Does the Higgs Boson Discovery Resolve the Religion-Science Debate?

[rug]

Posted: 07/06/2012 10:36 am
Philip Clayton, Ph.D.
Provost, Claremont Lincoln University and Dean of Claremont School of Theology

- snip -

In the huge hype that has broken out over the last few days, you can see the whole pattern of religion-science discussions in microcosm:

1. Scientists make an important discovery. They are exuberant -- and rightfully so: people work a lifetime for moments like this.

2. Scientists start saying big things about where this takes science. The first comments are about breakthroughs in particle physics. But as the champagne kicks in, you start to hear slurry-tongued statements about how the Higgs search shows the superiority of physics over all other forms of knowledge.

3. Then the pundits step in. "No," says the one group, "the God-particle reminds us that creation is ultimately in the hands of God; we will never overcome the fundamental mystery of our origins." "Wrong," retorts the other group, "this week represents the triumph of humanism. There is absolutely no need for God in the age of science."

4. All hell breaks lose. "There's no God (damn) particle," writes Tony Phillips. "The Higgs boson is another nail in the coffin of religion," expounds Oxford's Peter Atkins on BBC. "Will the Higgs boson give rise to a new religion, a new god?" asks the Hindustan Times.

- snip -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-clayton-phd/relationship-between-scie_b_1653976.html

[longship]

1. I find this kind of talk very silly.

Science says absolutely nothing about gods. So why even bring up the topic in this context? It is just meaningless dribble.

Leon Lederman did nobody any favors by naming his damned book The God Particle. Now everybody is calling the Higgs boson by that horrible misnomer.

I suspect that the only people talking about religious aspects of this discovery are those religious people with an agenda of some sort. That's why it is safe to just ignore their gum flappings.

[skepticscott]

4. The news media never misses a chance

to put "god" or "miracle" into a story headline. They know that a lot of their readership needs the reinforcement, and they just eat that kind of pandering up.

[rug]

5. That is correct.

"Science says absolutely nothing about gods", one way or another.

[skepticscott]

6. Well, sorry...science DOES say things

about certain gods about which certain claims are made. Or didn't you know that?

[SwissTony]

10. Care to provide an example or two? nt.

[skepticscott]

11. Science has something to say about

a god who is claimed to cause thunder and lightning. Science has something to say about a god that is claimed to fly the sun across the sky in a chariot every day. Science has something to say about a god who is claimed to have created the world and all the life on it less than 10,000 years ago.

How many hundreds more examples would you like?

[SwissTony]

14. No it doesn't.

It provides physical explanations for thunder and lightning. It provides physical explanations for the seasons and sunrise and sunset. It provides estimates for the age of the earth.

The fact that this information runs counter to some peoples' idea of god does not mean science is making a statement about god. It's simply stating what the evidence is and what the evidence indicates.

So, no need for hundreds of more examples. One GOOD one would be nice.

[skepticscott]

15. Nice try

But when someone says that a god causes thunder and lightning, or the movement of the sun and then science comes along and shows that no god needs to be invoked to explain them, only natural processes, science is making a statement about the likelihood of those gods, as described and understood, actually existing. That IS saying something about those gods, in spite of your and longship's denials. Is it proving to an absolute, 100% certainty that the particular gods don't exist? No. But that's not necessary to meet the requirement of "saying something", now is it?

[SwissTony]

16. Nice try, too.

Did Kepler, Copernicus or Newton have Apollo in mind when they came up with the laws of planetary motion? None of them had any belief in Apollo.

And as far as I know, all three of them were believers in the Christian God.

And in any case, what do these observations have to say about the existence of a particular god. I know quite a few very religious people who have no qualms about the physical explanation of thunder and lightning, the seasons and even evolution. As far as they are concerned, God does it.

[skepticscott]

17. Getting lamer every time

Empirical, scientific inquiry had put the lie to Apollo hauling the sun around well before Kepler Newton or Copernicus came along. Though guys like that did help put the lie to the claim that comets were messages of doom from the gods. And when science can provide an explanation for something that needs no gods, that DOES bear on the likelihood of any gods claimed to be responsible actually existing, and on how people evaluate that likelihood. The fact that some people still need to insert god in there no matter what doesn't change that.

And this is not about any particular god, any particular religion or any particular period in the history of science. It is about the blanket (and nonsensical) claim "Science says absolutely nothing about gods." ANY gods, not just the Christian one.

[SwissTony]

18. But Science doesn't say it.

People change their mind when presented with other and better explanations. As they should.

But Science never says "This god doesn't exist". It just says "Here's the facts, here's the process we think is behind the data". That's all.

And there is no likelihood of gods existing other than in the the sense of "They do" or "They don't".

[skepticscott]

19. As I said

this is not and never has been about science "proving" that a particular god doesn't exist to a 100% certainty. NOTHING subject to empirical inquiry (as any "god" claimed to influence or be influenced by events in the physical universe is) is ever proven or disproven with absolute certainty. There are only, ever, degrees of likelihood. If you don't even understand that, then it's a waste of time discussing science with you at all.

