English: One possible way the Higgs boson might be produced at the Large Hadron Collider. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I posted a humorous little picture. My friend, Dr. James McGrath reposted it. He has made some comments on it there as well. His first commentator, Ian, who blogs here, writes,
Deism is irrational because it is entirely superfluous. A deistic God has no effect nor explanatory power. It has no effect by definition, and no explanatory power because it simply adds to the list of things requiring explanation (why is there something rather than nothing? – because of God — why is there a God rather than nothing? – just because).
I tend to agree with McGrath when he writes about the label’s creator – “took a swipe at a label he or she does not fully understand.” Also, that is not how I understand deism — as I understand deism, it is more about a First Cause with a laissez faire approach from thence to hence.
With the new research centered around the Higgs boson, physicists ares suggesting that our universe is impossible and contradictory,
In peril is the notion of “naturalness,” Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists face the harsh prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time.
What is deism or theism? These are terms, like supernatural, handed down to us. Why are we still working within these terms as if they are sacrosanct and immovable? Maybe we can develop terms better suited to our scientific knowledge, although we understand that while science is moving us forward, it is still very much on a (Wesleyan) journey of perfection. Our knowledge increases, so any terms we discover must include a measure of grace so as to expand or even dismiss the term in favor of another.
Is deism irrational? Hardly. The impossible must have a probable in order for it to be inevitable, right?