The most unhelpful word in scientific discourse
In 2012, when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the laboratory located across the Franco-Swiss border, verified experimentally the existence of the Higgs particle [1], the press swarmed the news with headlines such as:
“Finally, For Real, We (May Have) Found the God Particle”, June 20, 2012. Smithsonian
“Scientists at CERN are confident they have found the 'God particle'”, July 4th, 2012. The Guardian
“Best evidence yet found for 'God particle'”, July 2nd, 2012. Reuters
My question is “why?”
What exact information or concept is made any clearer by taking a very particular and specific concept from Physics, the theoretically proposed Higgs Boson, and then attaching “God particle” nomenclature to it?
It did help draw attention to it, but did it help any (accurate) understanding?
As a thought exercise, would it have been any clearer than calling it the “Foo” particle? Would this choice of words more accurately convey any correct understanding of the nature of this “Higgs boson”? Well, in this case it would at least not carry any religious or theological undertones.
Using the word “God” to refer to this very specific concept from Physics just leaves the general public even more confused.
Maybe one is tempted (in an all-too-natural, self-serving “feel good” way) to read the headline just by its first few words: “The LHC confirmed the existence of God”, which is a completely unrelated endeavor.
Finally, just to be clear about the scope of this discussion, I'm discussing precisely the effectiveness and accuracy of communication. Other adjacent concepts pertinent to religiosity and theology, while important in their own right, are not being discussed here.
References and Sources
[1]: https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/cern-experiments-observe-particle-consistent-long-sought-higgs-boson