[SwissTony]

23. I think you're the one with the problem about understanding science.

Apollo wasn't dispensed with by science. Religion did.

The same with the god of thunder and lightning.

Science doesn't say "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Therefore Science has an opinion on the existence of God X".

It just says "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old".

You are the one who insisted that science had an opinion on the Science commenting on gods...here's your post

"Science has something to say about

a god who is claimed to cause thunder and lightning. Science has something to say about a god that is claimed to fly the sun across the sky in a chariot every day. Science has something to say about a god who is claimed to have created the world and all the life on it less than 10,000 years ago."

Science says nothing about gods!!!!

Do you even have a scientific background?

[eqfan592]

25. So your counter argument is that science isn't actually saying anything about gods...

...but rather religion is morphing itself around the knowledge gained through science. Hmmm, interesting, if perhaps a little obtuse in terms of the discussion at hand...

[SwissTony]

32. Yes, science doesn't say "God X exists or not'

Nothing obtuse about that.

Although individual scientists and non-scientists may have their own opinion.

Perhaps you can give me a counter-example.

[SwissTony]

34. Second reply...

Apparently, some guy, some time, came to the conclusion that the Earth revolved around the sun and not vice-versa. Some religious guys were a bit upset.

Can't remember the details.

Google is your friend.

[cgnick]

51. Yup

[skepticscott]

35. Sheesh, how many ways do you need this explained?

Someone says (as many do) "I believe in god because I see X, Y and Z and I can't think of any way those things could be without god". Then science discovers ways that X, Y and Z COULD be without god. Some of that person's reasons for believing in god have been taken away. That says something to them about their god. Take enough reasons away and they may stop believing (as some do). Clearly science has "said something" to them about their god.

Here's a thread right on DU within the last few days that show people to whom science is absolutely saying something about their god:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12309075

Christian fundamentalists certainly think that evolutionary science has something to say about their god, or they wouldn't fight so hard against its being taught to their children, now would they?

The fact that science doesn't say anything to YOU about YOUR god, doesn't mean it has nothing to say to anybody about any god.

[humblebum]

37. "Then science discovers ways that X, Y and Z COULD be without god."

The ONLY possible way that such a statement can even be considered to have any merit is that if the qualities of the "god" that science considers not to be necessary match those of The God that is believed in by those who believe in such a god. And they do not.

That is the huge logical fallacy of those who believe that Science has any way of evaluating a deity or determining whether or not one exists.

Believe it or not skeptic, some minds can conceive of ideas that clearly do not fit your mold. All that Science can say about the so called "god particle" is that it exists. Anything beyond that is hypothetical, and to present the same as objective empirical proof that God does not exist is a lie. Purely hypothetical and subjective.

The lines were clearly drawn when the modern Scientific Method was established and its limitations defined. And yes, it does have well-defined limitations.

[skepticscott]

39. That statement has merit

if religious beliefs or the characteristics of a "god" make truth claims about the physical world (as they often do).

And who the hell ever said the the Higgs boson existing is "empirical proof" that god doesn't exist? No one. Ever. Just another one of your endless series of lies and made up crap.

We're done here.

[humblebum]

40. When the statement is made that "a god was not necessary" - that is a purely subjective opinion

that has been pandered as objective. And whenever that is claimed by any scientist or anyone else it is either contrived deception or ignorance.

[humblebum]

21. Is it science that is saying such things or is it

those who worship science like yourself?

The Scientific Method, as it is applied to physical science, does not even have the capacity to evaluate nor comment on anything considered as supernatural. That is its intentional limitation.

[skepticscott]

22. Science has made its judgement

And saying that I "worship science" is just another of your (many) lies. I know that's all you have, but it's really pathetic.

And the "supernatural" is just an imaginary concept, ginned up by people like you wanting to make their "god" or whatever imaginary thing people worship immune from rational inquiry. There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world. If such things as gods, angels, ghosts, or demons are anything but imaginary, then they must be considered as natural, existing in the natural world, amenable (at least in principle) to scientific inquiry, and subject to the same inviolable natural laws as all other things. Any appearance by such entities (assuming that they did, in fact, have a physical existence) of transcending these laws would be simply that-appearance. A ghost which passed through a solid wall or a god which could transform matter with the wave of a hand would not be exhibiting "supernatural" powers in violation of natural laws, but would rather be indicating to us that there are aspects of natural law which we simply have not yet discovered. Any "god" claimed to be capable of influencing or being influenced by events in the physical universe (causing rain, curing illness, hearing prayers, etc.) can't be considered "super"-natural (i.e. above or outside of nature). That includes the Christian god, and most of the others that people kowtow to. It is not science that has strayed into the imaginary realm of the "supernatural", but religionists who have tried to make their "gods" part of the physical, natural world when it suits them (and of course then resorting to the kind of special pleading that you probably have in mind when it doesn't).

[SwissTony]

24. Em...I don't think Humblebum is actualy saying what you think (s)he is saying...

You need a little more subtlety in your thought processes.

