Has anybody ever observed gravity waves? Or observed gravitons? Yet, scientists all over BELIEVE they exist because they fit someone's mathematical model. Without any observation of these phenomena to PROVE their existence, would not anyone who believes these things exist be guilty of operating on FAITH?
The problem is not one of faith, everyone believes in something. The question really is what you are putting your faith in.
44 comments
Gravity: Produces measurable amounts of force, conforming to a few rigid mathematical formulas.
God: Occasionally lets good things happen, and sometimes lets bad things happen, with no particular criteria for either.
See why gravitons have more evidence?
I don't actually believe in gravitons myself. I think space-time warping is an equally valid theory, as both theories fit existing evidence well .
There are instruments designed specifically to measure things that organic senses do not detect. Yes, these things have been observed, indirectly.
Chamale, I like the idea of space-time warping , but feel absolute horror at the prospect of even looking at the math.
Scientists do not believe gravitons exist as a general rule. However, since it's the simplest (as far as I know) bridge between general relativity and quantum mechanics, many believe it to be the most viable hypothesis. Thus, that's where the most research goes.
We know that gravity itself exists because we can observe, measure, and test it. Gravity waves and gravitons, until observed, are only held as hypotheses, and are only "BELIEVED" in as a possible explanation, not as unwavering truth.
So...what are your motives in trying to make science and religion look like they are similar? Realizing that religion has no logical grounds to stand on, and getting peeved at admitting that you only have blind faith alone to support it? Well, just to let you know, your fact envy is showing...
"Has anybody ever observed gravity waves? Or observed gravitons? Yet, scientists all over BELIEVE they exist because they fit someone's mathematical model."
That's called "evidence." Not terribly good evidence, hence the reason they're actually looking for gravitons instead of just saying "well, looks like they should be there so we'll just call it a day."
"Without any observation of these phenomena to PROVE their existence, would not anyone who believes these things exist be guilty of operating on FAITH?"
It's not "faith" when reality says you should find something. Now, it's entirely possible that the "something" is not a graviton and we're only seeing a small piece of whatever it is. Still, having a poor understanding but a general idea of what is causing something is better than saying "Goddidit!"
"The problem is not one of faith, everyone believes in something."
Not the way you're using "believe" they don't.
"The question really is what you are putting your faith in."
Science. That is if science actually required faith, which it doesn't.
"The question really is what you are putting your faith in."
I put my faith in a beer bottle, and I believe, oh yes, I truly do believe, that I shalt have another.
Has anybody ever observed gravity waves? Or observed gravitons? Yet, scientists all over BELIEVE they exist because they fit someone's mathematical model.
Up until some guys filled an Olympic-pool-sized vat with glass cleaner, neutrinos were hypothetical particles that were predicted because they "fit some mathematical model".
Without any observation of these phenomena to PROVE their existence, would not anyone who believes these things exist be guilty of operating on FAITH?
No they would not. They would be "guilty" (you fundies always reach for that guilt switch, don't you?) at best of operating under the guidance of an educated guess. You've heard of education, right? That's what smart people use to navigate through life rather than blind belief.
If science operated on faith NASA would still be exploding Mercury rockets on the launch pad.
The question really is what you are putting your faith in.
I'd rather put my cock in a woodchipper than put my faith in your deity.
A**hole.
"BELIEVE they exist because they fit someone's mathematical model."
"would not anyone who believes these things exist be guilty of operating on FAITH?"
No, because we have the models. We are trying to look for these sorts of things, though, like in particle accelerators.
Additionally, all the mathematical models in the world operate fine without God, whereas the gravitons seem to fit in great; So it's a reasonable assumption that they exist.
"Has anybody ever observed gravity waves?"
Yes, I have.
More prepared people than me have even photographed them...
image
...and they have even been occasionally captured on video...
http://www.liveleak.com/
Perhaps you mean the cosmological phenomenon of gravitational waves?
And if it turns out they don't exist, we'll toss out that theory !
Whereas if reality doesn't match your book, you toss out reality.
Yeah, there's an element of faith here. But surely much less faith is needed to believe in gravitons than God. Come up with a mathematical formula for God, and then the question really does boil down to "what you are putting your faith in".
Edit: I'd also like to add that even if scientists have some faith that a certain hypothesis will turn out to be proven true, they still accept that they could be completely wrong. Religious faith doesn't operate this way. Religious people not only have faith that their religion is right, but that it certainly can never be wrong.
Having "faith" in gravitons doesn't mean that the discovery of gravitons will usher in a New Heaven and a New Earth, or that those who denied the existence of gravitons will spend an eternity in Hell without gravity.
Which is the distinction between scientific beliefs and religious beliefs.
Scientists associated with CERN suspect that they may now have evidence of the Higgs boson (a.k.a. the "gravity particle") -- they just need to analyze their data to figure it out.
Because that's how science works: you develop a model to explain the available data which predicts that, under certain conditions within a certain range, certain other data will result. You then try to recreate conditions under as much of the range in question as possible, and check for the expected results. If the expected results are not found, you go back to the drawing board and come up with a better model (or maybe just retire to the lecture circuit, because you've just made yourself eternally famous).
I have "faith" that if I push this book off the end of the table, it will fall down instead of up. Oh, sorry - that's not "faith", that's easily provable evidence of gravity. Faith would be praying for it to fall up. A miracle would be it actually happening.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
