Letters: And God made the 'God particle'

The announcement on The Advocate’s July 5 front page that “Scientists celebrate likely evidence of Higgs boson” provides a good opportunity to reflect on the relationship between science and religion. In fact, the term “God particle” used to explain the suspected subatomic building block that gives all things mass is, in itself, an invitation to consider how science and religion can relate to each other.

The implication of the term “God particle,” as well as the attitude of physicists (especially of noted atheist Stephen Hawking) appears to suggest that this discovery somehow dismisses the existence of God. It is important to remember, however, that what the scientists have discovered is not yet definitive, and if (or when) it does become definitive, it simply has the capacity to explain “how” the world came into being, not “why” the world came into being, which is the realm of religion and theology. Even if the Higgs boson is proven, the simple question of “Where did Higgs boson come from?” leaves the physicists with unfinished business.

I find it interesting that so much money has been spent on this research. According to your article, $10 billion on the Large Hadron Collider alone, not to mention the grants, salaries and experiments that have been conducted apart from that particle collider. Why so much money in search of the “God particle”? I suspect that, in part, so much is spent out of a deep desire to somehow get rid of God.

Furthermore, the fact that “out of 500 trillion collisions, just several dozen produced “events with significant data” does not come close to earning “indisputable proof” status.

While many atheists mock the religious faithful for having faith in a God that cannot be proven scientifically, it is amazing that so many of them are excited by an elemental building block which your own headline describes as “likely,” has not been definitely proven and has, thus far, had a miniscule amount of success — not on proving Higgs boson’s existence — but merely “significant data.” “Several dozen” out of “500 trillion” is not the kind of overwhelming statistic that puts the question of God to rest.

For those who choose to put their faith in a yet unproven building block as an explanation for our existence, let those of us who know with every fiber of our being that God made the building block welcome their achievement with a sincere love and appreciation for their work. After all, “how” God made the world is not nearly as important as “why” God made the world.

Chris Roussell

hospice chaplain

Baton Rouge


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (35)


1) Comment by potkcalb - 21/07/2012

So what is your point Phil? No one is trying to talk you out of your belief in God. Many scientists have religious or at least spiritual beliefs. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.The important thing for everyone to understand is that religious beliefs are personal and private, the province of the individual, the family, the home, the church, the religious denomination school, the private school if so elected. Everyone has the right to believe or not to believe in religion but not to infuse it into government agencies all of which are funded by tax payers of many different religions or of no religious persuasion. Do you have a problem with any of that?

2) Comment by phil - 21/07/2012

OK there is no God, There is no such thing as good and evil. There is no such thing as morality and homosexuality is great and should be increased in the USA. Democracy is silly and should be replaced with socialism or communism. We are just here by accident and the universe was just created out of nothing all by itself. Do you feel safer now now that I said all of that? Say whatever you want to, I am sticking with my belief in God.

3) Comment by krl777 - 18/07/2012

MBW is, of course, exactly right that a religious person could "simply view science as a way of exploring and explaining God's creation." [end quote] But it is nevertheless very instructive to pursue MBW's question, "why are so many religious people terrified of science?" [end quote] The fundamentalist's God is an easily conceived tribal God who presides over a cozy universe which is about 6000 years old (dating from Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC). At that rate, even the Milky Way galaxy, some 150,000 light years across, would have to be, in fact, much smaller. The fundamentalist God made the world more or less as it is at present, so not only is there no vast prehistoric time depth to contend with, but there are no dramatic evolutionary changes, like continental drift, to worry about. The point about having such a small, easily conceived universe (in addition to the fact that it is intellectually undemanding) is that we can feel all the more prominent in it. In contrast, science offers a planet which is 13+ billion years old, in an extremely vast universe. If God is the God of all of it, including possibly millions of species on other planets who are more admirable and interesting than us, then it seems all too likely that we will be lost in the shuffle. The fundamentalist is not only intellectually timid, but emotionally needy -- they need the assurance that God cares about them personally, and that is easier for them to feel sure of in a small, cozy universe.

4) Comment by MBW - 18/07/2012

I agree with the writer that religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. But if that's the case, why are so many religious people terrified of science? Could you simply view science as a way of exploring and explaining God's creation??

5) Comment by The_Host - 18/07/2012

Obama and government made the particles didn't you get the memo from the other day. All that which springs forth in the world can be directly traced back to government spending. I am told ghosts and goblins are figments of my imagination all my life but no one has any more proof of a god than they don't of ghosts or goblins.

6) Comment by Chucky - 18/07/2012

I see what you are saying ABayouBoy and agree “ A code of ethics to teach us right from wrong, “ What we must (even atheist) to be able to relate to his fellow humankind is to know their belief system and conduct ourselves with that knowledge when dealing with them. If I know you believe and have faith in say, if you do not belong to my religion you should be killed (morality) or that stealing is bad (right from wrong,ethics ) or the mirrored other morality and ethic issues.

7) Comment by ABayouBoy - 18/07/2012

Lets keep things in perspective. I'm all for pushing the envelop with science and technology. But science really deals with the "physical" aspects of our universe. Religion deals with the "theology" side of things. Its not about the factual, but of the rules by which people should live their lives and treat others. A code of ethics to teach us right from wrong, and to have a good, clean "conscience". By the way, conscience, has "science" as part of its spelling.

8) Comment by DMJ - 18/07/2012

Can you imagine a world where people really argued about supernatural silliness? Oh wait...we already live in one. Oh well...

9) Comment by Chucky - 18/07/2012

P.S. Have they discovered the Lizard Particle ?

