“The God of Jesus Christ is certainly not a great watchmaker”

2022-01-10 13:53:44

How to read the book God, science, evidencepublished this winter? Its first merit is to offer us a whole historical journey to highlight the fact that, after the growth, during the 19th and then at the beginning of the 20th century, of scientific currents – according to which science is the only reliable source to know about the world, this attitude has found itself widely challenged and questioned by the very evolution of scientific discoveries. The work thus reviews all these scientific advances which have introduced complexity and incompleteness into the scientific approach, whether in thermodynamics, in quantum mechanics, or in natural science, or with the entropic principle. in astrophysics.

By its own movement, each of the sciences shows that “the depths of things”, the first principle, escapes it. That we cannot therefore make science the origin of everything and the explanation of everything. The triumphant pure and hardline scientism of the early 20th century has been undermined by all the developments in scientific research over the past century.

A new definition of the scientific object

In itself, this is nothing new. These discoveries were already known, since the years 1980-2000. We now find ourselves faced with a new definition of the scientific object: an object that we do not study “in itself”, but in its relationships, its interactions with others (epistemic), and also with the subject who studied.

→ ALSO READ. A sometimes difficult dialogue between science and faith

In today’s complexity, there is therefore uncertainty and incompleteness. But this does not mean that science is delegitimized; we cannot speak of the defeat of scientific reason. Quite simply, this incompleteness has become the very condition of the scientist’s exercise. As a result, a completely materialist vision is difficult to maintain. In this sense, I agree with the idea, promoted by the book, that recent discoveries question us about “the bottom line”.

But should we see, as this work claims, in this incompleteness the proofs of the existence of God ? No, because we then confuse the domains. The entropic principle, which the book talks about, raises questions. But it does not prove that there is “behind things” a God who would have adjusted the mechanisms of the Universe and living things. And the God of Jesus Christ is certainly not a “great watchmaker” God.

Do not confuse the fields of science and faith

Basically, this questioning of current science makes it possible to relaunch the dialogue between Faith and science. But this dialogue must be careful to articulate these areas well, and not confuse them. For example, when we examine the relationship between Creation, in the biblical sense, and evolution, in the Darwinian sense. The two processes are not on the same level and should therefore not be confused.

Creation is in the order of transcendence. In a way, everything that is “exists” because God causes it to be. Whereas the principle of evolution teaches us that everything that has appeared in the course of the history of life is the fruit of the transformation of energy and matter. We must therefore manage to articulate these two actions, without confusing them. Teilhard de Chardin has a beautiful expression: “God makes things happen. » God doesn’t take his screwdriver. He gives the conditions for things to be done. Above all, the God of the Covenant gives autonomy to creatures, who pursue creation. God is neither the manufacturer nor the great watchmaker. He creates through his Word, in free Love.

God is not a maker

John Paul II, in the encyclical Faith and Reason, clearly highlights these different levels. It is true that we can regret the tendency of our society to strictly separate the domain of faith and that of science, a tendency which also affects Catholics themselves: we are believers in the Church, scientist in his laboratory. This is showing fideism, and I understand that the book wants to fight against this, in a society that distrusts religion. But between a form of concordance, which brings all science back to God, and a fideism, according to which reason teaches us nothing about the true nature of things, there is a connection to be made, while respecting the different areas.

→ ALSO READ. To overcome misunderstandings between God and science

Particularly in the area of ​​theology: God is not a maker. He is a God of the Covenant, who created an unfinished world, for creatures to continue. As nicely said Basil of Caesarea : “God allowed man to enter the workshop of divine creation. » But it is different from a kind of superior intelligence, “intelligent design” which would inevitably lead the liner of the Universe and humanity. Or rather, it is the intelligence of love and free giving, which inspires and attracts this evolution (from alpha to omega). This is the whole risk of faith, and of the freedom it gives us.

Science does not prove the non-existence of God, and in this the book is right. But the opposite is also true: science no longer proves the existence of God. Besides, what would be the faith in a God of which we have scientific proof? It would not be faith… On the other hand, we must know how to account for our faith with rational arguments, our reason, in the context of scientific discoveries in particular. Talk about the intelligence of the creator God. Being a believer is not irrational.