I am less than ill-qualified to make any comment upon the Higgs-Boson Particle story that hascreated such a stir in the media over the past week.
The science behind the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) experiments is utterly baffling.
But, I do know a little about language. And some of the language used in popular media presentations of the Large Hadron Collider experiments is worth noticing.
Laurence M. Krauss is the director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University and the author of A Universe From Nothing (Free Press, 2012). In a recent piece at “The Daily Beast” (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html), Krause breathes a sigh of relief at the prospect that the CERN experiments may have finally provided adequate evidence to enable human beings to mature to the point where we are finally willing to say goodbye to God.
Assuming the particle in question is indeed the Higgs, it validates an unprecedented revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics and brings science closer to dispensing with the need for any supernatural shenanigans all the way back to the beginning of the universe—and perhaps even before the beginning, if there was a before.
Krauss sees in the CERN experiments the possibility we many now understand that
creating “stuff” from “no stuff” seems to be no problem at all—everything we see could have emerged as a purposeless quantum burp in space or perhaps a quantum burp of space itself. Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.
The Krauss article is 493 words.
Some of the words and phrases Mr. Krauss uses in this short piece may give us pause to wonder about his “empirically verifiable knowledge”. Here is a list of words and phrases in the article that sound a little less than “empirically verifiable”:
appears to be
seems to (x4)
assuming
perhaps (x2)
predicts (x2)
suggests
notion
may (x4)
seemingly
posits
if
potentially
possibilities
could have
arguably
I do not know if this is the normal language used by those who are dealing in the realm of “empirically verifiable knowledge”, but it seems a tiny bit insecure for the kind of bold announcement Mr. Krauss seems to want his readers to embrace.
Mr. Krauss sums up the findings of the CERN research with the poetic notion that it
predicts an invisible field (the Higgs field) that permeates all of space and suggests that the properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence, derive from their interaction with what otherwise seems like empty space.
Again the language is worth noticing. “An invisible field” and the “properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence” sound to me like worthwhile images for speaking about “God”. It is unclear what “empirically verifiable” evidence Mr. Krauss has found for his leap from “an invisible field” and the “properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence” to his faith in “empty space”.
The “space” I inhabit is filled with beauty, mystery, transcendent truth, and love. I choose to identify this numinous quality of life using the term God. I choose to give my life to opening more deeply to this reality I cannot “empirically” demonstrate, but whose work in my life I experience as being rich and profound.
I do not need Mr. Krauss to agree with the choices I have made in my life. I only hope he might respect my understanding and acknowledge that we are both operating in the realm of faith when we attempt to penetrate the deepest mysteries of life.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 7, 2012 at 9:48 am
Tress
The way i looked at it.
They have just discovered one of God’s tools!!
( here if i knew how , I would put one of those smiling faces that Jacqueline
likes to use!)
July 7, 2012 at 9:49 am
jaqueline
here you go Tress:
July 7, 2012 at 9:48 am
jaqueline
” Krauss sees in the CERN experiments the possibility we many now understand that
creating “stuff” from “no stuff” seems to be no problem at all—everything we see could have emerged as a purposeless quantum burp in space or perhaps a quantum burp of space itself. Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.”
“predicts an invisible field (the Higgs field) that permeates all of space and suggests that the properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence, derive from their interaction with what otherwise seems like empty space.”
Hello????? Do you mean to tell me Mr Krauss that you are FINALLY discovering what religion has been telling us ALL THE TIME??
If they discovered empirical evidence for God, the builder of the universe…what and how exactly did they think a particle of God would look or act like? Maybe something very much present and active and provable yet still invisible…a building block of life itself maybe?
July 7, 2012 at 9:51 am
jaqueline
I mean how bloody arrogant, they finally prove the existence of something that sounds very much like God and they insist that that is proof that there is no God? Give me a bloody break.
July 7, 2012 at 9:57 am
jaqueline
Oh one more concerning this:
“predicts an invisible field (the Higgs field) that permeates all of space and suggests that the properties of matter, and the forces that govern our existence, derive from their interaction with what otherwise seems like empty space.”
….I actually do prefer the name
” Christ” , (you know the one “in whom we live and breath and have our being” ?) over Higgs as a name for the field …much nicer ring to it.
July 7, 2012 at 11:17 am
John
There is another concept that I think is very relevant – many scientists are referring not to the universe but to the ‘multiverse.’ Alan Lightman published an article about this in Harper’s late last year: http://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Harper’s is a committed humanist publication, so you won’t find speculation about a new means for faith in Lightman’s article. But I noticed – and so did several writers of letters to the editor – that the new ‘theory’ by no means disqualifies the possibility of the divine, as far as science is concerned; at several points it’s clear that Lightman interprets the new theory according to his own preconceptions, as opposed to what might actually be possible.
Among the dozens and dozens of books I have on my bookshelves that I have yet to read is also Martin Rees’ Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others (this is actually an old book, 1997).
Anyhow, our basic conception of the nature of the universe is not only changing at the level of biology, but also cosmologically. The physics and the universe we knew in the 20th century, which we were told had triumphed over the Newtonian worldview that preceded it, has now also been put to the past.
Still, if there is one thing I’ve learned from the Austrian seer and esoteric Christian Rudolf Steiner, it is to guard against the mistaken assumption that modern materialistic science can or one day will provided an empirical and rational justification for belief in or knowledge of a spiritual world (and this would include, of course, God and all the rest).
Just some late Saturday morning thoughts from sunny Edmonton …