10) Comment by Chucky - 18/07/2012

Now you see how the story's get mixed up ? What proof do you have that the Weather Snake is a Lizard? Oh, I have lost my faith and now believe in the Weather Lizard. Blessed Be DMJ and All.

11) Comment by DMJ - 18/07/2012

It's a lizard that controls the weather, not a snake. Gawww!!

12) Comment by Chucky - 18/07/2012

“ a belief and therefore not amenable to scientific investigation or analysis “ If i truly believed in the 'Weather Snake' nothing you could say or do to prove me wrong would work,i would 'Know” that the Weather Snake causes the highs and lows the temp changes and all the other meteorology events. if it did , then my 'faith' would be gone. Science may say that there is no proof of a Weather Snake causing all the global warming, that it is 'science', but calling the Weather Snake by any other name should not change my 'Faith'. The Weather Snake is angry at human kind causing the heating of the earth.

13) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 18/07/2012

ABayouBoy: That is my biggest problem with religion and faith. It makes people lazy and comfortable with just accepting the unknown, instead of trying to explain the universe through the scientific method.

14) Comment by ABayouBoy - 18/07/2012

Some things just defy human understanding - maybe its best that we just take it on faith.

15) Comment by chem - 18/07/2012

Even though the "definition" of an atheist from the cartoon is funny, it is really showing how belief in a god is just as silly: some entity that was always there, even before there was "anything." No one has ever seen or heard from a god except in those stories in holy books. It would be a simple matter for an all-powerful god to make itself known to the world. That should be a very simple thing to do for an entity that created everything. And of course, that would end the debate.

16) Comment by Elderly Man - 17/07/2012

Still, this is an absurd letter.

17) Comment by Whatchange - 17/07/2012

RationalOne; you got me there RationalOne, man you and DMJ just put me in my place. Once again it's a CARTOON, when people start feeling they have to rationalize CARTOONS thay need to take a step back a look at their life, they take life way to serious or trying way to hard to prove to everybody their self worth. Now, I'm going back and read some more Cartoons, you two love birds have a nice day.

18) Comment by DMJ - 17/07/2012

I'll stop telling people about my atheism when they stop telling me about their gods. The ball is in their court, as always.

19) Comment by RationalOne - 17/07/2012

That's "doesn't." Fingers too fast.

20) Comment by RationalOne - 17/07/2012

DMJ does't need to try again. He nailed the definition & explanation the first time.

21) Comment by Chucky - 17/07/2012

@ DMJ, I want to know more about the weather snake ( sorry, its just that I like myths:)

22) Comment by Whatchange - 17/07/2012

DMJ; That's just what it is a "CARTOON", came across it and found it funny, it seamed fitting on this comment board, everyone has their beliefs, and each side tries to push their beliefs on the other side. You wanna try again.

23) Comment by DMJ - 17/07/2012

Atheism (actual definition) - rejection of belief in God or gods. Atheism has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, assuming there even was a beginning. Also, Atheism rejects magic, so that asinine, cartoonish definition is even dumber than at first glance. Wanna try again?

24) Comment by Whatchange - 17/07/2012

ATHEISM: The belief that there was absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason) creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever) into self-replicating bits which then turned itself into dinosaurs. And They Mock Your Beliefs.

25) Comment by nimby? - 17/07/2012

?

26) Comment by RationalOne - 17/07/2012

Chris, instead of asking how or why your god made the world, you should ask why humans made gods.

27) Comment by DMJ - 17/07/2012

Chris, you don't "know" that god made anything. You THINK he did. Big difference. Just stating something as if it were a fact does not make it a fact. Watch.... "There is a 45 foot invisible lizard in the sky that controls the weather. I know this to be true." See what I mean? Also, you can't get rid of god if he was never real to begin with.

28) Comment by Chucky - 17/07/2012

P.S i might not have said "asinine"

29) Comment by Chucky - 17/07/2012

I agree with potkcalb.

30) Comment by potkcalb - 17/07/2012

This letter is so asinine that its an embarrassment. Belief in God is a belief and therefore not amenable to scientific investigation or analysis.No one understands that better than scientists. Scientists are always on a voyage of discovery and have no desire "get rid of God' even if it were possible. Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Roussell but many scientists are religious.

31) Comment by Elderly Man - 17/07/2012

Do our government healthcare dollars pay for this chaplain? Buddy, get a real job and stop pestering us with your nonsense.

32) Comment by Bighug - 17/07/2012

What a hypocrite! The writer mentions "faith in a yet unproven building block." Where is his proof of the god he mentions? And which god? Since he capitalizes it, he must believe in Jehovah, one of the thousands fabricated by men.

33) Comment by gary - 17/07/2012

Someone overlooked this "god particle" while writing the bible.

34) Comment by chem - 17/07/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

35) Comment by Elderly Man - 16/07/2012

No wonder thoughtful people despair of religion. This letter is utter nonsense. kr777 responded well to this silliness.

36) Comment by krl777 - 16/07/2012

This letter begins as though it is going to allow for a reasonable accommodation of the differing goals of science and religion, and then succumbs to every idiocy in the book. The only scientist mentioned is the "atheist Stephen Hawking," the term "God particle" is wrongly presumed to reflect the assumption that particle physics is meant to "dismiss" the existence of God, and the writer then proceeds to uninformed speculation about the statistical significance of the results obtained, and context-free ruminations about the financial cost of the enterprise. Some have said that the term "God particle," popularized in a book by former Fermilab head Leon Lederman, was actually a cleaned up version of "God d***ed" particle, dubbed because it is so darned elusive. Be that as it may, the moniker has elicited a Pavlovian response by many earnest but benighted defenders of religion, certainly including this letter writer.