Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[sirineou]

Being that matters of faith are of the soul (or the heart?) approaching these things from a cerebral angle seems incorrect. Can science explain love?

Yes

How does science explain love?

First you ask, " can science explain love" what kind of question is this? you know that there are many kinds of different loves right?

Why would you ask me, to explain?I am not science

why don't you ask science? there is a wide body of research on the subject.

Don't be lazy, research the subject, it might be a very interesting way to spend a few hours.

First you need to determine what kind of love are you interested in?

Then there is this thing called Google

Google the subject and see how science explains it.

if you don't like reading, YouTube has several documentaries on the subject

Here is a little something to start you along the way

Enjoy

[bundoi]

You are speaking of one aspect of life and evolution which you have satisfied your curiosity on. That beneficial mutations out paced harmful mutations and that eventually single celled organisms became complex organisms. Do we have in science any examples of single celled organisms developing multi-cellular forms? I only ask because you are certain this has occurred.

Your other point is misinformed. A great many theists have invested their time in understanding the atheist world view. There have been converts in both directions.

re A. There are a number of books which will satisfy your or any other theist's curiosity about evolution; the greatest living writer on this is Richard Dawkins who has written many books aimed at presenting these difficult ideas to a popular audience.

re B. Non-theists aren't seeking converts for the simple reason that it's not a superstition.

Edited January 9, 2014 by bundoi

[thailiketoo]

I earlier posted about the circumstances required for life to originate. I left out a lot of things but some of the complexity was revealed. Many people are satisfied believing that life originated without assistance. For these people no more investigation is necessary.

However I think most people see life and the universe as beautiful, complex, and highly interconnected - driven even. It appears to have a consciousness guiding it. People who are fervently opposed to any supernatural realm can still be heard describing evolution and life itself as a cognitive force. And of course there is the ubiquitous mother nature that seems to be approved at many levels for explanations of all non-human events on the planet.

Why does man ascribe intelligence to the natural world with one breath and dismiss it as infantile in the next? Why is man continually in denial about what he accepts subconsciously? Is it fear?

Not sure who who have been arguing with but there iw no "mother nature" or any evolution entity. There is only random mutation (according with the laws of physics) and natural selection. Neither has any purpose nor direction.

Also the fact that someone considers something to be beautiful says nothing about it's origins.

Then you belong to the group described in the first paragraph. I am happy you are at peace with your world view.

I must ask though, is your faith in this view consistent? I would have great difficulty being this resolute.

If I thought the world was anything but random I would have to admit an entity allowed WWI, The Holocaust, WWII and Vietnam for starters. That entity would not be someone I would want to meet.

So I don't see the universe as beautiful, complex, and highly interconnected - driven even. It appears to have a consciousness guiding it.

In my view the consciousness would be too horrid to imagine.

[Brevity]

I was raised as a Catholic but 12 years in the Roman Catholic school system cured me of believing. I have never seen such cruel and sadistic people as Catholic nuns and priests (in the school environment, anyway). For the most. they were people with no compassion, kindness or ability to relate to the students and understand much about their lives and struggles. And over the years the scope of the homosexual/pedophilia that is ripe in the Catholic priesthood has become obvious. I really don't know how the RC church keeps any faithful.

If the mainstream religions are supposed to be the representatives and voices of God, then I can't believe in God.

My friend is definitely an atheist and whenever he reads about another war or act of violence/cruelty fueled by religious conflict, he says, "Thank God I'm an atheist!" (It's an old joke that somebody has probably already said in this thread.)

Then there was the dyslexic agnostic who had insomnia. He would lay awake at night wondering if there is a Dog. (Once again, apologies if it's already been told here.)

[canuckamuck]

Then you belong to the group described in the first paragraph. I am happy you are at peace with your world view.

I must ask though, is your faith in this view consistent? I would have great difficulty being this resolute.

I'm not sure which definition of "faith" you are using so let me define how I use the word. Let me know if we are using different definitions. "Faith" is the believing in something without good reason.

The theory of evolution describes the process of evolution which resulted in the diversity of life we hace on earth. It clearly explains the hows and there is extensive evidence around. Many of the processes used to confirm evolution as described by the theory are also usee in different fields in "real life" ranging from animal breedng to DNA tests for criminal investigation.