[eqfan592]

27. I do believe you are incorrect, on both counts. (nt)

[SwissTony]

33. We can agree to disagree.

Although some substance would make a better argument.

[humblebum]

36. You absolutely validate the term 'scientism' but in fact,

the scientific method cannot by its own stated limits even "judge" or comment,or evaluate anything beyond that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. For all of your vast scientific knowledge, you are still in the dark.

[skepticscott]

38. If you think that science cannot rely

on the conceptual, then you are even more ignorant than I imagined. Science CAN comment on the possibility of there being 10 dimensions, even though those dimensions cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. Not to mention hundreds of other things.

Please take your lame, uninformed crap and your blatant lies somewhere else. No one here is buying.

[humblebum]

41. Oh yes, Science can comment on 10 dimensions or a hundred, or one. That is not the issue.

Empirical evidence is still needed as objective proof. You know as well as I do that Science has no way to evaluate anything supernatural. To science it is a non-issue.

BTW, that "lame, uninformed crap" that you herald is the Scientific Method. Empirical evidence is still needed to confirm that something objectively exists.

[skepticscott]

47. It is exactly the issue you raised in #36

"the scientific method cannot by its own stated limits even "judge" or comment,or evaluate anything beyond that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched."

That's utterly false, as stated by you yourself: "Science can comment on 10 dimension, or a hundred, or one." Unless you know of a way to see, hear, smell, taste or touch that 10th dimension.

You really do fail miserably.

[humblebum]

50. Scientists can make comments about anything they so choose. But, "Science" itself says nothing.

It is a discipline, not a living thinking entity. It's limits are quite spelled out, and one of those limitations is anything considered to be supernatural. Science can only be concerned with physical existence. Your knowledge of the history of science and the scientific method is quite lacking. Even Hawking considers himself to be a positivist and that conveys a very definite line of thought.

[humblebum]

42. Your statement

"There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world." is absolute proof of the narrowly focused, exclusivist, POV that characterizes certain atheists. You have just confirmed that your attitude really is that if you cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or touch something it cannot exist. You have just made a definite statement. It's not that it probably doesn't exist, BUT that it DOES NOT!

Physical existence or imaginary - those are the ONLY two possibilities according to you. There is no "probably" about it.

[skepticscott]

48. If everything in the physical world

could be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled, you might have a argument. But that can't be proven, as you admitted to above, so you don't (that inconvenient 10th dimension again). And just because something is only conceptual at one time doesn't mean it can never have a real existence.

And you have no other possibilities beyond the ones I stated, so you're just as "exclusivist" as you claim I am. Sorry.

[humblebum]

49. You are simply restating the obvious, and last I knew the SM was

based on rational empiricism. And also the last I knew empiricism involved that which could be sensed. Anything beyond that point is purely subjective and hypothetical. You are the one that said there can only be two choices. That's pretty darned exclusivist.

[kestrel91316]

31. No one "worships" science. But thanks for playing.

[kestrel91316]

30. FAIL. You need to provide SOME scientific evidence for the

existence of god(s) before dragging such into a scientific discussion.

[cbayer]

7. Hi, longship! Welcome back. FWIW, I think this was supposed to be silly.

I don't understand the name "god particle" either, even having watched an entire show that tried to explain why it was being called that. OTOH, I did learn a lot that I didn't previously know from the show (might have been my superhero Neil Degrasse Tyson, but I'm not sure).

[longship]

12. Back at ya, my friend.

Huge Tyson fan myself. He is another one of those charisma =18 people. I get his Star Talk radio show as a podcast every week. It's fun. Check it out.

I've been quiet recently because I'm just trying desperately to stay cool, and failing absolutely and literally miserably.

Eating light, keeping hydrated, taking lots of naps. MI summers can be humid and miserable. No AC at my place.

[cbayer]

13. Get to the lake and get on a boat.

It will be like paradise.

While everyone else is sweltering, we are sitting in beautiful 70 degrees with a constant cool breeze.


Thanks for the podcast recommendation. I will check it out. Am having very bad internet problems right now, though, so I don't expect I can get it right now.

Take care of yourself. I live in New Orleans without AC for a few years. Miserable is exactly the right word.

[SwissTony]

9. It was originally called "The god-damned particle".

Some editor objected.

[Silent3]

2. I like this answer to that question

[cbayer]

8. This is hilarious and right on target.

[Angry Dragon]

28. +6,105

[Silent3]

43. Also...

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Confirmation of the standard model is indeed a problem for some.

See Larry Krauss's A Universe From Nothing. One of the gaps is gone.

[dimbear]

20. It's all in the name, Bosons are named for a guy named Bose, and bose is a

German word which means evil or wicked. You can easily extrapolate the religious consequences.

[pinto]

26. Eh. What's in a name?

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Not at all. Expect theologians to claim that God created the God Particle.

[LARED]

44. I don't know about any claims anyone will make, but

there remains the question as to where did this so called "God Particle" originate.

[Gore1FL]

45. What ultimately solves the debate is the lack of a God.

Not the existence of a particle.

[mr blur]

46. No.

Many religious will either ignore the science or accept it and say that their god did it anyway.