What Does the "God Particle" Mean for God Talk?

We have all heard the news that the so called "God particle" has been found through a "atom smasher" and this confirms our basic view of the universe. This is the Higgs Boson particle that gives mass to the universe. Actually, it's only confirmed to be "a Higgs Boson," there are about five types it's too soon to say which type. The discoveries helps to anchor the basic theory now has prominence in big bang and sub atomic particles. Atheists are quick to jump on the bang wagon declare this a victory over religion. On the CARM board an atheist postor called "Jagella" says:
"God particle found" posts 5 and 10

5
Crock, the apparent discovery of the Higgs boson demonstrates that science, once again, is the way to know the world we live in. As we make such discoveries, we keep closing the gaps that some people put gods into. To maintain belief in whatever god you believe in, you often need to ignore or deny these kinds of scientific discoveries.

10
The Higg's boson also known as "the God particle" is a hypothetical subatomic particle that has been reported to have been recently discovered. Bosons are particles that carry forces such as the strong nuclear force. The Higg's boson reputedly gives mass to objects. Mass is a measure of inertia or the tendency of a body at rest to stay at rest or a body in motion to stay in motion.

So what might the discovery of the Higg's boson have to do with atheism? Well, I suppose that now we can safely say that no god gives mass to objects! Broadly speaking, the more we know about nature, as Carl Sagan has said, the less there is for God to do. Scientists are quickly closing the gaps that one god or other used to fit into to "explain" some aspect of nature. I predict that the Higgs boson will continue this trend, and a full, naturalistic explanation for existence will soon be available if it isn't already available.

Jagella

Now we can say safely that no god gives mass to objects? That conjures up the ancient view of God opening doors in the volt of heaven to pour water through into rain. I've always known that the atheist straw God was basally a big man in the sky but this is absurd. This "Jagella" person must be desperate to get God out of the picture. I guess if the wind blows form the West that totally disproves God. Or if moss grows on the north side of a tree this person rests easy form the fear of hell. The truth of it is this has nothing to do with God at all. Calling "God particle" hardly makes it a test of God's existence. It's still a problem to determine where the particle came from the basic set of laws and the whole set up that could produce a particle. That assumes that the real reason to believe in God is based upon the need to explain things. When will get it the point that the only thing scinece is going to tell us about God is the potential nature of the way he did things.

There are a couple of more important points to be made about the discovery. First we should notice the tenuous nature of the language used to describe it:

CBC News
7/4/12

"We can safely conclude something new is there. … All the evidence suggests it's the Higgs boson, but the results released today just aren't strong enough to conclude that it is the Higgs."

Sinervo said he expects the CERN research teams to have two to three times more data to analyse by the end of the year.

"Will we be able to conclude that it is the Higgs by the end of the year? It depends what you mean by 'conclude,' but we'll at least have some strong data," he said.

Does this mean they don't really know now? why does it have to be confirmed? Why can't they conclude it now?





National Geographic Daily News

Although preliminary, the results show a so-called five-sigma of significance, which means that there is only a one in a million chance that the Higgs-like signal the teams observed is a statistical fluke...

CERN head Heuer called today's announcement a "historic milestone" but cautioned that much work lies ahead as physicists attempt to confirm the newfound particle's identity and further probe its properties...

For example, though the teams are certain the new particle has the proper mass for the predicted Higgs boson, they still need to determine whether it behaves as the God particle is thought to behave—and therefore what its role in the creation and maintenance of the universe is...

A two-sigma finding translates to about a 95 percent chance that results are not due to a statistical fluke.

While that might seem impressive, it falls short of the stringent five-sigma level that high-energy physicists traditionally require for an official discovery. Five sigma means there's a less than one in a million probability that a finding is due to chance.

That all really sounds pretty uncertain.I'm not suggesting that we can't trust it. The point is they don't get a microscope that's really powerful and take a picture of the particle. They have not seen the particle itself. They smash atoms together and try to identify what comes out, the only way to do that is to judge by the effects it probably has upon larger particles. They can only do that by determining that what those particles are doing is indicative of it.

"The Higgs boson is the only one that remains undetected in experiments because it lives for only a tiny fraction of a second before decaying into other subatomic particles, such as photons, muons or leptons. The only way to measure it is to measure the products of its decay." (CBC News ibid)

It's the effect upon other practicals and its consistency with theory that tells them what's going on. I have said before that scinece doesn't prove (according to Popper) it only disproves or offers explainations. Those explaintions don't give us truth they give 'verisimilitude.' That's the appearance of truth through probability. That's what this is. No one is going to have a bunch of hoopla about verisimilitude. Can you see thee guys at CERN making a big deal out "We have verisimilitude!" Ho ray!