Nothing described in the theory needs a supernatural addition in order to be explained.

If I explain to you how a combustion car works, would you require faith in not believing that in addition to the engine a greek mythical God also helped, tweeked or directed the engine? The simplest explanation is the one that one is justified to accept. Faith would be required for the unevidenced addition of other unecessary elements.

In sum, I do have good reason to believe in the theory of evolution, both from the point of logic and from the widely available evidence. Therefore I do need any faith on the matter.

And evolution is not a "world view" it's just a scientific theory explaining natural events. The theory of evolution is as much "world view" as the theory of gravity.

Hope that answered your question.

Faith would be something that you believe completely despite being able to prove it beyond a doubt. Not necessarily without a good reason. In fact that would be silly.

You have faith that the theory of evolution completely solves the question of life and diversity. I do not believe you have the ability to prove it. Feel free to surprise me.

The internal combustion engine is not complex in comparison to life itself. All facets of the engine are easily demonstrable, historical, and explainable. Falsifiable experiments can be done to show the combustion properties, and currently none of the patents involved are registered to Greek Gods. Although Mercury may have some claim to trademark infringement (yes I now that Mercury is technically Roman).

I did not say evolution is a world view but it is obvious a cornerstone of your world view.

[thailiketoo]

Then you belong to the group described in the first paragraph. I am happy you are at peace with your world view.

I must ask though, is your faith in this view consistent? I would have great difficulty being this resolute.

I'm not sure which definition of "faith" you are using so let me define how I use the word. Let me know if we are using different definitions. "Faith" is the believing in something without good reason.

The theory of evolution describes the process of evolution which resulted in the diversity of life we hace on earth. It clearly explains the hows and there is extensive evidence around. Many of the processes used to confirm evolution as described by the theory are also usee in different fields in "real life" ranging from animal breedng to DNA tests for criminal investigation.

Nothing described in the theory needs a supernatural addition in order to be explained.

If I explain to you how a combustion car works, would you require faith in not believing that in addition to the engine a greek mythical God also helped, tweeked or directed the engine? The simplest explanation is the one that one is justified to accept. Faith would be required for the unevidenced addition of other unecessary elements.

In sum, I do have good reason to believe in the theory of evolution, both from the point of logic and from the widely available evidence. Therefore I do need any faith on the matter.

And evolution is not a "world view" it's just a scientific theory explaining natural events. The theory of evolution is as much "world view" as the theory of gravity.

Hope that answered your question.

Faith would be something that you believe completely despite being able to prove it beyond a doubt. Not necessarily without a good reason. In fact that would be silly.

You have faith that the theory of evolution completely solves the question of life and diversity. I do not believe you have the ability to prove it. Feel free to surprise me.

The internal combustion engine is not complex in comparison to life itself. All facets of the engine are easily demonstrable, historical, and explainable. Falsifiable experiments can be done to show the combustion properties, and currently none of the patents involved are registered to Greek Gods. Although Mercury may have some claim to trademark infringement (yes I now that Mercury is technically Roman).

I did not say evolution is a world view but it is obvious a cornerstone of your world view.

You don't really expect anyone to take you seriously do you?

[greytown]

Being that matters of faith are of the soul (or the heart?) approaching these things from a cerebral angle seems incorrect. Can science explain love?

Yes

How does science explain love?

why don't you ask science? there is a wide body of research on the subject.

Why would I ask science about love? Love is something I want to feel. Science is not gonna help me with that. No amount of psychological analysis or brain scan examination could convey what love feels like. I'm thinking the same goes for spiritual faith.

Edited January 9, 2014 by greytown

[canuckamuck]

You are speaking of one aspect of life and evolution which you have satisfied your curiosity on. That beneficial mutations out paced harmful mutations and that eventually single celled organisms became complex organisms. Do we have in science any examples of single celled organisms developing multi-cellular forms? I only ask because you are certain this has occurred.

Your other point is misinformed. A great many theists have invested their time in understanding the atheist world view. There have been converts in both directions.

re A. There are a number of books which will satisfy your or any other theist's curiosity about evolution; the greatest living writer on this is Richard Dawkins who has written many books aimed at presenting these difficult ideas to a popular audience.

re B. Non-theists aren't seeking converts for the simple reason that it's not a superstition.

