Higgs boson: the particle of faith

campermon · #1 by **campermon** » Dec 18, 2011 9:10 am

a short article from mcGrath...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8956 ... faith.html

..and some excellent fail in the comments section;

"Ultimately if you do not believe an intelligent creator caused all other things to come into being then presumably you accept the following:

1. One day pigs will fly (on a long enough timescale)
2. A million pound could suddenly appear on the table in front of you without cause
3. A house could be built to british standards (or similar) without intelligent design&build over a long enough time period by other forces like the wind etc. This is regardless of whether the materials exist on site or not.
4. One day humans will be able to bring back the dead

Evolutionary theory and an athiest position demand that these things can and will happen. That is one reason why i believe in a creator - because a creator seems a better explanation. "

:doh:

Lizard_King · #2 by **Lizard_King** » Dec 18, 2011 9:26 am

Wow, that is some premium grade fail there... :picard:

Spearthrower · #3 by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2011 9:28 am

McGrath's article and these comments disprove Newton's 3rd Law.

Ihavenofingerprints · #4 by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Dec 18, 2011 9:36 am

Why are believers so obsessed with drawing parallels between their God/s and scientific concepts that haven't yet been physically observed?

Dark matter and the Higgs Bosson are concepts offered to explain for observed phenomena that demands a particular explanation - And only after they can be confident to a relatively high degree that the particular explanation is probably right/or not far off.

You can't compare that to people pulling bullshit supernatural explanations out of the air to explain phenomena that doesn't demand a supernatural explanation. And even if something did require a supernatural explanation, how do you determine what sort of supernatural explanation it requires? Supernatural entities don't even remotely follow the same scrutiny.

Furthermore, scientists can be confident to an extremely high degree that an unobserved particle exists, but they wont conclude it definitely exists until they observe it. So if theists want to play this card, they can all become agnostics in the mean-time and wait for God to be observed before they start praying again.

jaygray · #5 by **jaygray** » Dec 18, 2011 9:56 am

Two words occur after reading that article: 'pre-emptive', and 'desperate'.

campermon · #6 by **campermon** » Dec 18, 2011 1:37 pm

...the comments get worse...

"Thing I note about biology is that it relies on a set of very standardized templates. A horse contains the same basic parts as a human or a dolphin, just in different sizes and positions. It's a bit like a range of models from a manufacturer. In spite the vast range of sizes, shapes and external appearances, there are only a handful of basic designs.

Interestingly, while carbon-based life is mostly a highly efficient design for the job it does, you also see evidence of 'bodge engineering' in the design of living beings, like the vocal nerve or appendix, where a few parts are almost like hasty corrections or additions. This is amazingly like human design work.

This to me suggests intelligent design rather than chance evolution, which would have led to far more variation in basic components. It doesn't suggest an omnipotent 'god' as the designer though. An omnipotent being would have got things 100% right first time. No. It's more like the work of a bunch of engineers. Engineers more advanced than us, sure, but still working within the same basic ground-rules as any engineering project.

It also occurs to me to wonder if all of these design variations were coded-into DNA from the outset, and emerge as and when the conditions suit them. That would make a lot more sense than random changes somehow producing viable species. "

ffs

:doh:

Spearthrower · #7 by **Spearthrower** » Dec 18, 2011 3:33 pm

That comment was just an example of ignorance begetting greater confidence than knowledge.

Paul G · #8 by **Paul G** » Dec 18, 2011 3:35 pm

McGrath must be proud of his followers.

Shrunk · #9 by **Shrunk** » Dec 18, 2011 3:55 pm

PZ Myers point out one obvious error in the analogy:

The parallel breaks down hard, though. Yes, the Higgs boson is a satisfying theoretical construct with much power to explain. But notice that mathematical beauty was not enough: the physicists of the world, from over 100 countries, gathered and spent over $9 billion to build the largest scientific instrument in the world to test the hypothesis. Faith was not enough.

In contrast, you couldn’t convince a Baptist and a Mormon to get together and chip in $1.98 to test their god. Because they don’t have the slightest idea how to do it, and wouldn’t be interested if they did.

