Science, the test of God?
by Francois Euve
Salvator, 186 p., 18 €
Without saying so explicitly, this little book responds to Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies who, with their recent work God, science, evidence (Guy Trédaniel, 2021, 577 p., €24), have caused trouble for some, false hopes for others. The authors in question seek to provide « proofs of the existence of God, modern, clear, rational, multidisciplinary, objectively confrontable with the universe réel ». A subject that fascinates, the 100,000 or so copies sold with great marketing support are… proof of this.
To which François Euvé, Jesuit and physicist, retorts that “It’s more complex than it seems”. Far from being affirmative – moreover the title of his essay is punctuated with a question mark – the author who is also editor-in-chief of the journal Studiesask questions about “the existence of God”before decrypting “the theories (scientists) new “. He then wonders if “Science and faith can dialogue”. With a belief: “I don’t think mixing genres is good for both parties. Whether science raises more fundamental questions than was thought a century ago is one thing, whether it demonstrates the existence of God or the relevance of religion is another. he says in the preamble.
No evidence, but signs
Taking up the chronological evolution of the reflection on the existence of God, François Euvé recalls that “if there does not exist – and cannot exist in principle – formal and definitive ‘proofs’ of the existence of God, one can nevertheless find signs of it”. A reflection that obviously goes through Thomas Aquinas, for whom “there is therefore an intelligent being by which all natural things are ordered to their end, and this being is what we call God”.
Parallel to theological advances, science is gradually unfolding, stumbling on the same enigmas. Thus, in turn, Voltaire will affirm it poetically: “The universe embarrasses me and I cannot imagine that this clock exists and has no watchmaker. » The author then evokes the successive and complex theories of scientific progress which come up against two main questions: the origin of the world and the “miraculous” intervention of God in the course of human things. Gold, “we can’t see the beginning of the universe, just extrapolate it from what we know. The closer you get to it, the more difficult it becomes to access.. And the Jesuit author refers to a tutelary figure: “Albert Einstein’s intellectual rigor did not prevent him from feeling disturbed by the mystery of the world. »
Two dimensions to dialogue
The important thing undoubtedly lies in this dialogue of two dimensions bearing their gaze on the world as it is: “The emergence of an autonomous science does not jeopardize the confession of a creator God, continues François Euvé. Each domain has its space of validity, which should not be transgressed. But, conversely, it would be a shame not to take advantage of a plurality of approaches to the world, scientific, philosophical, theological, poetic. »
An alert text, which ends with an interview between the author and physicist Étienne Klein, the latter still insisting: “To claim to scientifically prove the existence of God would also be naive to science itself. (…) This would imply that she would have completely completed her own construction to the point of being able to decide all the questions before us, including those that are not scientific. »
–