A- I have in the past read Dawkins explanation of things. I find that he relies heavily on ridicule and belittlement. If he is the greatest living author on the subject of evolutionary apologetics, then I remain unconvinced.

B- I find atheists to be very found of proselytizing. Follow any atheist literature or forums and you will see what I mean.

[canuckamuck]

You don't really expect anyone to take you seriously do you?

Have you run out of arguments so soon?

[thailiketoo]

You don't really expect anyone to take you seriously do you?

Have you run out of arguments so soon?

No I read your post where it says, "You took me seriously and now we're both fools." And one fool is enough so I won't answer any more of your postings.

[canuckamuck]

Fair enough

[alexviseu]

Faith would be something that you believe completely despite being able to prove it beyond a doubt. Not necessarily without a good reason. In fact that would be silly.

You have faith that the theory of evolution completely solves the question of life and diversity. I do not believe you have the ability to prove it. Feel free to surprise me.

The internal combustion engine is not complex in comparison to life itself. All facets of the engine are easily demonstrable, historical, and explainable. Falsifiable experiments can be done to show the combustion properties, and currently none of the patents involved are registered to Greek Gods. Although Mercury may have some claim to trademark infringement (yes I now that Mercury is technically Roman).

I did not say evolution is a world view but it is obvious a cornerstone of your world view.

You are using a very strange definition of faith. One that is fairly useless I might add as it seem that you classify anything that is not 100% certain (whatever that even means) to be faith.

And more importantly, it is not the definition widely used by other people.

Science is nor a collection of thruisms. It's both a process and the agregation of sound "best current explanations" for natural phenomena.

Claiming something to be 100% correct is closing the door to further research. This is something seen in dogmatic systems such as the ones in place in religious organizations. It is uterly unscientific.

By your definition of faith everyone uses faith for everything. But by using that definition you are equatibg two very different concepts (believe and faith) and depraving the concepr of knowledge.

All facets of evolution are also demonstrable and explainable. And widely available.

Evolution is not only not a corner stone of my "world view" but also irrelevant. I don't use evolution more than the laws of newton or the theory of relativity.

[Shancloudy]

Open your heart and you'll see God.

[canuckamuck]

Faith would be something that you believe completely despite being able to prove it beyond a doubt. Not necessarily without a good reason. In fact that would be silly.

You have faith that the theory of evolution completely solves the question of life and diversity. I do not believe you have the ability to prove it. Feel free to surprise me.

The internal combustion engine is not complex in comparison to life itself. All facets of the engine are easily demonstrable, historical, and explainable. Falsifiable experiments can be done to show the combustion properties, and currently none of the patents involved are registered to Greek Gods. Although Mercury may have some claim to trademark infringement (yes I now that Mercury is technically Roman).

I did not say evolution is a world view but it is obvious a cornerstone of your world view.

You are using a very strange definition of faith. One that is fairly useless I might add as it seem that you classify anything that is not 100% certain (whatever that even means) to be faith.

And more importantly, it is not the definition widely used by other people.

Science is nor a collection of thruisms. It's both a process and the agregation of sound "best current explanations" for natural phenomena.

Claiming something to be 100% correct is closing the door to further research. This is something seen in dogmatic systems such as the ones in place in religious organizations. It is uterly unscientific.

By your definition of faith everyone uses faith for everything. But by using that definition you are equatibg two very different concepts (believe and faith) and depraving the concepr of knowledge.

All facets of evolution are also demonstrable and explainable. And widely available.

Evolution is not only not a corner stone of my "world view" but also irrelevant. I don't use evolution more than the laws of newton or the theory of relativity.

faith [feyth]

noun

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someoneconcerning honesty.

5.

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

The word faith is used in many ways and I did use it correctly.

How is faith and belief very different concepts? For the most part the words are interchangeable.

Everything in this world requires a level of faith. You have faith (you believe)that when you step on the floor you won't fall through it, that if you jump in the water you believe (have faith) you will be able to get back out. There are degrees of faith and somethings take much more faith than others. Some people have stepped through floors and drowned in pools, so you might say their faith was faulty, but you could not fault them for believing it would not happen. What they were lacking was knowledge that something was not as it seemed.

