Antineutrinos: Fact, or a Myth Perpetrated by the Right?

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

No, it just took me awhile to react.

[Shapley]

I was browsing the science section at the bookstore recently and noticed a number of books that claim, in a nutshell, that science has now proven that God does not exist. The most notable of these, apparently, is Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, although there are others. I read some of the reviews online, but have not read any of the books (and probably won't). However, from what I gather from the reviews, the books basically make the claim that science cannot accept the concept of an omnipresent entity which cannot be seen, smelt, heard nor felt. This, naturally, led me back to this topic. Apparently, while science cannot accept the existence of one such entity, it has no problem accepting the concept of billions of them.

This led me to thinking about the nature of man and the nature of God. I would expect that, just as man is not a single entity, but is a collection of the atoms that have arranged themselves to form him, so it is likely that God is a collection of whatever basic components are arranged to form him. While man is created "in His image", it does not necessarily follow that man is formed from the same building blocks, at least the physical form that science defines as man. The soul, which to me is the true measure of a man, does not exist in science. To the scientist, the soul, like God himself, is just an idea, a thought.

But what are ideas? What is thought? Science, while full of ideas, doesn't define what they are. We can't measure ideas, we can't taste them, see them, smell them, hear them, or feel them. We can measure the brain energy that occurs when we form ideas, but we can't measure ideas themselves. Like God and souls, ideas have no mass. They can be expressed. I can speak my ideas, write them down, or post them on the bulletin board, but these are not the ideas themselves, merely expressions of them, shadows, illusions. Ideas themselves, unlike matter and energy, cease to exist when we die, if not before. Unless, of course, they are composed of antineutrinos, and they depart us without interacting. Perhaps we can only imagine antineutrinos because they are made of the same building blocks that comprise imagination. It takes one to know one, so to speak.

So it could be that ideas, souls, and God himself are made of the same stuff, stuff that cannot be seen, smelt, heard, nor felt. Antineutrinos. Antineutrinos are everywhere around us, though we cannot sense them. They are part of us, intermingling with the very essence of our being, or so we are told. Perhaps each and every antineutrino is a part of God, so that he is in each of us, as well.

Science, perhaps, instead of disproving the existence of God, has found him, though they are too blind to see it.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

And perhaps Shapley needs more caffeine.

I'm not sure this fuzzy a philosophical notion is appropriate, before the second pot of coffee.

[navneeth]

You must remember one thing, though: Science does not prove anything. Proofs are for mathematicians. Claims in science can be falsified, or confirmed to some accuracy, but never proven.

in a nutshell, that science has now proven that God does not exist.

That never made the news. But I'm sure you'll be seeing news about the God Particle, hopefully next year.

[Shapley]

Nav,

I don't disagree. I also don't know how you prove a negative. You can prove that God exists, or you can conclude from the proof that he doesn't, but I don't think you can prove that something doesn't exist. The antineutrino is a prime example. It exists in the mind of scientists because it is necessary for their equations to balance, but it has not been proven and cannot be disproven. But then, I'm no mathematician! However, from reading the reviews, I gather that that is the gist of the book, that science has proven the non-existence of God. Perhaps I'll have to read the book to find out how, although it doesn't fit into my normal reading material. It doesn't even have a sailboat on the cover.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Dawkins is an arrogant SOB. His book is a philosophy book, like any other.

[Haggis@wk]

I recently read a book about Marconi and his belief in wireless communication in the face of overwhelming CW that wireless was limited to the curvature of the earth and therefore wireless range was limited to a few dozen miles at best.

And the CW was quite reasonable at the time with all the “proper” scientists arrayed against the silly notions of an Italian tinkerer who had the effrontery to suggest that wireless could span the oceans, although, interestingly, they most fervently believed in ghost and spent enormous effort in researching them to prove they existed.

Marconi wasn’t a scientist, he didn’t understand the theory, didn’t know what a “frequency” was, couldn’t even comprehend the physics of radio wave propagation, had no idea what the best power was, didn’t have a clue about shortwave vs. longwave, couldn’t figure out why his signals were better at night than during the day, etc.

He just thought it should work and kept at it until it did work.

You have to think if we would be this far along in the study of radio if Marconi hadn’t been convinced that something that was impossible wasn’t.

Even now reading about it I am reminding of Asimov’s or Clarke’s comment that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguable from magic”

[Haggis@wk]

Nav,

It doesn't even have a sailboat on the cover.

Not even a little penguin or Ladybird?

