What I would say is that it is not sensible to hold an opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whilst I understand that much of the language of particle physics is opaque, there does come a time when it is worth accepting the views of experts. The analogy I would give is the design of aircraft wings – I am happy to trust an expert in aerodynamics to get it right rather than offer my own opinion about what shape they should be. It’s really the case that the particle physics community are sensible, rational human beings who go about their research because they believe that exploring the subatomic world is good for our civilization, not to mention interesting. It is also true that if anyone, including myself, had any doubt about the safety of what we are doing, we would stop immediately. I and all my colleagues consider our personal safety and the safety of our families to be FAR more important than the search for the Higgs particle – indeed, if the risk were even as high as 1 in a billion, or whatever people quote, then I would be campaigning with you to stop it.

Anyone who thinks that the LHC will destroy the world is a twat.

The BBC is running a series of programmes in celebration of the fact that the Large Hadron Collider gets switched on next week. Last night was Lost Horizons, the punning and poignant title of a programme fronted by Professor Jim Al-Khalili that looked at the theories of the origins of the universe.

Punning, because the device used by Al-Khalili was to use extracts from the BBC’s science archives, in particular from the BBC series Horizon, to illustrate the theories. Poignant, because as I’ve remarked before, in recent years, the quality of most of the Horizon programmes has gone down the toilet, and to see these extracts from old Horizon programmes was to be sadly reminded of what has been lost.

Lost Horizons itself was good, partly because it eschewed the gimmicks of today’s Horizon programmes, and because Jim Al-Khalili knows what he’s talking about and presents it clearly and well.

You suggest that science may bring about "advances in theological thinking". In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

This book is written from the perspective of a conservitive [sic] Christian with extensive knowledge and access to NDEs. Scripture is used to interpret NDEs. When NDEs agree with the Bible, they become prof [sic] that the scriptures are inerrant and when NDEs don’t, it is because evil has tainted the experience. Purely from a Christian point of view.. Not recommended for those looking for a more universal or balanced perspective.