I do not think evolution has been demonstrated. (unless you are talking about natural selection, or breeding for traits). The best you can say is that evolution has been widely accepted to be true. I understand that this is how science works, science also requires skepticism. But you have a problem with people being skeptical here. Even though you just said "Claiming something to be 100% correct is closing the door to further research."

I do not understand how something can be a cornerstone of your world view and at the same time be irrelevant.

[alexviseu]

faith [feyth]

noun

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someoneconcerning honesty.

5.

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

The word faith is used in many ways and I did use it correctly.

How is faith and belief very different concepts? For the most part the words are interchangeable.

Everything in this world requires a level of faith. You have faith (you believe)that when you step on the floor you won't fall through it, that if you jump in the water you believe (have faith) you will be able to get back out. There are degrees of faith and somethings take much more faith than others. Some people have stepped through floors and drowned in pools, so you might say their faith was faulty, but you could not fault them for believing it would not happen. What they were lacking was knowledge that something was not as it seemed.

I do not think evolution has been demonstrated. (unless you are talking about natural selection, or breeding for traits). The best you can say is that evolution has been widely accepted to be true. I understand that this is how science works, science also requires skepticism. But you have a problem with people being skeptical here. Even though you just said "Claiming something to be 100% correct is closing the door to further research."

I do not understand how something can be a cornerstone of your world view and at the same time be irrelevant.

I don't how your definition of faith is compatible with any of those you listed. The one that seems most relevant is the one about believing without proof which is not the same as "beliving without 100% certainty".

Here is a definition of proof:

proof (prf)

n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

This do not match the definition you were using.

By the previously cited definitions I think it is clear on why you would not require faith that "when you step on the floor you won't fall through it" as you have plenty evidence that never happened. It is an assertion based on proof so does not require faith.

Faith is not the same as belief, it is the belief without proof (evidence) and while faith is a belief, belief is not faith. Hence not interchangable at all.

As for the theory of evolution not having been demonstrated I really do not knw what you mean. Every process in the theory has been demonstrated and replicated within possibility. Can you specify what you think has not met demonstration ot the level of proof you would require?

Regarding my "world view" the whole point is that evolution is NOT a cornerstone, hence irrelevant. I don't understand why a scientific theory (specially one such as the theory of evolution) would be a cornerstone to anyone's world view.

[NBD]

Open your heart and you'll see God.

Where?

[Shancloudy]

Open your heart and you'll see God.

Where?

I'm smiling anyway... ( nice reply )

I meant if you open your heart you can feel the spirit of God and see the image of God through other people. If you can see a good follower or believer of God you can see God to them.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Shancloudy

[canuckamuck]

faith [feyth]

noun

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someoneconcerning honesty.

5.

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

The word faith is used in many ways and I did use it correctly.

How is faith and belief very different concepts? For the most part the words are interchangeable.

Everything in this world requires a level of faith. You have faith (you believe)that when you step on the floor you won't fall through it, that if you jump in the water you believe (have faith) you will be able to get back out. There are degrees of faith and somethings take much more faith than others. Some people have stepped through floors and drowned in pools, so you might say their faith was faulty, but you could not fault them for believing it would not happen. What they were lacking was knowledge that something was not as it seemed.

I do not think evolution has been demonstrated. (unless you are talking about natural selection, or breeding for traits). The best you can say is that evolution has been widely accepted to be true. I understand that this is how science works, science also requires skepticism. But you have a problem with people being skeptical here. Even though you just said "Claiming something to be 100% correct is closing the door to further research."

I do not understand how something can be a cornerstone of your world view and at the same time be irrelevant.

I don't how your definition of faith is compatible with any of those you listed. The one that seems most relevant is the one about believing without proof which is not the same as "beliving without 100% certainty".

Here is a definition of proof:

proof (prf)

n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

This do not match the definition you were using.

By the previously cited definitions I think it is clear on why you would not require faith that "when you step on the floor you won't fall through it" as you have plenty evidence that never happened. It is an assertion based on proof so does not require faith.

Faith is not the same as belief, it is the belief without proof (evidence) and while faith is a belief, belief is not faith. Hence not interchangable at all.

As for the theory of evolution not having been demonstrated I really do not knw what you mean. Every process in the theory has been demonstrated and replicated within possibility. Can you specify what you think has not met demonstration ot the level of proof you would require?

