Today he talked about God and science

Last Thursday I attended the media presentation of the book by Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonassis entitled “God. Science. Tests. Dawn of the Revolution” (Funambulista Editorial).

A book written by two scientifically trained businessmen who set out on a very noble mission to talk about God.

The truth is that because of their way of expressing themselves, because of the way in which they faced the difficulties that were being imposed on them, I thought I was dealing with representatives of a new rational apologetic way of speaking about God without contract. Putting God center stage without the initial attachments of sweet rhetoric about God.

I say rational because they have adequately distinguished rational knowledge from belief and faith. Come on, in line with the First Vatican Council that the existence of God can be known by reason alone.

They distinguished knowledge of the existence of someone or something, which differs from faith attachment, that is, the trust you give to that person or thing. I know that Macron is there, but I do not give him an ounce of trust. They even went so far as to say, for example.

This was facilitated by the fact that the question about God and his answer was played neither in the sphere of religion nor in the sphere of the Church, but in the sphere of reason and culture.

In theory, because these areas will appear on the horizon sooner or later, if only to remove historical adhesions.

The book deals with proofs or rational arguments for the existence of God. On the issue of knowledge, I swear. A book with an explanatory claim to clarity, so that everyone from 14 years old can understand it – that’s what the authors say – with a wealth of data.

It is not the only initiative in this regard that has been published recently. We can point, for example, to Stephen Meyer’s book “The Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe,” in the Anglo-Saxon field.

From the presentation I would like to highlight the common sense of the authors who knew how to shape how they talk about God in secular forums, so that what they say is understood, also with a certain questioning tone, which produces in the interlocutor a noticeable curiosity about what the book says.

I should warn that I took my first look at the book a few weeks ago, certainly somewhat hastily.

It seemed to me a good demonstration of how to make rational defenses of God. But when I got to the second part, I was a little nervous when I saw that the authors crossed the line of philosophy and science and delved into “proofs outside science.” I understand its purpose, but with reference to the Jewish people, it seems to me that the historicity of Jesus or Fatima covers many kilometers in a short time.

Anyway, this book is a good opportunity to talk about the basics. I don’t know why, or yes, when I was at the presentation, I remembered what J.J.’s fans said. Ratzinger at a conference on April 27, 2005:

“In his farewell lecture as professor at the University of Münster, theologian Jean-Baptiste Metz said things that no one ever imagined hearing from his lips. Before he taught anthropocentrism: the real event of Christianity would be the anthropological transformation, secularization, and the discovery of the secularity of the world. Then he taught political theology and the political nature of faith; “dangerous memory”; And finally, narrative theology.

After this long and difficult road, he tells us today: The real problem of our time is the “crisis of God,” that is, the absence of God hidden in the empty guise of religiosity. Theology must once again be true theology, speaking of God and with God.

Metz is right. The “only necessary” (unum necessarium) of man is God. Everything changes according to the presence or absence of God.”