To reiterate my point.

[avevale_intelligencer]

On the face of it.

To someone who is a layman in both science and religion.

Going by what I have read so far.

There seems little difference to me.

Between the more or less speculative theories which have now possibly been backed up by the apparent discovery of something which might be the Higgs boson. (I think that is a fair and balanced statement of the current situation.)

And the more rarefied excesses of religious mysticism.

This is my perception as of this moment, and is therefore not subject to debate, nor do I expect to be argued with on this point.

When I am a little bit less infuriated, I may look into the subject a little more, but so far none of the links I was given in the deleted comment thread has led to anything more solid (or what I used to think of as "scientific") or more comprehensible to me than I had seen at the start, and thus my perception has not changed.

No comment is therefore necessary. You may comment if you wish, but any attempt to restart any kind of argument will be deleted out of hand.

Normal posting will resume when I am damned well ready.

Comments

[ci5rod.livejournal.com]

I can recommend some good reading on this, as it happens. John Polkinghorne's Science and Religion in Quest of Truth is written by someone who is a quantum physicist and theologian, and goes to some trouble to distinguish between the sorts of questions science and meaningfully ask and the sorts of questions religion can meaningfully ask. It's written primarily from a Christian perspective, John being an ordained priest, but a lot of it is generally applicable.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

My only comment here (without getting into scientific details and the like) is that you can always view this as science explaining the "how" and religion being available to explain the "why".

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, that's how I usually view it.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

If you're interested in understanding more about the whole Higgs Boson thing, I'm trying to read up and understand more myself, and might be in a position to translate in a while. If I do manage that, would you like to know more, or not?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm always interested in acquiring new knowledge.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine wrote this
http://cerebralhack.com/content/higgs-boson-rest-us-part-1
Sadly, this time, he didn't get me to proof-read it, but it's still a good article.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

That's fine, but that also means it will be counterproductive for you and I to continue reading each other. Opinions that are not challenged and evaluated remain opinions, not facts. If you don't want me to challenge your opinions, there's no point in me continuing to read your LJ.

I wish you well in your search, but I cannot be part of it any more.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I have no objection to my opinions being challenged. The above is not an opinion, any more than a photograph is an opinion; it's a report of something I perceived.

But if you aren't comfortable reading me, then I wish you well in turn.

[willibald.livejournal.com]

"To someone who is a layman in both science and religion.

Going by what I have read so far.

There seems little difference to me."

Very true, there are good reasons that a lot of astrophysisists are drawn to (or are rooted in) Hindu mysticism.

(And should you want another example allow me to share my conclusions on the Biblical evidence for evolution at some time.)

I've also noticed a similar situation in politics, but those on the Far Left and the Far Right are even less likely to realise this than the theologians and scientists.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Given the number of people who disagreed with you, perhaps the contention that science is like religion was less inoffensive than you thought.

I try really hard not to mind when you say something that offends me. I try to remember that you just are that way, and you're not going to change. My options, to avoid wear-and-tear on the adrenal glands, are for me either to do my best not to mind, or for me to just quit coming over to your place.

I've been doing my best to not mind. I'm not very good at it, but I tried hard and I thought that meditation was helping.

Now I discover that any credit that might be due me for what patience I can muster when you say something offensive has instead cheerfully been assigned to you. For being inoffensive.

That's much harder not to mind.

I need a rest for a while.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

If what I have said above (as opposed to "science is like religion," which is what you keep reading but not what I have said at any point or in any way) offends you, then I apologise, both for giving the offence and for being honestly unable to see why.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

There seems little difference to me.

Is not a good phrase to use if you are trying to avoid saying science is like religion.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Well, you see Zan, I went back and read the original thread and I didn't see either side being offensive - what I saw was a number of people trying to do what I was trying to do, which was explain what seems to me to be the obvious difference between the experimental discovery of the Higgs and the revelation of religion.

I failed, plainly. So did everyone else who tried. But I don't think any of us wanted to be offensive - we (or at least I) just wanted to get you to understand.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I often disagree with Zander, I regularly find him exasperating, I don't think I have ever found him offensive. Of course offensive is an emotional reaction so we all vary on what we find offensive.