Another important aspect that this discovery holds for us in relation to real God concepts is this is another illustration of the concept of c0-detmerinate. I have previously illustrated the co-determinate through the relation between sub atomic particles and theory, by using the neutrino. In the same way neutrinos are not found directly but it is their effect upon other particles that indicate their presence. The co-determinate is like the relationship between the footprint in the snow and the foot that made it. The two always go together and one indicates the presence of the other. The relation between Higgs boson and other particles is another example of a co-determinate.

Of course the atheists all say "O but you are just assuming a relationship between experience and god you can't really prove it's there. The theroy of Higg's assumed a relatinoship before it could prove that boson was there. It's because the test meets the assumptions that we can assume it fulfills theoretical expectations and that is the predictive power of scinece. The thing applies in the co-determine in any issue. The theoretical relationship between divine and experience is there due to the place of the experince in the creation of religion. So then finding the experience and the effects it produces is just fulfillment theoretical expectations; meaning, scientific predictive power helps to demonstrate the rational warrant for belief.

Answering Brap: Understanding Mystical Eperience

These are comments that were sent to me by Brap a we days ago. Brap is an atheist who makes good comments and pretends to be an alien exploring our world for the first time, which enables him to play the stranger and force me to explain the obvious (at least I think he's pretending...).


Brap:

He [Sam Harris] is saying there is more to these experiences than simply being in awe of nature, but there is no basis to extrapolate from these personal experiences (universal or not) to anything about the origin of the universe.

Meta: certainly there is. the historical association says it all. It's just a matter of preferring a different metaphor.

Brap:

Can you expand on “the historical association?” I don’t recall seeing that term in this context before.

Meta: The original term "super nature" was coined in 500 by pseudo Dionysus.what he meant by the term was the transformative sense of the experiences. So Mystical experience is by its every nature a priori supernatural. It's in the enlightenment that the term SN was changed to mean magic or other realms of something beyond what is natural. The real term refers to the process of experince whereby one is elevated in consciousness.

So by that definition the word “supernatural” simply refers to the changes (mental, physical, whatever) one goes through during (and after?) a mystical experience, correct? I’m ok with that definition, so let’s go with that. Now since that doesn’t seem to imply the existence of anything outside of the natural world, how does one get from “mystical experience” to “God exists?”

The historical association goes back way before that. It could go back to stone age or even Nanderthal times. That's harder to prove, but as we look at late neolithic humans we see they seemed to experience a sense of the numinous in they developed thoughts of after life, decoration of implements pertaining to it, mazes and other artifacts that seem to indicate the were experiencing spiritual phenomena. Certainly as long as writing has been around people have written about such things.

Moreover,not only the historical association but also the content of the experience indicates its an experience of the divine. Most of them time people say they are experiencing holiness, or deity or the divine, all pervasive love; it's giving them a sense of the oneness of things but more than that, it's most often wrapped up in a sense of the divine.



Brap:

Can you provide some examples of outcomes (of mystical experiences) that can’t be explained by natural means?

two of the best early studies demonstrate the experimental group as a whole experienced certain things:

Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

21% more likely to experience these things lasting for the first year after the experience. One can also have them again.



Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

From Council on Spiritual Practices Website

"States of Univtive Consciousness"


Brap:

When you say “the content of the experience is usually about God or the divine or the meaning of life,” what exactly do you mean? Is that how the people who have a mystical experience describe it?

Yes, they are overwhelmingly religious in content, meaning in most cases they are associated this way.

Examples:

An example of the sort of experience is found in a study by Robinson.[i]

Finally, Robinson (1977) found that 15% of his adult respondents spoke of childhood mystical experiences. As this from a 40 year old female:

When I was eleven years old I spent part of a summer holiday in the Wye Valley. Waking up very early one bright morning, before any of the household was about, I left my bed and went to kneel on the window seat, to look out over the curve, which the river took just below the house. The trees between the house and river ... The scene was very beautiful, and quite suddenly I felt myself on the verge of a great revelation. It was as if I had stumbled unwittingly on a place where I was not expected, and was about to be initiated into some wonderful mystery, something of indescribable significance. Then, just as suddenly, the feeling faded. But for the brief seconds while it lasted I had known that in some strange way I, the essential "me", was a part of the trees, of the sunshine, and the river, that we all belonged to some great unity. I was left filled with exhilaration and exultation of spirit. This is one of the most memorable experiences of my life, of a quite different quality and greater intensity than the sudden lift of the spirit one may often feel when confronted with beauty in Nature (p. 37).(quoted by Gackenback)[ii]

