Is There Any Evidence That As Science Give Suitable Explanation For Natural Phenomena Encountered, The Lure Of Religion Will Gradually Diminish?

[willbewhatiwill]

Church attendances are down in many western countries but is this the case for other religions?

Phenomena can be scientifically explained, proved & verified, without having to invoke explanations that involve the spiritual world. Invoking the name of God on complex issues (as in the dark ages) can hinder the seeking of explanations & solutions from a scientific & logical standpoint to pressing issues.

[Old_Geezer]

It's not explained properly. Big fuss about having found the thing that gives things mass, then you come along and tell us it's all lies because if it didn't exist there'd still be mass. If we're lied to how can anyone not in the field get anything right ?

[jim360]

Very true, OG, but then I don't write most popular science journals.

And besides, nobody lied to you. They just reported it wrongly, or in a simplistic way, or were slightly misleading in the interests of avoiding too many "that will take a whole lecture course to explain" questions. Nevertheless, all the information has been laid out in public, if you look in the right places.

[jim360]

Just to be clear: if the Higgs boson didn't exist then the *proton* would still have a mass, but on the other hand radioactive decay would be as common as EM radiation, so no neutrons would exist, and therefore we'd all die.

[Old_Geezer]

It's only dangerous to a weak mind, Khandro. They can frighten themselves as much as their imagination allows. For the rest, sceptics dismiss it as nonsense, the rest should consider it no more dangerous than an interdimensional phone.

[willbewhatiwill]

jim360,

I do understand that protons, neutrons, electrons may be more appropriately called Subatomic particle, not elementary particle.

I did mistakenly call 'elementary particle', when they are called 'subatomic particle'. I do understand the quantum uncertainty principle & that mass can be modelled as waves.

[Old_Geezer]

Well describe it as you wish, but if I'm told that it's the Higgs Boson that gives mass, and later find out it's the waveform that really gives mass, and then find out that there's already mass without it, then I consider that being lied to.

[jim360]

Yes, and then you tried to lecture me about quarks, a subject I'm pretty sure I know a lot more than most people about.

I'd be interested to hear you explaining the "quantum uncertainty principle". But before we go down that road, I want to point out that it wasn't (just) you but your source that screwed up in describing protons as elementary. Popular science articles occasionally make glaring errors that you need to look out for, so if your understanding of these things is based on those then... well, be careful is all.

[Togo]

//"Science doesn't have to prove that there is no God....its up to religions to prove that he exists" //

Could be.........Or it is up to God to prove he exists. ............Eventually.
Wouldn't want to be wrong though when it's too late :))
Like getting to the Airport without your passport. (!_*)

[willbewhatiwill]

dannyk13,
I only copied phrases after citing the links - I give references for the phrases I repeat.

The other uncited phrases are my own composition, not copied.

[willbewhatiwill]

jim360,

There is not need for me to lecture you on "quantum uncertainty principle".

[jim360]

It isn't a lie, OG, it's just... omitting certain truths.

The Higgs boson gives mass to the elementary fermions: electrons and quarks; to the W and Z bosons, and to itself (yes, all of these masses strictly generated via the Higgs field, but I don't think that's lying, it's splitting hairs -- after all, who wants to spend too long defining a quantum field?).

Then, the protons and hadrons gain the rest of their masses through the strong interaction. If other articles forgot to mention this detail then maybe they weren't aware of it, or didn't consider it important. You'd have to ask the author.

There *are* a lot of lies about science spread around by people who ought to know better, but I don't see omissions due to brevity as "lies".

[willbewhatiwill]

Old_Geezer: "I'm told that it's the Higgs Boson that gives mass, and later find out it's the waveform that really gives mass"

Higgs Boson (like other 'elementary particle') are also called 'subatomic particle'. Elementary particles (like quarks, Higgs Boson particles, etc) be modelled as waves.

[jim360]

Wasn't asking you to lecture me. But the best way to try to understand something is to have a go explaining it to someone else. Also, yes, I do wonder if you "understand" it, or merely have read something about it somewhere, so yes there's a bit of a cynical motive to the question.

But mainly I just want to say: I'm not sure it's a good idea to try and lecture anyone else about the subject either. Most of your posts since Dark Matter came up have the tone of someone who only *thinks* they know what they are talking about. The one you just posted as I was typing this, for instance, has nothing to do with anything OG posted.

[Garaman]

You would need a very small amount of light to find the smallest particle, and the smallest amount of light we know (the glove box light of a 1974 Austin Maxi) couldn't find it. (Courtesy of Bill Bailey.)

[woofgang]

jim "Most of your posts ........ have the tone of someone who only *thinks* they know what they are talking about. “

and not just on this thread.....

[willbewhatiwill]

jim360,
'Quantum uncertainty principle' is covered in 'A' level syllabus in Chemistry (in atomic orbits) and Physics. I do have A level Chemistry, Physics and Biology and higher.

[Old_Geezer]

In the final analysis don't we all think we know what we're on about ? Until a better fit theory comes along.

[naomi24]

Seems this thread has long departed the subject ‘matter’. ;o)

[willbewhatiwill]

Oops I meant: Higgs Boson also called 'elementary particle'. Elementary particles (like quarks, Higgs Boson particles, etc) be modelled as waves.

[jim360]

A-level sciences serve as essentially a pedagogical introduction to the subject. Especially in particle physics it's severely deficient, because they just don't develop the mathematics needed.