I come to this question as a person with a strong education in the sciences and as a theologian.
This is my first essay and I hope the conversation doesn’t stop here, but I do hope the question I’m responding to does end… more or less immediately. I have no illusions about the depth of my reach or influence though. I am a back-country preacher from a back-country province in a back-country country. It is beyond unlikely that any of the people involved here will hear what I have to say.
The question was not asked of me directly, but has made the rounds for long enough that science communicator in chief, Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, decided to respond to it. The question is as follows: given that every electron that has ever been measured is indistinguishable, one from the other, is it possible that they are all the same electron? The theory posits there is only one electron moving forward and backward in space and time through infinity. The question is absurd, and to their credit they did debunk it; Neil, his comedian friend Chuck Nice, and a guest scientist familiar with the idea. The video can be found here.
I didn't watch the whole video. In my view, the fact they decided to engage with this theory is evidence of the problem. The theroy’s only merit is that it is impossible to disprove. Put forward in 1940 by physicist John Wheeler, all it would take is to measure a difference between two electrons to demonstrate there are more than one. A modern rebuttal offered by Chuck, the show’s comic relief of all people, is to ask what is being collided at CERN if not two different electrons? How could the same electron collide with itself, explode, and then continue moving backward and forward through time and space?
More importantly, why would anyone assume that because there are no measurable differences between two things they must be one thing? As well suggest that two goats that look the same are in fact the same goat! More over, atoms were assumed to be exactly the same… until they weren’t. The number of protons in an atom determine which element it is and what properties it has. The number of neutrons an atom has can vary without changing it enough to declare it a different element, but can have an effect on that atom’s properties. Two easy examples are deuterium, also called “heavy water” where the hydrogen atoms have one proton and one neutron. It still has all the properties of water but is more dense making it useful in nuclear reactors. And carbon, which can have different numbers of neutrons but some weights are preferred by plants and decay at a predictable rate making carbon dating possible. None of which was known until we split the atom… something believed to be impossible until we did it.
In spite of theories like this, the main complaint of science toward theology is its dependence on ideas that cannot be proven or disproven. The very concept of God cannot be proved because to create a thing is to “exist” outside of it. For example, when I create a drawing, it has only two dimensions but I create it from the third, looking down on the page. For something to exist it must be locatable in both time and space. I exist and you, the reader, exist even though I can’t prove it from behind my keyboard. Continents and countries exist even though they are defined by people according to geology or social connections. Even an idea exists because it can be located in the mind of a person who holds it and the time when they held it, even if that person has long since passed away. However, for God to create all that is, was, or ever will be, God must be outside of both time and space. In short, no meaningful definition of exist can meaningfully be applied to God.
I will happily recognize that I’m adopting a model for God that defies proof. Where physicists create models for understanding stars and particles, chemists create models for understanding the interaction of elements at a molecular level, archeologists create models for understanding how artifacts from past generations might inform us about them as a people, and sociologists create models for understanding how groups of people both past and present might interact, theologians create models to understand “why” level questions that the physical sciences can’t process. Why shouldn’t I take my neighbour’s stuff? Should I be a farmer or a plumber when I grow up? Why is it bad for one country to invade another? And even heavier questions like, why are humans even a thing? Sure, evolution is why I look like my dad, but does it really explain how we got to here from amino acids? And an even bigger one, what is love?
As for love, a chemist might say it’s just a chemical reaction. A biologist might say attachment increases the survivability of the species. A theologian would say, “we were made this way” and, before moving onto the utility of love, be slammed by science based atheists for committing the sin of a logical fallacy, a leap or appeal to biblical authority. But, it’s not a logical leap at all to suggest that because we can’t tell the difference between electrons (yet) they must all be the same electron. That idea needs to be entertained.
Beyond calling out the hypocrisy of people who reject religious belief out of hand, especially those who have monetized their ridiculous pronouncements, there are two points I would like to end with today. First, scientists and science based athiests are just as capable of sloppy logic as Christians and other people of faith. Remember that before getting all judgemental on us. Second, and more importantly, you wouldn’t expect a chemist to use models created by an astrophysicist because a model is only good for the outcomes it was created to predict. People in general, pastors and theologians in particular, need to be careful where we apply the models we use. In the broadest sense of things, religion is a model to understand the concept of good and evil (or not good) so people can consistently choose good by understanding the why questions. That’s it. Evolution doesn’t disprove God, the Bible doesn’t disprove evolution, and God created more than one electron… even if we can’t “prove” any of it.