Seriously, stop calling it the "God Particle"

[Denamic]

Yeah, sorry, but your problem wasn't actually with the nickname of the particle.
Your problem was that you were talking to a creationist and expecting him to listen to you.
They love asking you questions like "Then why is this and that like this" and my favorite, "How do you explain THAT?!".
Which is just shifting the burden of proof.
They have no actual interest in your answer or the subject in question; they just hope that you won't be able to answer.
If it wasn't the 'God Particle', he would have asked some other kind of asinine question.

 

[Worgen]

Frankly, i would not bother with reading religous texts unless your interested in finding outdated moral standards or actually are looking for God.

"Its not important.

I think you misunderstand, I wouldn't read the bible to try and understand philosophy, morals or the natural world. I'd read it to try and understand Christians.
edit: I don't mean this offensively, "Christians are incomprehensible" or anything like that. I simply mean that there are a lot of Christians, the Christian faith as a whole has had a massive impact on world history and by definition they do believe in some aspects of the book, either literally or figuratively. This is why I say it's important.

ehh, I dont think reading it would give you much understanding of them since catholics arnt even allowed to read the bible and protestants all have their own interpretation of it, hell there is some offshoot of protestantism that thinks jesus wanted the best people to get as much money as possible

shows what you know about Christianity, lol. Catholics aren't allowed to read the Bible? Not since the Middle Ages, dude. And Protestantism is generally even more interested in the Bible, whereas Catholics are sometimes stuck in a lot of tradition.

no, the only official source of the bible for catholics are the priests
protestants are more interested in the bible but they also interpret the crap out of it to really support anything they want

nah, that's incorrect. It's true that the Church wants to guide Catholics in interpreting the Bible, but it also encourages Catholics to read it too. Though, I don't blame you for thinking Catholics don't read the Bible, since for a long time they couldn't do it, and Catholics today read it less than Protestants do.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

As for Protestants interpreting the Bible, well yeah, the Bible happens to be easily interpreted into lots of different messages...anyways, it sure beats the Catholics and their "support the Vatican's view forever" beliefs...

the church isnt going to go to a catholics house and beat them but you wont find many catholics that read the thing

 

[lacktheknack]

You'll probably be happy to hear that I've literally NEVER heard it referred to as the "God Particle". Always the Higgs Boson.

Same here.

But then, I'm in computer sciences and found pretty much all molecular sciences to be overwhelming, so I don't pay that much attention.

You have a point, though. I saw this thread title and immediately made a connection between "God particle" and "Particle that, if it exists, replaces God".

 

[kidd25]

Never heard it called that - but I see what you're saying.

I think that the term 'God particle' is a bit self-conflicting, mixing religious and scientific terminology together.

That's like calling gravity the 'Christ force'

Christ Force is awesome!

religious and science satire, i wonder why it never caught on? Oh yeah the whiners.

 

[Nimcha]

Science always hypes up things that end up being huge duds.
You need an example? The human genome, was prophesied to be the be-all end-all cure for every disease ever. Remember nucluar power? Clean and free energy for all.

I think you'll find that not science does that, but people do that.

 

[sofur]

The idea of the 'big bang' and how Higgs-Bosons are related to the beginning of the universe are cool because if it is in fact the origin of our universe then we can purport that faster than light travel is a possibility, albeit a difficult one. As for having a conceptual and unproven vector of science being claimed to be the pinnacle of creation and spatial manipulation, that editor needed a good firm back-hand if not for how often similar things seem to happen.

The other big thing I will troll over-zealous religious people over (besides how many holes their faith has and how blind they are) is that science does not have the ability to determine whether god(s) do or do not exist. At least for the foreseeable future. In the mean time, I'll go read a book on string theory and thank the universe for the life that I have.

 

[SFR]

I can really understand your distaste for the nickname due to this conversation. That must have been unbelievably annoying. Frankly, I don't mind the term God Particle, simply because it sounds cool. It really doesn't prove or disprove anything related to God though. In that respect alone, it should really just be called the Higgs Boson. I hope your experience doesn't lead you to believe that all Christians (or any religious folk) are this annoying.