Regarding my "world view" the whole point is that evolution is NOT a cornerstone, hence irrelevant. I don't understand why a scientific theory (specially one such as the theory of evolution) would be a cornerstone to anyone's world view.

If you have a peek up at the dictionary definitions that i provided and you quoted. You will see the makers of the dictionary are using the word belief in the definition of faith. you should tell them they are wrong too. There are instances where the words are synonymous and then again where they are not; it is contextual

You seem to be pretty hung up on semantics here so I don't see how we are going to get to anything meaningful when you are so selective in how I may use these terms.

How is that the person falling through the floor had proof that he wouldn't fall through? If he fell then he was wrong and what he thought was proof is falsified (ie.not proof). He had a faith based assumption, not proof that the floor would hold him.

It is likely you also have a specialized definition of worldview.

Here is a definition I would recognize A worldview is one's viewpoint of how they see and understand the world. It is their outlook or point of view about life and the universe. (ask.com)

I would say that most worldviews contain thoughts of origin, but if yours doesn't it is strange that you have such strong feelings about evolution.

[sirineou]

faith [feyth]

noun

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someoneconcerning honesty.

5.

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

The word faith is used in many ways and I did use it correctly.

How is faith and belief very different concepts? For the most part the words are interchangeable.

All Chinese are Asian ,are all Asians Chinese?

Al faith requires beliefs, do all beliefs require faith?

Edited January 9, 2014 by sirineou

[NBD]

I'm smiling anyway... ( nice reply )

I meant if you open your heart you can feel the spirit of God and see the image of God through other people. If you can see a good follower or believer of God you can see God to them.

Can you see God in people who rape and kill children? Or looking at porn?

[Shancloudy]

I'm smiling anyway... ( nice reply )

I meant if you open your heart you can feel the spirit of God and see the image of God through other people. If you can see a good follower or believer of God you can see God to them.

Can you see God in people who rape and kill children? Or looking at porn?

Of course not. But there are so many nice people in the world who are a believer of God.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Shancloudy

[alexviseu]

If you have a peek up at the dictionary definitions that i provided and you quoted. You will see the makers of the dictionary are using the word belief in the definition of faith. you should tell them they are wrong too. There are instances where the words are synonymous and then again where they are not; it is contextual

You seem to be pretty hung up on semantics here so I don't see how we are going to get to anything meaningful when you are so selective in how I may use these terms.

How is that the person falling through the floor had proof that he wouldn't fall through? If he fell then he was wrong and what he thought was proof is falsified (ie.not proof). He had a faith based assumption, not proof that the floor would hold him.

It is likely you also have a specialized definition of worldview.

Here is a definition I would recognize A worldview is one's viewpoint of how they see and understand the world. It is their outlook or point of view about life and the universe. (ask.com)

I would say that most worldviews contain thoughts of origin, but if yours doesn't it is strange that you have such strong feelings about evolution.

Actually the worth faith is used on the coloquial usage example and not part of the definition. That is why it is in italic.

If I listed a definition of "fear" and the dictionary gave the example "John was afraid to lose the train." that would not entail that losing a train can be used interchangible with fear, not that they mean the same thing. John is not threatened by losing the train, it just a coloquial applicatuon of the term.

I'm not sure which source you used but most dictionaries should have a chapter on how to interpret what each entry.

The reason I "seem to be pretty hung up on semantics" is because unless we agree on what we mean by our words, we can argue at infinitum without any result. Unless we can start on a common place we might as well as being speaking different languages.

If you ask me about why do I have faith in the theory of evolution but we don't mean the samethng when we speak about faith we are bound to not even understand what the other party means.

A person taking a step is justified to believe that he or she won't fall through the floor because all the previous times he or she did the same action do match with the assertion. It also matches with everything one knows about the world and how it works.

Equating that particular situation to a belief without proof is just not a valid assertion.

Note that something might still be wrong even someone is justified to believe something. Like believing buses will stop at a certain stop or go through a certaon route. It might be that this time, for whatever reason, it takes a different route or skips this or that stop.

I would not interact with the world any differently if for some reason the theory of evolution was disproved today. My life is not based on the theory of evolution.

And I'm not emotional invested oin evolution. I don't have strong feelings about it. I mostly find it weird that people get worked out about scientific theories.

Are you invested in the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity?