The "ladybird" reference might be vague in the U.S. but our anglosphere cousins will recognize it

[jamiebk]

Shap, as someone with a totally open mind , you may enjoy reading: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hardcover)
by Christopher Hitchens. I heard this guy on a local talk show and he was very interesting and extremely articulate. He's quite controversial, of course, but he raises some interesting points that everyone should think about. I don't think it hurts to challenge our thinking about religion. If it fails our tests then perhaps some things are worth reconsidering. If, as a result of reading and considering some of this material, we come away more convicted than ever about our beliefs, then that says something too.

[Shapley]

That was one of the books I saw alongside Dawkins'. I think it even has an endorsement by Dawkins on the back cover. I've read the synopsis of the book, but that is all.

As I said, I may find myself reading one or more of those books sometime, but not in the immediate future. Perhaps a Readers' Digest condensed version. It's not that I'm worried that they'll shake my faith, it's just that I have better books on the shelf, ones that do have a sailboat on the cover.

[barfle]

Gods are matters of faith. Faith requires no evidence - in fact it is, by definition, acceptance of an idea without evidence.

Science is the study of the natural. Gods, by definition, are supernatural.

While Dawkins has a point, it's a shame (at least to me) that he has to alienate almost everyone he comes in contact with. Something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[OperaTenor]

Antineutrinos are everywhere around us, though we cannot sense them. They are part of us, intermingling with the very essence of our being, or so we are told. Perhaps each and every antineutrino is a part of God, so that he is in each of us, as well.

Science, perhaps, instead of disproving the existence of God, has found him, though they are too blind to see it.

V/R
Shapley

I don't know, man. I think you're reaching.

[Shapley]

I don't know, man. I think you're reaching.

I'm always reaching. Sometimes for the stars, sometimes for answers, sometimes for a beer.

[Shapley]

While Dawkins has a point, it's a shame (at least to me) that he has to alienate almost everyone he comes in contact with. Something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I'm sure that atheists feel the need to do missionary work to spread their lack of faith, just as Christians feel the need to do missionary work to spread their faith. When you know something, or at least think you do, you feel complelled to express that knowledge before it turns into antineutrinos and is lost to humanity.

[Haggis@wk]

In 1909 Marconi received the Nobel Prize for Physics. It was a great shock to him and in his opening of his Noble lecture he conceded that he was not a scientist and stated “that I never studied Physics or electrotechnics in the regular manner, although as a boy I was deeply interested in those subjects”

And he frankly admitted that he still did not fully understand why he was able to transmit across the Atlantic, only that he could. As he put it, "Many facts connected with the transmission of electric waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation."

He acknowledged that other mysteries remained as well. "It often occurs that a ship fails to communicate with a nearby station, but correspond with perfect ease with a distant one," he told the audience He did not know why this was the case. Nor had he found, yet, an explanation for why sunlight so distorted communication, though he was "inclined to believe" in a theory recently put forth by physicist J. J. Thomson, that "the portion of the earth's atmosphere which is facing the sun will contain more ions or electrons than that portion which is in darkness" and therefore absorb energy from the waves being transmitted.

He had found too that sunrise and sunset were times of especially acute distortion. "It would almost appear as if electric waves in passing from dark space to illuminated space, and vice versa, were reflected or refracted in such a manner as to be deviated from their normal path.”

I think it can be reasonably posited that anything unknown is only unknown until it is known

[barfle]

I'm sure that atheists feel the need to do missionary work to spread their lack of faith, just as Christians feel the need to do missionary work to spread their faith.

I have yet to meet someone expounding atheism as a way to save your immortal soul, or as a way for the expounder to save their immortal soul.

[Shapley]

Perhaps not. I have met atheists who expound their atheism and berate me for my beliefs as fervently as any Christian fundamentalist could berate a heathen.

Obviously he does not seek to save my immortal soul through atheism, since an atheist wouldn't be expected to believe in an immortal soul, or have reason to be believe it would need saving.

[BigJon@Work]

He probably hopes to save your mortal existance . . .

[barfle]

In my experience, when an atheist and a believer discuss their beliefs, the believer tends to want the atheist to believe (or at least follow his behavioral advice), while the atheist simply wants the believer to leave him alone.

Whenever two people have a difference in belief, they tend to berate each other's beliefs. I have found this to be true whether it is in regard to religion, politics, taste in music (how do you feel about most rap?), favorite sports (I have seen NASCAR berated here), selection of mates, and preferred climate, to name a few.

[piqaboo]

I dont believe you.
And
How could you believe such a thing?