The question was not “where does mass come from”, but “how do particles gain mass” - a subtle, but important distinction. You may think that religion will give you all the answers, but those answers are all in the form of “God did it”. Science never asks “who gives particles mass”, because “who” is irrelevant. It is the “how” that matters, because knowing how something is made to happen allows us to make it happen when we choose. Religion tells you that God is the source of everything and if you want something to happen, you must ask God to do it. Science tells you how things actually work, so that if you want something to happen, you can make it happen through your own actions. It is this spirit of self-reliance that forms the primary difference between science and religion.
The Judeo-Christian concept of a faithful creator is what made modern science possible.
Of course He did. And people who are fascinated by His Creation ask "how?" and seek to find out. That's far from verboten in Christianity.
It seems that asking "Who?" in atheist circles very much is, though. You claim the question is irrelevant, but they go hand-in-hand.
If you want something to happen, you must ask God to do it, is an arrogant remark. You beg the question: Who, or even, what is YOU? In fact religious people do not even think this way. Maybe Aristotelans think this way, but Religiouspeople, or at least Christians mean by God as the Creator, which is something more than a first cause. Nor is God just that which upon which all things are contingent, but the One who chooses to allow all things to exist. With which we agree with the Muslims.But Jews and Christians go beyond this to say that he chooses somethings to love, which we call persons.
Now in such a bloody world, the term lovemay seem sentimental. It is unsuited to a Supreme Being, or a primal force. But for us, who think of ourselves as the image of God, and who think we can be physically and spiritually intimate with others, we believe that if we are like the creator, He also like us. So the question of man cannot be separated from the question of God.
There was precious little under my control in my atheist days. There wasn't much I could make happen through my own actions. That's a fallacy that we can control events.
My life would have been way different if I had anything to say about how it went.
Thank God it didn't because I would not be where I am today if God weren't in control.
Such simple statements - ones that you believe are so profound. All those particles you are toying with are god particles - not just the higgs boson.
God created the Earth and Universe ex nihilo - out of nothing. We’ll wait while your science figures out how to create anything ex nihilo. Go!
You seem to think it’s all either science or religion. Science, esp. the modern day scientific movement, has its’ roots primarily in Christianity. See Newton [greatest scientist of all time], Galileo, Kepler, Mendel, Kelvin, etc. You claimed:
“It is this spirit of self-reliance that forms the primary difference between science and religion.”
Well one Albert Einstein had something much more poignant to say about that:
‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’
“As a blind man has no idea of colors, so we have no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things.” (Isaac Newton)