- Natural Theology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- PDF Download Physics Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding PDF Online
- Shop by category
- Evolution and Theology, or Theology of Evolution in the USA
- About this product
Peter Higgs himself, however, was not so comfortable with this and complained about this nickname, primarily due to potential offense against religious people.
Natural Theology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Moreover, some supported that the name has done a good service to science as it triggered immense public popularity of a scientific subject, whereas others claimed that it has done more bad than good as it initiated many misconceptions. Yet, laymen have quite often taken it literally. Therefore, contrary to widespread opinion, the choice of this particular nickname has nothing to do with any claim related to the existence of God; it is rather related to other things like the fundamental nature of the particle, sense of humor and marketing strategy. Claims about the Higgs Particle - that it proves or disproves the existence of God - amplified the confusion initiated by its naming.
However, since there is already significant material about the fine tuning in the universe, and since discussions in this regard are primarily focused on issues like whether or not multiverse hypotheses could be presented against the argument that the universe is designed, this particle received little attention to this end. In our opinion, such approaches constitute an important issue in the philosophy of religion and they lay beneath certain important misconceptions and speculations.
Proponents of such arguments claim that the main evidence for the existence of God is such explanatory gaps.
Modern interpretations like the cosmological and design arguments are grounded on the findings of modern science: not on our ignorance. Stephen Hawking has committed this fallacy in his well-known books. However, their audience often misguided by academic titles sometimes do not distinguish between the scientific and experimental results and personal philosophical interpretations.
Such a division would be inevitable had the particle presented an argument for the non existence of God. Indeed, before scientific discoveries revealed that the universe has a beginning, there had been a division between theists who claimed that the universe has a beginning and atheists who claimed otherwise. Apart from certain exceptions,  this division was quite evident. The lack of division in the case of the God Particle further supports that the particle cannot constitute an argument for whether God exists or not.
In the theist perspective, God is omnipresent and omniscient; we owe our very existence to Him, at every instant.
PDF Download Physics Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding PDF Online
On the other hand, he is hidden from our senses of perception. On the other side, such a fundamental particle is also hidden from our senses. Much has been said about the limits of analogies in the literature of philosophy; at any rate, the intuitive and stimulating aspect of analogies cannot be denied. Indeed, this is the most common reason why they are used so broadly in various fields. The analogy presented above can also be utilized, provided that its message is not stretched too far.
However, it can only be used in a defensive manner: it cannot be explanatory. Nonetheless, it cannot be used as an analogy to explain why God is hidden, nor as a support for explanatory arguments.
Shop by category
Behind this achievement lays many interesting elements like the gathering of numerous nations who fought against one another in the two world wars during the past century, scientific collaborations between countries that were on opposite sides of the divided world during the Cold War era, and the collection of billions of dollars with contributions from many countries; interesting subjects of international relations and the philosophy of politics.
Here, without delving into these fields, we will draw attention to an important and fundamental aspect of this discovery related to philosophical theology. The experiments at CERN confirmed such an incredible claim.
- Female Offenders and Risk Assessment: Hidden in Plain Sight.
- The Tantric Way Of Loving - A Holistic Guide To Sensual Exploration.
In addition, these experiments also re-confirmed another phenomenon: the mathematical structure of the universe. In other words, it is not the human mind that shaped mathematics to fit the universe; rather, the mathematical structure is intrinsic to the universe and our minds are compatible with it. Einstein often expressed his astonishment about the comprehensibility of the universe, the importance although often overlooked by many of the compatibility of the human mind with the universe, the relations between these facts and religious feelings, and his belief in God stemming from the rational structure of the universe pointing to an All-Rational God.
The second is the fact that humans possess a mental structure that is also rational thanks to its functioning via consciousness and logic. The third is the comprehensibility of the universe via its accord with the human mind. From the angle of philosophical theology, the most important conclusion here is that the existence of a conscious God, as supported by theism, is more successful in explaining these three phenomena as compared to naturalist-atheist ontologies.
This perspective attributes the roots of the accord between the mind and the universe to the creation of both by the same God, and His conscious establishment of this accord. Indeed, Anthony Flew — viewed as one of the most sophisticated atheists of the 20 th century — considered the mathematical structure of the universe to be one of the main reasons for his conversion to theism.
He also states that theism is more successful than naturalist-atheism in explaining these phenomena. Once it is accepted that the universe and man are created by an All-Rational God, the order in the universe and the comprehension of this order by the human mind can be successfully explained.
Evolution and Theology, or Theology of Evolution in the USA
However, it should not be attributed a meaning beyond being a good example. It is a philosophical topic reminded of by the Higgs boson, rather than explained by it. This also gave way to views that there is no need for God anymore, since our knowledge about the universe is now complete.
Here, we will concentrate on two other mistakes about the views above. The second is a more profound mistake and is about scientism: a belief that science can explain every fundamental question about life, a view that has been particularly influential in the past century. This is truly a triumph in human history with further endeavor to better understand the particle. However, the standard model does not explain gravity and cannot reconcile the theory of relativity with the quantum theory. Gravity first separated from the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.
Later, the other three split. As a result, discoveries about this particle do not answer critical questions about the processes prior to it. Furthermore, questions related to dark matter and dark energy remain indifferent to this discovery. Nevertheless, let us imagine for a moment that all these problems are also resolved; the theory of relativity and the quantum theory are combined; the standard model is modified to encompass gravity; we completely understand what dark matter and dark energy are etc. The critical question here is the following: When all these fundamental problems in physics are resolved, will those also be the answers to every basic question about the universe and life?
While trying to answer these questions, philosophy and theology can utilize the outcomes of science as in natural philosophy and natural theology , but even then the final answer can be given only by crossing back into the borders of philosophy and theology. Furthermore, questions related to the methodology of science also fall within the territory of philosophy. This critical line between the domains of science and philosophy is often overlooked, even by some renowned physicists. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science.
Particularly physics. Here, we observe another transparent example of the fact that not all opinions of physicists are necessarily scientific; they often cross into the domains of philosophy and theology, yet their arguments in these domains are wrongly perceived to be scientific. Even inquiries about the fundamentals of physics extend beyond the territory of physics-science. Moreover, questions related to meaning, morals, axiology etc. Science does not attempt to answer these questions. We hold the opinion that it is vital to carefully draw the lines between science and philosophy, and thereby avoid the mistakes of scientism discussed above.
The nearly half a century long quest for this particle-field was accompanied by the development of many philosophical and theological arguments.
These arguments were also supported by the lack of any apparent division between theist and atheist philosophers before and after the theoretical model of Higgs in Moreover, an analogy was touched upon that can shed light on certain issues in philosophical theology. Peters, Ted, and Gaymon Bennett, eds. Bridging Science and Religion. London: SCM Press, Considers several key areas mentioned above and also Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.
Polkinghorne, John. Princeton, N. Perhaps the clearest communicator on the relation of physical science to classical Christian faith. Richardson, W. Mark, and Gordy Slack, eds. Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth. New York and London: Routledge, Fascinating account by scientists from a variety of faith positions. Rolston, Holmes, III. Genes, Genesis, and God. Important critique of sociobiological understandings of human being. Russell, Robert J. Stoeger, and George V. George, eds.
About this product
Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, Russell et al. An outstanding set of resources at advanced level for understanding divine action debate. Southgate, Christopher, ed.