That’s the real lesson to be learned from the science: you have to do the test.

The more fundamental failure, IMHO: God is not an "explanation" in the way the Higgs boson is. The HIggs boson only makes sense in terms of the particular circumstances of the physical universe as we observe it. It explains specific observations but would not work as an explanation if other observations had been made instead. God is an one-size-fits-all "explanation" that could be offered for any observation that could be made. Which means it isn't really an explanation at all.

willhud9 · **#10** by **willhud9** » Dec 18, 2011 10:32 pm

At least McGrath acknowledges biological science. He is just a Christian who sees his God in the science. As long as he's not claiming for others to see that, to be honest I'm perfectly content with that.

Shrunk · **#11** by **Shrunk** » Dec 19, 2011 2:09 am

willhud9 wrote:At least McGrath acknowledges biological science. He is just a Christian who sees his God in the science. As long as he's not claiming for others to see that, to be honest I'm perfectly content with that.

I think the problem is that his argument sucks on theological grounds....

willhud9 · **#12** by **willhud9** » Dec 19, 2011 4:23 am

Shrunk wrote:
willhud9 wrote:At least McGrath acknowledges biological science. He is just a Christian who sees his God in the science. As long as he's not claiming for others to see that, to be honest I'm perfectly content with that.

I think the problem is that his argument sucks on theological grounds....

It depends on what he arguing. His case for theistic evolution is believable, I mean it doesn't prove God's existence, but it allows God to be in evolution while fitting in theology. Others such as his particle physics and God hybrid seem far fetched.

Darwinsbulldog · **#13** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 19, 2011 4:25 am

willhud9 wrote:At least McGrath acknowledges biological science. He is just a Christian who sees his God in the science. As long as he's not claiming for others to see that, to be honest I'm perfectly content with that.

I am not content with that Will. He is trying to make science -an epistological system which is based on the formulation of descriptive and predictive models that are judged by testing and falsification- become a system of meatphysical claims about reality and truth.

Science does not ask the 'why' questions, on the "how'. There is no need to infer purpose at all. There might not even be a purpose to the universe. Theology claims purpose exists. A theologian can no more use science to promote his theology than a scientist can use science to promote his atheism.
That being said, atheism [the lack of belief in gods] has features that is shared by science. Methodological naturalism is a form of defacto atheism. Thus Laplace's statement:-

"Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là". or "I have no need of that hypothesis" is a point of similarity between science and atheism. Atheists have no need of gods [note carefully that it is not a total denial of the possibility of god[s]], and any scientist, when practicing science [including religious ones, if they wish to do good science] do not use the god hypothesis either. We see what usually happens when a scientist tries to use 'god", for example, Michael Behe. :grin:

Darwinsbulldog · **#14** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 19, 2011 4:32 am

willhud9 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
willhud9 wrote:At least McGrath acknowledges biological science. He is just a Christian who sees his God in the science. As long as he's not claiming for others to see that, to be honest I'm perfectly content with that.

I think the problem is that his argument sucks on theological grounds....

It depends on what he arguing. His case for theistic evolution is believable, I mean it doesn't prove God's existence, but it allows God to be in evolution while fitting in theology. Others such as his particle physics and God hybrid seem far fetched.

It depends on how he crafts it. Certainly, if the existence of god is a necessary mechanism in the world at any level, then it fails. No mechanism =magic. [if god does not exist, therefore no mechanism, therefore fail].
Plus the god-natural selection tandem causation of Behe in "The Edge of Evolution" has a similar flaw. Not only does Behe fail to demonstrate god [or E.T.] as a "helper" mechanism to assist natural selection with what Behe imagines are "the hard bits" like fine-tuning, he can't even begin to explain when NS or when GOD/E.T. operate.
It's the same old personal incredularity and puzzle equals god-of-the-gaps canard.

Landrew · **#15** by **Landrew** » Dec 19, 2011 4:42 am

campermon wrote:

Evolutionary theory and an athiest position demand that these things can and will happen. That is one reason why i believe in a creator - because a creator seems a better explanation. "

Belief in a creator requires a belief in magic. Magic has been proved false millions of times.

