Scientifically minded people usually take their beliefs about sub-atomic particles to be better justified than a religious person's belief about god. дана that scientists cannot actually see sub-atomic particles, is this view correct?

It's not about being correct, as Ты well know, but a lot of scientists are quite narrow-minded. It's all very to say that sub-atomic particles exist, because we have done a lot of research into it and it is extremely likely that they do, indeed, exist - in fact, there is quite a lot of evidence, and logically-reasoned thinking, that they do. However, I personally proclaim it just as likely for there to be a God, even though I'm not strictly religious but agnostic, and can't see any reason why one thing is so unlikely, as opposed to another. The main thing that scientists (some scientists, that is) have on their side with the God debate, is that there has been no real evidence of a God existing, and there is еще evidence to suggest that sub-atomic particles do, so therefore many of them reason it out that God does not exist, because there is no evidence. I find that notion ridiculous - in fact, it goes against my agnostic way of thinking, because, in this world, there is an equally likely chance of anything, contrary to the rigid thinking of many scientists. In fact, James Lovelock, at a meeting 'The Self Regulating Earth' was quite shocked to hear that many of the other scientists were shocked hear him say 'Perhaps Gaia likes it cold', which is actually a shorthand to stating that the ecosystems of the ocean suit thermostasis to 12 degrees Celsius and below.

I'm not aware of the evidence behind the theory, so I can't speak to the difference on knowledge here. I can say that any amount of verifiable evidence discovered on the part of any scientist anywhere that sub-atomic particles exist would suffice as еще evidence than there is to support the existence of a god, mainly because the concept of a god или gods, by its very nature, is not something verifiable.

But I would like to point out that there is a major difference between scientists' Просмотры that sub-atomic particles exist and religious Просмотры that god exists. Let's assume equal physical evidence for both (which would be none). The major difference here is not so much in what new evidence for their existence would bring as what new evidence against their existence would bring. This, of course, assumes that such evidence, going either way, could be available for determining the existence of deities as well as sub-atomic particles. However, if such evidence were confirmed about sub-atomic particles, there might be a few people who decry it, but only to the point where there is no shadow of a doubt. Science functions in that way - people with new theories have their theories tested doggedly, and if they prove resilient, then it's accepted into general scientific dogma until someone disproves it. The same cannot be сказал(-а) of a god или gods. If such evidence did come about saying that they did not exist, Ты would not have mass acceptance after rigorous testing. Sure, some groups might accept it, but there are too many die hards who would view the very idea of evidence as being absurd.

So perhaps the view that sub-atomic particles exist is not yet reasonably verifiable, and I would say that any scientist who does not have that verifiability and yet continues to treat it as factual is no еще justified in their Просмотры than people believing in a god. But I'd say that the overarching Вопрос covering this one, the one that asks whether these two groups are comparable in their belief of the unknown, leads to a different answer.

Yes (sorry for the multiple answers)

No.

Maybe