Good comments about particles.
"Particles", "Waves", "Fields", are models, theories, concepts to explain reality. You could very well be right that the "particles" explanation is inferior, and the "field" model does the job. It will be scientific experimentation and theorizing (modeling, explaining) that will establish this, not a revelation from some supernatural being to the Pope or the Mormon Prophet or similar religious leader. Doesn't that suggest that science is a vastly superior source of knowledge than religion is?
I accepted particles in High School and Undergraduate physics when my teachers told me I should and seemed to have experimental evidence to back them up. I accepted QM wave function explanations in QM classes when my teachers told me I should and seemed to have experimental evidence to back them up and seemed to be able to ALSO explain why the previous experiments which suggested the "particle" model were still good experiments, but for one good reason or another did not reveal the better model.
You might believe in God because your teachers told you to, and they claimed to have experimental evidence to back the belief up (scripture, examples of visits of diety to Earth, miracles performed, you feel bad when wicked and good when righteous, etc.) but is the evidence really there? And, can their explanation also explain why science works while ignoring this all-powerful entity?
What experiments can we perform to test for God? Experiments that have been performed thus far suggest no God. Scientific Theories thus far suggest no God. You didn't gain belief in God only after you learned about fields did you? So, why do you believe in God? Are the reasons you believe in God adequate (were they "synchronicities"?), or could they be reasonably explained without God?