The Higgs boson has been dubbed the \u201cgod particle\u201d\u009d much to the dismay of many physicists, including Peter Higgs and Lawrence Krauss. Yet the latter, perhaps unintentionally, gives a new twist to the \u201cgod particle\u201d\u009d epithet in his Newsweek article: \u201cHumans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step towards replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.\u201d\u009d Krauss has not taken that giant step himself, since his statement, far from being a statement of science, is another metaphysical speculation \u201d\u201d a mixture of hubris and an inadequate concept of God.<\/p>\n
What does Krauss mean by \u201cmore relevant than God?\u201d\u009d Relevant to what? Clearly the Higgs particle is more relevant than God to the question of how the universe works. But not to the question why there is a universe in which particle physics can be done. The internal combustion engine is arguably more relevant than Henry Ford to the question of how a car works, but not for why it exists in the first place. Confusing mechanism and\/or law on the one hand and agency on the other, as Krauss does here, is a category mistake easily made by ignoring metaphysics.<\/p>\n
Krauss does not seem to realise that his concept of God is one that no intelligent monotheist would accept. His \u201cGod\u201d\u009d is the soft-target \u201cGod of the gaps\u201d\u009d of the \u201cI can\u2019t understand it, therefore God did it\u201d\u009d variety. As a result, Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, regards God as an explanation in competition with scientific explanation. That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a \u201cGod of the gaps\u201d\u009d, he is God of the whole show.<\/p>\n