7 Answers

  1. In addition, I will only note that the hypothesis of God and all his providential activities at some level explains everything (for the perfect naive mind, of course), but it does not allow us to analyze, predict and, ultimately, influence anything.

    And the theories of scientific physics, and other sciences – very much allow it. Simply put, faith in God by itself, unlike “faith” in scientific concepts, does not make it possible to build airplanes and space shuttles, so to speak.

  2. The fact that the statements of physicists about the existence of the invisible have some consequences that can be checked and seen, but the statements of believers do not.

  3. First of all, physicists don't say that there are any things at all. This is not the task of physics. The task of physics is to build a model of the world that explains the phenomena observed in practice. That is, physics does not claim that something is exactly like this and no other-no, it says that if something looked like a certain object or shape, or something else, then we would see exactly what we actually observe. Yes, sometimes to explain the observed phenomena, physics offers constructions that cannot be seen directly, BUT! Please note, this is a very important point! A physical theory is not recognized as such until it passes experimental verification! This means that based on this theory, previously unknown experimental results should be predicted and this prediction should be implemented in practice. I.e., no matter what constructions use physical models, they predict exactly what we see in practice. At the same time, we should not forget that physics does not claim that the world is arranged in this way, it only claims that it is well described within a certain model. Now pay attention! Another important point! Every physical theory has its limits of applicability! I.e. physics does not claim the universality of its models, it says that within certain limits we can apply a certain model to describe the world, even if this model includes objects that cannot be observed directly. Now let's look at the difference between believers: believers assert the truth of a certain concept without any checks and proofs, but only on the basis of certain dogmas, “which cannot be different, because this can never happen.” Feel the difference? There is just a model that is tested and works within a certain framework and there are no statements about its truth, i.e. that everything is exactly like that, but here is an unsubstantiated statement that the world works exactly like this and in no other way, regardless of experiments, observations, models and anything else. I don't want to say that someone is worse and someone is better, but I want to say something else: science and faith are essentially different concepts and they are not directly related to each other. Within the framework of science, a person tries to find an explanation for the observed phenomena and a way to use them in some capacity, i.e., to use them in other ways. this concept is rational, while faith is irrational and operates with dogmas that are not provable and do not require proof, realizing a certain spiritual need of a person.

  4. Only a fool thinks he knows everything. The scientist always doubts, and the believer in God does not doubt His existence. Only the believer knows perfectly well that God knows more than he does. Therefore, a physicist who believes in God-it happens, and this is normal.

  5. The fact that the scientist wants to prove it. Or refute it.

    That is, to reach the final point where his faith ceases to be faith, since the object of faith disappears from her field of vision and begins to exist.

    However, the question is extremely incorrect, because faith is not equal to religion.

    A scientist is also a believer, because he believes in the existence of something that has not been proven or in the truthfulness of some theory that has not yet been confirmed.

    A true believer should not only believe, but also try to prove his faith. Otherwise, it is not faith, it is self-deception.

    So the answer is: Nothing.

  6. Well, the answer to them. Popper. The scientist knows that there is an outcome of a particular experiment that will prove that the theory used so far was at least incomplete, and at most completely wrong. As, however, has already happened in the history of science, Newtonian mechanics as the first option, the caloric hypothesis as the second. Well, the believer will at best invent a hundred hundred extremely complex explanations for why these facts do not contradict his faith in any way, at worst he will simply shout “There is no evolution, there are super-Jews!!!111”
    Naturally, we are talking about a believer who does not understand the difference between faith and science.

  7. They probably mean that the human eye is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 400-750 nm (visible radiation). In other ranges, a person simply cannot perceive visual information. Accordingly, physicists simply state a scientific fact, unlike believers, who by this may mean any unprovable something.

Leave a Reply