[pitrevie]

I received the following after booking my flight at least now I know who to blame if there is a problem.

***IMPORTANT :**

Although your tickets and seats are confirmed, schedule changes by the airline,

weather patterns and other acts of God may change your tickets;

[Berkshire]

Either you believe in science or you believe in religion. I'm not trying to insult believers or non-believers, but the two are simply not compatible. I tend to be a science guy.

It seems that back home (USA), most Americans are almost shamed into being religious. Many will claim to be a Christian, mostly because being an atheist is almost tantamount to being a communist. I also think that many folks will say they're a believer, "just in case."

It's good that people can freely espouse their believes here in Thailand without being ostracized. Well, at least I hope that's the case. I frankly don't care whether a person is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. Can truly religious people say the same?

[NBD]

I'm smiling anyway... ( nice reply )

I meant if you open your heart you can feel the spirit of God and see the image of God through other people. If you can see a good follower or believer of God you can see God to them.

Can you see God in people who rape and kill children? Or looking at porn?

Of course not. But there are so many nice people in the world who are a believer of God.

And nice people who believe in Allah, Jehova, Buddha, Bacchus, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. In approximate descending levels of harm.

[wolf5370]

Actually that wouold be "ever increasing gaps" as we know more questions to ask that we have no answers for than we once did - 5000BC it was "What is the sky?" "What is the sea?" "What are the stars/moon/sun?" etc - now it is "Why does there seem to be so much missing mass in the universe?" "Why do some particles have mass and others not?" "Where does Gravity get its energy from?" "How can entwined particles duplicate changes of spin over great distances instantly when the speed of light/infinite mass rule limits such communication?" and many, many, many more

The problem is that most people know a little about science - and they happily believe every scientific "fact" that comes to be known as true. This has the effect that most people seem to believe that we know almost everything now - but the truth is the opposite. Scientific process has lead us to ask deeper and deeper questions - and as we guess, and then try to prove that guess, and hopefully eventually do, it just uncovers the next layer of questions - and it is almost always a pyramidic decent (more questions the deeper we go). It took a long time to show any evidence of the Higgs Field which we needed for quite a lot of theories with respect to quarks, particles symmetry and mas, and so on - in 2012 the Higgs Boson (yep the God particle - thought it was apt ) being finally discovered put to bed many of those questions - but opened the door for the next layer. For example - when quarks were first postulated it was thought there were few of them - then as we discovered properties in the quarks, we found there were more - now there are hundreds - this is against the simplified model theory - that is, that as we learn more, we move towards fewer fundamental parts (such as elements) - but we end up with more particles than we can deal with and no evident sub-quark layer to account for all the types. A major upset - and still confusing scenario that is already being addressed by theorists. That crack gets ever more wider.

whether the gap between what we know and what we don't know is increasing, remains the same or is decreasing, is arguable and a subject for an other debate, what ever the gap was ,we were able to explain it with science in the past, now there are new gaps, but what ever the size of this new gap is it does not men that we need to fill it with magic, haven't we learned anything from the past?.

As far as the Highs Boson is concerned the coinage of the term "the god particle" is not apt at all and is not used by any credible scientists,

The story behind the name explained by a CERN spokesman:

"the real story behind this extremely unfortunate name "God Particle." As some of you may know, The God Particle is the title of a popular science book by Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman, who was Fermilab's director for many years and thus my boss when I was a postdoctoral fellow there. According to Leon, he wanted to call the book The Goddamn Particlebecause nobody could find the thing. However, his editor discouraged him from the title, suggesting that The God Particle would sell many more copies. This is the story that Leon tells us."

Sure we could argue about gap sizes (I am right though - but never mind).

The "God Particle" being "apt" was a quip - I wasn't meaning it in a religious way, just an ironic one given the thread - and indeed it is mostly media that name it such (although it was called that originally (coined) by Prof. Leon Lederman of Nobel fame back in the early 90s.

Ah yes, you said as much in the rest of your post. It was tongue in cheek in my post as much as it was by Lederman.