One problem I have with the name "Higgs Boson" though is because... well it's saying that this Higgs guy owns it. I envy him for getting such an important concept named after him though.

 

[v3n0mat3]

When I first heard the term coined, immediately my mind turned to "this is such an important discovery, so we will call it the "god particle", denoting that it is indeed something very very important." Not any religious meaning behind the term. I still don't think it.

 

[YouEatLard]

It's just a name, kinda like dark matter. It's a way of saying we have no idea what it is or if it's really there, be we think it's important.

Once god is applied to anything, even in name, there is pretty much no way take it back.

 

[Roybot]

I love science, but it feels like a comic book series I could never get into because of so much continuity issues (theorums, formulas, postulates, etc.) that I need in order to understand full the subjects within it. I remember hearing about the Higgs Boson when they talked about particle acceleration in Physics during my high school years circa 2004. From there I remember reading articles about "the God Particle" and they never seemed to have the concepts overlap. Imagine my shock when I found out they were one and the same. Maybe this lapse in terminology recognition has to do with the sources from where the general public gathers their information.


The shift needs to occur in journalism, holding them accountable to actual objectivism rather than trying to sell a paper with flowery slogans.

 

[siahsargus]

Never heard it called that - but I see what you're saying.

I think that the term 'God particle' is a bit self-conflicting, mixing religious and scientific terminology together.

That's like calling gravity the 'Christ force'

Christ Force is awesome!

This is blasphemy! We all know that gravity is the result of the Flying Spaghetti Monster pushing us down gently with his noodly appendage!

Screw it, that's an awesome name. From now on gravity will be referred to as Christ Force!

 

[AssassinFisH]

Religion has nothing to do with it. I think the God particle is a brilliant nickname, especially as it would be one of the most significant discoverys of all time.

 

[coolkirb]

all good religious people know that god does not exists in the shadows science has yet failed to iluminate, it is not a god of the gaps, you can believe in science and be religious, and people of both sides who see that as not possible.......well I weep for you

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Its similar to how referring to Climate change as global warming hays invited a lot of non-informed ass-hats to take a side on the issue because "hey man its snowing, that disproves global warming." It only takes about 3 seconds to explain why that is but it really chaps my ass how people can draw a conclusion and have an opinion because of a knee-jerk reaction to a nickname.

 

[Locko96]

Shit! You got your religion in my science!

OT: Higgs-Boson for me. There's really no point in trying to relate a particle to a religious concept.

I also think it's fucking awesome that someone that works at the LHC comes to this site.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

... So it's basically Mass Effect?

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I think the problem is more the person you're having the conversation with. "God particle" was actually coined by a Nobel Prize in Physics winner; Leon Max Lederman. The etymology adds up: "god" is used to explain existence, the Higgs Boson would go a long way to explain existence (though not as comprehensively as "god particle" would imply).

I can see the problem in "god particle" implying it is more important than it is. The other problem is extremist religious people who would take it to mean that scientists consider it as a substitute deity, proof of no God. This is the problem you came across.

Many Christians don't understand that science is simply out to explain how the universe works. This doesn't mean to prove or disprove God. Science observes the universe and tries to explain it based on those observations. Knowing how the universe works doesn't necessarily discredit any creator. A Christian could see science as simply explaining how God did it.

I am a Christian and that is how I view it. The "Creation Story" in Genesis is just that, a story. The important part is God is responsible for existence as we know it, not how he did it.

 

[zehydra]

It's just a name. The name wasn't at fault in this conversation, your friend was.

In any case, I have my doubts the Higgs Boson exists anyway.

 

[i7omahawki]

I'd never heard the Higgs-Boson referred to as the 'God Particle' so I guess your wish came true.

Here's an idea, find an insignificant particle/compound/cell/cluster in space and call it the 'God Particle', with some minute connection found between the name and the object. Then journalists will be forced to refer to the Higgs-Boson rather than God Particle because it will clash and cause confusion.

Problem solved I think, now go find something insignificant.