extra-dimensional reality. So how the hell are we gonna find out about whether God exists there . That's why I agree that it will probably devolve into an infinite series of "why" questions, which each why being progressively harder to answer. But who knows, I still find it pretty hard to believe that time didn't exist before the big bang; maybe something similarly unthinkable like understanding the origins of the universe will be possible one day!
|
On July 05 2012 03:34 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 23:45 Iranon wrote:
First off, as others have pointed out, you seem to seriously misunderstand the significance of the search for the Higgs boson. If we find it, we will not have figured out where matter comes from, we will have made some sense out of why point particles have non-zero mass. This has nothing whatsoever to do with creating matter.
Second, modern science learning more and more about the inner workings of the universe has essentially nothing to do with religion, unless you're some sort of fundamentalist nutjob. I agree with what you say about the Higgs Boson, but I have to take issue with your statement that the development of modern science has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps you meant it in a different way, but the theory of evolution has obviously had a very strong affect on religion and its popularity. Theories about the origins of the universe (and life) and how the universe works generally detract from the "incredulity" argument that many religious people use; i.e. that if something seems impossible to have happened naturally and works in amazing perfect ways (the human body, say) then it must have been created intelligently. As we learn more and more about things, then new possibilities emerge that don't require an intelligent creator to work. Just how it used to be unthinkable that humans could exist on Earth as a result of random chemical interactions, people today would have more advanced, detailed moments of "this is unthinkable" or "there is nothing to support this naturally, so it must be divine". More to the point, even if people believe in something based on blind faith they still need a space where that belief can exist. I.e. God has to exist *somewhere* and he has to be doing something. If, in theory, everything were explained by science (including creation of the universe and its laws), then God effectively wouldn't exist because there's nowhere left to hide. So in that sense modern science has everything to do with religion, as it has the potential to *prove* religious people wrong. Of course there will be some deniers, but I think most people try to incorporate scientific discoveries into their religious world view (i.e. that evolution exists, but God created the laws that made evolution possible, and that lots of the wording in the bible was metaphorical). Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 23:45 Iranon wrote:
The only reason we hear so much about some sort of ideological war between science and religion is because a ton of people have a very flawed view of what religion is, what science is, or both. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist (note: not agnostic, atheism is a faith-based position just like theism is). A quote that's relevant to this situation, from a recent book about the Royal Society and the 17th century scientific revolution, is "Newton's intent in all his work was to make men more pious and devout, more reverent in the face of God's creation. His aim was not that men rise to their feet in freedom but that they fall to their knees in awe."
I'm not sure if you mistyped, you said that you're an atheist...but NOT an agnostic, and then went on to say that atheism is a faith-based position like theism? Wouldn't make sense to call your own position faith-based as most rationally-minded people would take that as an offense. I do think that atheism is logically justified when you're talking about Gods with specific characteristics (i.e. the Christian God), but not when applied generally (whether there is a creator of the universe or not). Anyways its a good question the OP asks, I think that we have a long long ways to go before we can claim that we know everything and that there's nowhere left for God's potential existence to hide. The Higgs boson is fairly small potatoes as far as that argument goes. By far the more convincing one to most religious people is how everything in the universe came to be so perfectly structured, ordered, and fine-tuned. Which will of course require a lot of research into theories on how the universe was created and how the laws came to be what they are (which may be impossible to discover from Earth unless we make some major breakthroughs in probing the early structure of the universe). And of course God could exist outside of our universe and created it from some unusual extra-dimensional reality. So how the hell are we gonna find out about whether God exists there . That's why I agree that it will probably devolve into an infinite series of "why" questions, which each why being progressively harder to answer. But who knows, I still find it pretty hard to believe that time didn't exist before the big bang; maybe something similarly unthinkable like understanding the origins of the universe will be possible one day!
Thanks for being far more articulate than me ^^ I need to start reading and writing more academic stuff to get back into it, teaching english to Korean kids kind of destroys your concept on language x.X
As I said, I didn't quite understand the science, so thank you for clarifying. So basically the standard model of physics is proven with the higgs boson, and that it explains why parictles have mass correct?
The argument I tried to make is that the more we find out about the universe, about everything we are and what will be, the more we debunk myths surrounding God, and shining light on areas where people would make the jump to God, and showing that there is no reason to logically jump to God in that instance.
I have read some Dawkins, I also know that FAITH is a powerful thing, and that it governs pretty much every aspect of our lives. Faith cannot be destroyed, it can be lost but not destroyed by logical arguments. But discussing the ideas of why he may or may not exist, of what God is, of how we can show/disprove gods are all valid points in talking about religion. We're not all Logical Positivists, so we can discuss metaphysical stuff even if it has no intrinsic value 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