The concept of "filling the gaps with magic" as you so eloquently put it (I mean that, I liked the turn of phrase ) is an interesting one. I was actually not attempting to do so, and do believe that most educated believers would not either. However, the same could be said with respect to science at that point - what is magic? something that can not be explained with science - ahem, I think the gaps just filled themselves with magic - its un-magic-ing that science does in fact

A scientifically educated believer - and do not make the mistake of thinking scientists are all atheists I can tell you that is most inaccurate - would say that all the science is "God's magic" - and at the base level, magic is pretty much what it is. We explain things based on other things we understand, which were based on...etc. Our understanding of the universe is tiny in fact - we only surmise what is out there by what we can see and understand here - and the odd particle we capture hurtling through space - most of the universe is well out of our reach or vision - no matter what the telescope of method we use (unless Einstein was wrong with the infinite mass problem) by the time it reaches us we will be dead (time to get to the other side of the universe (boundary) at the speed of light is greater than the time the universe is expected to exist for - let alone getting back!). Truth is most of our theories are based on such little evidence that if it was a statistical analysis it would be dumped in the bin. We do what we can to understand based on this knowledge and our creativity, but we can never really know if we know everything, because we simply aren't everywhere to know it. There is no true foundation in our science other than "belief" and that "it works when we test it" - just like Newton's theories did, until Einstein, now even E=MC^2 has been rewritten as E=M^2C^4+P^2C^2 - theories are changed and what we know to be "true" is only really, "close to true, perhaps".

E=M^2C^4+P^2C^2

Where did this come from? Has it been verified? Is this something to do with the possibility of neutrinos traveling faster than light? And finally what is P?

Seems a shame if such a simple eloquent equation such as E=MC2 is disproven.

P is momentum. It is not that E=MC^2 is disproven, rather that it is improved upon/refined. Like Newton's laws of motion/kinetics were fine and still are for most things, just not very large, very small and at relativistic speeds. The problem with E=MC^2 was that it assumes a rest mass and some particles do not have one - such as photons; this causes issues infinities coming out (infinite mass as it is travelling at the speed of light) because particles like photons can not be at rest, so can not have a rest mass. Using momentum sorts this out because traveling mass it used instead

And yes it is verified and actively used these days for mass-less particles - its not that new. Nothing to do with travelling faster than light, but for particles that travel at the speed of light (like light ).

[wolf5370]

Either you believe in science or you believe in religion. I'm not trying to insult believers or non-believers, but the two are simply not compatible. I tend to be a science guy.

It seems that back home (USA), most Americans are almost shamed into being religious. Many will claim to be a Christian, mostly because being an atheist is almost tantamount to being a communist. I also think that many folks will say they're a believer, "just in case."

It's good that people can freely espouse their believes here in Thailand without being ostracized. Well, at least I hope that's the case. I frankly don't care whether a person is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. Can truly religious people say the same?

This is not completely true - many scientists, including some very famous ones, did and do believe in God. The two are not necessarily contentious, although "religion" may be. Belief in God does not equate to belief in any traditional religion. The whole debate always crashes because the argument is headed "God Vs Science" when the debate centres solely (at least on the non-belief side) on religion and not God.

Most "truly" religious people would say the same; most scriptures allow for other beliefs as do their core religion (even if they also believe those that do are misguided), it is people's fear that causes the friction. Scripture is also old and of its time - everyone knows the "kill the infidel, even the child sleeping in the crib lest it becomes an infidel", but as usual it is out of context and refers to times of war (real war - like what was happening in Medina at the time!) and refers to the enemy rather than the non-believer - it also says not to raise sword against other Muslims and yet that happens constantly!

[alexviseu]

E=mc2 seems to work pretty well in describing interplanetary travel, orbit around planets and stars and a bunch of other subjects (ever used GPS?). Wouldn't you consider those to be verifications?

Just because it doesn't work for all imaginable cases doesn't mean it is not useful for most.

Saying we don't know everything about something also does not mean we know nothing.

I may not know what is the exact result of the multiplication of random positive 3 digit numbers. But I know it is NOT 0 or 10.000.000.

We might get as near as possible to the final answer in the future but meanwhile will be narrowing down as much as possible using new information as we find it.

[canuckamuck]

If you have a peek up at the dictionary definitions that i provided and you quoted. You will see the makers of the dictionary are using the word belief in the definition of faith. you should tell them they are wrong too. There are instances where the words are synonymous and then again where they are not; it is contextual

You seem to be pretty hung up on semantics here so I don't see how we are going to get to anything meaningful when you are so selective in how I may use these terms.

