The Jesus particle


Uploaded by deathray32 on 05.07.2012

Transcript:
I heard that scientists have discovered the God particle. I guess that puts you atheists
out of business.
Of course not. The Higgs boson has nothing to do with God. No scientists call it the
God particle, only lazy journalists. Actually, Leon Lederman, who coined the term God particle,
originally wanted to call it the Goddam particle because it was so elusive, but his publisher
wouldn't let him.
But isn't it true that elementary particles are made up of three quarks? The god particle
is indivisible and yet made up of three particles. Obviously the people who wrote the bible centuries
ago were on to something when they talked about the holy trinity. Doesn't this prove
that the bible was divinely inspired? Otherwise how could they have possessed such advanced
knowledge?
You're really grasping at straws. First of all, only fermions are made up of quarks,
not bosons. And only hadrons are made of exactly three quarks. This includes all protons and
neutrons. So either every proton and neutron is a god, or, much more likely, you're reading
far too much into a superficial coincidence.
But didn't the scientist Michio Kaku say that the Large Hadron Collider would write Chapter
one, Verse one of the book of Genesis?
If he said that, he should have known better. Perhaps he was trying to speak poetically.
Sometimes scientists have a tin ear for how their statements will be seized on and misused
by religious literalists. For example, Einstein liked to say that God was subtle but not malicious,
and didn't play dice with the universe. But he was speaking metaphorically about the laws
of physics. It's clear from his writings that Einstein didn't believe in an anthropomorphic
god.
Maybe he should have shown a little more humility. As one writer said, scientists have scaled
the heights of knowledge only to find that the world's theologians have been sitting
on the summit for centuries, waiting for the scientists to join them.
Even if that's true, which I don't accept, at least the scientists did the hard work
of climbing the mountain by their own efforts, instead of riding a magic flying carpet to
the top. Talk is cheap. Anyone can make a vague assertion and then claim that science
backs it up.
What I find interesting is how theologians are constantly seeking validation from science
for their claims, but whenever science disproves their claims, as it always does when they
make the mistake of getting too specific, they immediately huff and puff that science
should keep its grubby hands off their sacred bailiwick.
But how do you account for the fact that the Big Bang was predicted by the book of Genesis?
In the beginning was a void, then God created the heavens and the earth.
Yes, and he also created day and night before the sun and stars, and he created plants before
there was an atmosphere, if Genesis is to be believed. Again, you're just seizing on
a superficial coincidence. It's pretty ironic, considering how you religionists always accuse
us atheists of being too literal-minded and missing the big picture.
Well, many scientists look at the order and beauty in the universe, and see it as a profound
validation of their religious faith. They come to the conclusion that there must be
a vast intelligence behind the universe.
Or maybe they start from that belief, and look for ways to rationalize it? For me, one
of the most fascinating things about science is starting from a system of simple elements,
and seeing how order and complexity can arise spontaneously when those elements interact.
New structures emerge in a way that could not have been predicted by looking at a single
element. In the coming decades it's likely that we'll develop a much better understanding
of complex phenomena like life, consciousness and intelligence by looking at how they emerge
from systems of simpler elements.
So to me, it's just not interesting to imagine that intelligence must have been hiding behind
the curtain all along. It's a cop-out, and a sign that you're not willing to do the hard
work to show how intelligence can arise in the first place.