Another example (this one from William James used by William Alston):

“…all at once I…felt the presence of God—I tell of the thing just as I was conscious of it—as if his goodness and his power were penetrating me altogether…I thanked God that in the course of my life he had taught me to know him, that he sustained my life and took pity both on the insignificant creature and on the sinner that I was. I begged him ardently that my life might be consecrated to the doing of his will. I felt his reply, which was that I should do his will from day to day, in humility and poverty, leaving him the Almighty God, to judge of whether I should some time be called to bear witness more conspicuously. Then, slowly, the ecstasy left my heart; that is, I felt that God had withdrawn the communion, which he had granted.[iii]

Still another example, used by Alston:

There was no sensible vision, but the room was filled by a Presence, which in a strange way was both about me and within me. I was overwhelmingly possessed by Someone who was not myself, and yet I felt I was more myself than I had ever been before.[iv]

---

Brap:

Or do people have a hard time describing it, so that’s the closest our language can come to describing it? If people have a hard time describing it in our current language, how do we know it’s really about God or the divine and not simply some mental state not yet fully explained or documented by science?

The concept is that you can't communicate the experience in words. It's like trying to transcribe music you hear in your head to paper, it's never going to be the same. The nature of language is metaphorical and religoius language is analogy. Within an analogical framework people are lucid about what they describe. The examples above seem lucid to me.

Brap:

The following quote is attributed to Hippocrates: “Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end to divine things.” Is it possible that mystical experiences are considered divine because we don't really understand what's going on in that state of consciousness?

That's argument from analogy. Epilepsy seems like mystical experience, not because its not understood but becuase both convey a sense of total peace and a sense of understanding all things for a certain time, which then fades away. This is argument from analogy since both seem similar in texture of the experience that doesn't mean they are cased by the same things. It's possible that both effect similar centers of the brain. That doesnt' reduce mystical experince to something that originates only in Brain Chemistry. Epilepsy doesn't have the kind of track record for totally transforming people's lives in ways that make them better across the board. A couple of hindered studies show that mystical experience dos so.



[i]Quoted in Gackenback , Jayne. website: “Trans personal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration” (unpublished paper 1992) URL: http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm (last visited summer 2008)

[ii] ibid

[iii] anonymous report in James (Verities of Religious Experience, 67-68) Quoted by William Alston, Perceiving God, the Epistemology of Religious Experience. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press 1991, 1993, 13.

[iv] Timothy Breadsworth, A Sense of Presence (1977) in Ibid, 17.

Answering Brap: Understanding Mystical Expernice

These are comments that were sent to me by Brap a we days ago. Brap is an atheist who makes good comments and pretends to be an alien exploring our world for the first time, which enables him to play the stranger and force me to explain the obvious (at least I think he's pretending...).


Brap:

He [Sam Harris] is saying there is more to these experiences than simply being in awe of nature, but there is no basis to extrapolate from these personal experiences (universal or not) to anything about the origin of the universe.

Meta: certainly there is. the historical association says it all. It's just a matter of preferring a different metaphor.

Brap:

Can you expand on “the historical association?” I don’t recall seeing that term in this context before.

Meta: The original term "super nature" was coined in 500 by pseudo Dionysus.what he meant by the term was the transformative sense of the experiences. So Mystical experience is by its every nature a priori supernatural. It's in the enlightenment that the term SN was changed to mean magic or other realms of something beyond what is natural. The real term refers to the process of experince whereby one is elevated in consciousness.

So by that definition the word “supernatural” simply refers to the changes (mental, physical, whatever) one goes through during (and after?) a mystical experience, correct? I’m ok with that definition, so let’s go with that. Now since that doesn’t seem to imply the existence of anything outside of the natural world, how does one get from “mystical experience” to “God exists?”

The historical association goes back way before that. It could go back to stone age or even Nanderthal times. That's harder to prove, but as we look at late neolithic humans we see they seemed to experience a sense of the numinous in they developed thoughts of after life, decoration of implements pertaining to it, mazes and other artifacts that seem to indicate the were experiencing spiritual phenomena. Certainly as long as writing has been around people have written about such things.