Evolution is based on observation and measurement; THAT is the only valid explanation.

xtraordinaryevidence · **#16** by **xtraordinaryevidence** » Dec 19, 2011 4:59 am

campermon wrote:...the comments get worse...

"Thing I note about biology is that it relies on a set of very standardized templates. A horse contains the same basic parts as a human or a dolphin, just in different sizes and positions. It's a bit like a range of models from a manufacturer. In spite the vast range of sizes, shapes and external appearances, there are only a handful of basic designs.

Interestingly, while carbon-based life is mostly a highly efficient design for the job it does, you also see evidence of 'bodge engineering' in the design of living beings, like the vocal nerve or appendix, where a few parts are almost like hasty corrections or additions. This is amazingly like human design work.

Those are arguments FOR evolution...

hackenslash · **#17** by **hackenslash** » Dec 19, 2011 9:32 am

campermon wrote:2. A million pound could suddenly appear on the table in front of you without cause

Actually, yes, it could. Indeed, depending on how the million pounds was presented, we can actually calculate the length of time it would take, probabilistically speaking, for this to occur. All we need as input is the mass of the million pounds, the distance it has to travel and the size of the container that it's currently in, and we can actually calculate this for a specific million pounds.

Science; it works, bitches.

Oeditor · **#18** by **Oeditor** » Dec 19, 2011 10:47 am

campermon wrote:2. A million pound could suddenly appear on the table in front of you without cause

Easy - you just need a banker to borrow your table to count his bonus on.

Shrunk · **#19** by **Shrunk** » Dec 19, 2011 11:10 am

willhud9 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
willhud9 wrote:At least McGrath acknowledges biological science. He is just a Christian who sees his God in the science. As long as he's not claiming for others to see that, to be honest I'm perfectly content with that.

I think the problem is that his argument sucks on theological grounds....

It depends on what he arguing. His case for theistic evolution is believable, I mean it doesn't prove God's existence, but it allows God to be in evolution while fitting in theology. Others such as his particle physics and God hybrid seem far fetched.

I'm thinking more of his analogy between scientific hypotheses/theories and religious beliefs. His point, it seems, is that the former exist only in the sense that they provide explanatory frameworks and explanations for that which we observe. The unstated (and perhaps unrealized) implication is that this is also true of God: that he is no more than an explanation, without necessarily any concrete existence. I wonder how many theologians would endorse that idea? Some, I surmise, but would McGrath?

z8000783 · **#20** by **z8000783** » Dec 19, 2011 11:35 am

trubble76 wrote:I can't believe that this article made it through any sort of vetting procedure. It displays fundamental ignorance of science, and it's theology is dodgy to say the least. From where did Mr McGrath buy his qualification?

Faith, a fairly straight-forward concept for a theologian to grasp, has been completely misused in this piece. Faith is not central to the search for this boson, in fact it is entirely absent.
What sort of faith requires the faithful to devote huge lumps of money (billion of pounds), decades of hard work and trillions of terabytes of analysis to the task of investigating and disproving the article of 'faith'?
This is the very opposite of faith. If faith were foremost for these men and women, then they would simply accept it without challenge.
It's existence was predicted, but faith was insufficient and so the long and expensive search began. The quest for falsification had begun, because as we (but seemingly not Mr McGrath) know, science is not about what can be proved, it is about what can't be falsified. A significant difference.
The parallel between the things that science and religion propose is utterly false, and anyone with even a basic understanding of both can see the obvious difference.
Science proposes things that fit the evidence, religion does not deal with evidence, it proposes things that fit the myth. If a scientific proposal is shown to be false, it is abandoned without ceremony, if a religious proposal is shown to be false it sparks violence and manipulati0n as the faithful rush to the defense of their pet belief. Think evolution here.

This article is little more than a poorly written version of the Tu Quoque Fallacy. It was stupid the first time it was put forward, and it is stupid now. How disappointing.