I hope you continue to come round and comment on stuff because I value the contribution you make round here but I can definitely relate to needing to take a break from the conflict from time to time.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think you display the patience of a saint - I sure don't have enough of it to engage here. (which is why I've given up commenting.).

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

Um, yes, this.

[batyatoon]

Here's the thing:

Too many people use phrasing like "well, maybe I'm just too dim / uneducated / simple to understand the difference" between X and Y disingenuously, as a lead-in to asserting that there is no real difference, no practical difference, no difference that could possibly make a difference to Simple Folks Like You And Me (as opposed to those overeducated intellectual smart egghead types who wear glasses and are probably commies). It's also a very common argument against atheists / secular humanists / people who want evolution taught in schools, with the intent being to demonstrate that see, you're no more logical and rational than we are, you hypocrites take things on faith too, nyah nyah. And -- it occurs to me belatedly -- this may be a particularly American argument.

I despise this. It's a vile habit, not least because it poisons the well for anyone who might want to use a phrasing like that honestly.

I know perfectly well that there was no such stuff in your thoughts. But ... it's hard not to overreact/misreact to someone saying "I don't perceive a difference" in a context where other people have been saying "No difference exists".

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

This is what's been puzzling me overnight, since I read the comment above about "science is like religion," which is what you keep reading but not what I have said
Either he's saying exactly that, or he's saying "science and religion are alike in that I personally don't understand either of them." Well, so what? Of equal relevance and meaning, a Rolls Royce and a helicopter are alike in that I don't own either of them. Neither of these things need saying at all. So what's the third possibility that he actually meant?

[batyatoon]

Well, a third possibility is "This particular scientific theory is so far beyond my grasp of science that I feel I am being asked to accept it on faith as received wisdom, which to me feels akin to being asked to accept a religious belief."

Or "The existence or nonexistence of the Higgs Boson seems so mistily arcane that I am having a hard time grasping it as science, precisely because science is usually a lot less arcane-seeming than that."

Or "I'm not an expert in science or religion, but generally I can tell the difference without any difficulty at all because they're nothing alike, which is what makes this so weird because according to my usual layman's criteria for separating science and religion, this specific theory seems more religious than scientific."

I don't know which of those is closest to what Zander actually meant, or if I haven't quite grasped what he meant at all, but I think it's pretty crucial to note that he has been talking about this one thing and not about Science In General.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Any of those seem like possibilities, but only if you see this latest scientific discovery as being in some way different from other ones. and I don't see any reason to do so. It's important, but it's no more abstruse and vague than any other result in astrophysics/quantum/field theory and so on.
"This apple is the same as that orange" is functionally equivalent to "apples are the same as oranges", unless you specify a way in which this apple differs from the rest.
Zander? Is there something special about this apple that makes it more orange-like than the rest?

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I was almost seeing this as a
I'm not saying it is a duck, I'm just saying that, to me, it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...

... and we know what that leads to ...

(hopefully pancakes and hoi sin sauce!) :-)

[batyatoon]

"This apple is the same as that orange" is functionally equivalent to "apples are the same as oranges", unless you specify a way in which this apple differs from the rest.

"I can't tell whether that's an apple or an orange at this distance" is not the same thing as "this apple is the same as that orange".

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

No problem of distance or failing eyesight was mentioned. This was a discussion of the similarity or otherwise of the objects under observation, not of a failure to observe at all. That would have been very brief, and gone: "I don't know enough physics to understand the Higgs theory", which is so self-evident for 99%+ of the population that it's hardly worth saying.

[tig-b.livejournal.com]

Your blog, your thoughts.

I don't always follow what you are thinking - and I might challenge facts if I believe they are not true.

Mostly I enjoy your posts. I enjoy debate; but what I don't like is a tendency to get very personal in the threads. And some very strong language (not in the sense of swearing, but words that signal attacks, defence and unpleasant emotions, all of which take any debate off-track in my opinion.)

I can understand why some might feel offended, but that it their reaction which doesn't translate to your intention. It may be a teaching opportunity, whether about the use of language or social/cultural expectations.

I have a science/maths background, plus psychology, combined with a strong religious belief. I'm enjoying reading The Science Delusion at the moment. I think you might enjoy it?