Moreover,not only the historical association but also the content of the experience indicates its an experience of the divine. Most of them time people say they are experiencing holiness, or deity or the divine, all pervasive love; it's giving them a sense of the oneness of things but more than that, it's most often wrapped up in a sense of the divine.



Brap:

Can you provide some examples of outcomes (of mystical experiences) that can’t be explained by natural means?

two of the best early studies demonstrate the experimental group as a whole experienced certain things:

Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

21% more likely to experience these things lasting for the first year after the experience. One can also have them again.



Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

From Council on Spiritual Practices Website

"States of Univtive Consciousness"


Brap:

When you say “the content of the experience is usually about God or the divine or the meaning of life,” what exactly do you mean? Is that how the people who have a mystical experience describe it?

Yes, they are overwhelmingly religious in content, meaning in most cases they are associated this way.

Examples:

An example of the sort of experience is found in a study by Robinson.[i]

Finally, Robinson (1977) found that 15% of his adult respondents spoke of childhood mystical experiences. As this from a 40 year old female:

When I was eleven years old I spent part of a summer holiday in the Wye Valley. Waking up very early one bright morning, before any of the household was about, I left my bed and went to kneel on the window seat, to look out over the curve, which the river took just below the house. The trees between the house and river ... The scene was very beautiful, and quite suddenly I felt myself on the verge of a great revelation. It was as if I had stumbled unwittingly on a place where I was not expected, and was about to be initiated into some wonderful mystery, something of indescribable significance. Then, just as suddenly, the feeling faded. But for the brief seconds while it lasted I had known that in some strange way I, the essential "me", was a part of the trees, of the sunshine, and the river, that we all belonged to some great unity. I was left filled with exhilaration and exultation of spirit. This is one of the most memorable experiences of my life, of a quite different quality and greater intensity than the sudden lift of the spirit one may often feel when confronted with beauty in Nature (p. 37).(quoted by Gackenback)[ii]

Another example (this one from William James used by William Alston):

“…all at once I…felt the presence of God—I tell of the thing just as I was conscious of it—as if his goodness and his power were penetrating me altogether…I thanked God that in the course of my life he had taught me to know him, that he sustained my life and took pity both on the insignificant creature and on the sinner that I was. I begged him ardently that my life might be consecrated to the doing of his will. I felt his reply, which was that I should do his will from day to day, in humility and poverty, leaving him the Almighty God, to judge of whether I should some time be called to bear witness more conspicuously. Then, slowly, the ecstasy left my heart; that is, I felt that God had withdrawn the communion, which he had granted.[iii]

Still another example, used by Alston:

There was no sensible vision, but the room was filled by a Presence, which in a strange way was both about me and within me. I was overwhelmingly possessed by Someone who was not myself, and yet I felt I was more myself than I had ever been before.[iv]

---

Brap:

Or do people have a hard time describing it, so that’s the closest our language can come to describing it? If people have a hard time describing it in our current language, how do we know it’s really about God or the divine and not simply some mental state not yet fully explained or documented by science?

The concept is that you can't communicate the experience in words. It's like trying to transcribe music you hear in your head to paper, it's never going to be the same. The nature of language is metaphorical and religoius language is analogy. Within an analogical framework people are lucid about what they describe. The examples above seem lucid to me.

Brap:

The following quote is attributed to Hippocrates: “Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end to divine things.” Is it possible that mystical experiences are considered divine because we don't really understand what's going on in that state of consciousness?

That's argument from analogy. Epilepsy seems like mystical experience, not because its not understood but becuase both convey a sense of total peace and a sense of understanding all things for a certain time, which then fades away. This is argument from analogy since both seem similar in texture of the experience that doesn't mean they are cased by the same things. It's possible that both effect similar centers of the brain. That doesnt' reduce mystical experince to something that originates only in Brain Chemistry. Epilepsy doesn't have the kind of track record for totally transforming people's lives in ways that make them better across the board. A couple of hindered studies show that mystical experience dos so.



[i]Quoted in Gackenback , Jayne. website: “Trans personal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration” (unpublished paper 1992) URL: http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm (last visited summer 2008)

[ii] ibid

[iii] anonymous report in James (Verities of Religious Experience, 67-68) Quoted by William Alston, Perceiving God, the Epistemology of Religious Experience. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press 1991, 1993, 13.

[iv] Timothy Breadsworth, A Sense of Presence (1977) in Ibid, 17.