How is that the person falling through the floor had proof that he wouldn't fall through? If he fell then he was wrong and what he thought was proof is falsified (ie.not proof). He had a faith based assumption, not proof that the floor would hold him.

It is likely you also have a specialized definition of worldview.

Here is a definition I would recognize A worldview is one's viewpoint of how they see and understand the world. It is their outlook or point of view about life and the universe. (ask.com)

I would say that most worldviews contain thoughts of origin, but if yours doesn't it is strange that you have such strong feelings about evolution.

Actually the worth faith is used on the coloquial usage example and not part of the definition. That is why it is in italic.

If I listed a definition of "fear" and the dictionary gave the example "John was afraid to lose the train." that would not entail that losing a train can be used interchangible with fear, not that they mean the same thing. John is not threatened by losing the train, it just a coloquial applicatuon of the term.

I'm not sure which source you used but most dictionaries should have a chapter on how to interpret what each entry.

The reason I "seem to be pretty hung up on semantics" is because unless we agree on what we mean by our words, we can argue at infinitum without any result. Unless we can start on a common place we might as well as being speaking different languages.

If you ask me about why do I have faith in the theory of evolution but we don't mean the samethng when we speak about faith we are bound to not even understand what the other party means.

A person taking a step is justified to believe that he or she won't fall through the floor because all the previous times he or she did the same action do match with the assertion. It also matches with everything one knows about the world and how it works.

Equating that particular situation to a belief without proof is just not a valid assertion.

Note that something might still be wrong even someone is justified to believe something. Like believing buses will stop at a certain stop or go through a certaon route. It might be that this time, for whatever reason, it takes a different route or skips this or that stop.

I would not interact with the world any differently if for some reason the theory of evolution was disproved today. My life is not based on the theory of evolution.

And I'm not emotional invested oin evolution. I don't have strong feelings about it. I mostly find it weird that people get worked out about scientific theories.

Are you invested in the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity?

No those are 5 definitions. The italicized words are the colloquial usage (correct) but they follow the definitions which are not italicized. and 3 out of 5 of the definitions begin with the word believe. The source is dictionary.com if you want to see it again. Your fear/train theory is nonsense, because the sentence about John would not be the definition of the term.

Once again the word faith has at least 5 definitions, Someone can have faith in a theory without that being religious. Try to keep up with the context.

If I cracked an egg every morning for 5 years and every time there was only one yolk and I had no other information about eggs. would I have proof that eggs always contain only one yolk? Or would I just believe, have faith, in something that isn't true. (same same, falling through the floor). you can't have proof about a thing that isn't true.

Gravity and relativity, pretty hard to split those two up. But yes they are important to my understanding of the universe and how things work.

[Berkshire]

Either you believe in science or you believe in religion. I'm not trying to insult believers or non-believers, but the two are simply not compatible. I tend to be a science guy.

It seems that back home (USA), most Americans are almost shamed into being religious. Many will claim to be a Christian, mostly because being an atheist is almost tantamount to being a communist. I also think that many folks will say they're a believer, "just in case."

It's good that people can freely espouse their believes here in Thailand without being ostracized. Well, at least I hope that's the case. I frankly don't care whether a person is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. Can truly religious people say the same?

This is not completely true - many scientists, including some very famous ones, did and do believe in God. The two are not necessarily contentious, although "religion" may be. Belief in God does not equate to belief in any traditional religion. The whole debate always crashes because the argument is headed "God Vs Science" when the debate centres solely (at least on the non-belief side) on religion and not God.

Most "truly" religious people would say the same; most scriptures allow for other beliefs as do their core religion (even if they also believe those that do are misguided), it is people's fear that causes the friction. Scripture is also old and of its time - everyone knows the "kill the infidel, even the child sleeping in the crib lest it becomes an infidel", but as usual it is out of context and refers to times of war (real war - like what was happening in Medina at the time!) and refers to the enemy rather than the non-believer - it also says not to raise sword against other Muslims and yet that happens constantly!

Yes, I hear you...hence the comment regarding how most Americans claim to be religious when asked (something like 80%). But do they really believe? Who knows. It just seems that many farangs that I meet in Thailand are more upfront about being a non-believer (without actually saying the "A" word). To each his own.