Science vs Religion – does God exist? Michel-Yves Bolloré explains how the debate is shifting, and why some scientists now question the idea of a self-explaining universe

Does God exist, and can we prove it?Donate to support these interviews.There is a growing assumption in modern Western life that science has settled the question of God. That belief rests less on settled knowledge than on cultural habit, reinforced over generations of intellectual fashion and institutional authority. What once presented itself as liberation from superstition has, in many cases, hardened into a new orthodoxy, one that treats materialism as neutral and belief as deviation.Yet the scientific story itself has not remained static. Developments in cosmology, physics, and biology have introduced new tensions into that confidence. Questions of origin, order, and fine tuning continue to resist reduction to simple mechanism. The deeper the inquiry goes, the more the underlying assumptions begin to matter.In this conversation, Jonathan Sacerdoti speaks with Michel-Yves Bolloré, co-author of God, the Science, the Evidence, a book that has reached a wide audience across Europe and now enters the English-speaking world. Bolloré approaches the question not as a theologian, but as a proponent of a cumulative case built from scientific and philosophical developments over the past century. His argument rests on the claim that the balance of evidence has shifted, and that materialism now requires greater leaps of faith than it once did.The discussion moves between first principles and contested conclusions. Bolloré distinguishes sharply between the existence of a creator and the claims of organised religion, treating the former as a question of reason rather than revelation. At the same time, he extends the argument into moral philosophy and history, suggesting that questions of good and evil, as well as the endurance of certain civilisations, cannot be understood within a purely material framework.What emerges is a live dispute about the nature of explanation itself. Scientific models, philosophical commitments, and human intuitions about meaning are all in play. The conversation exposes the fault line between competing accounts of reality, each claiming rational authority, each carrying profound implications.👁‍🗨 Watch if you want to understand how modern science is being used to challenge materialism and reopen the question of God’s existence.💬 We Discuss:🔬 Why recent developments in cosmology and physics are being interpreted as evidence for a creator rather than a self-contained universe🧠 How materialism functions as a belief system with its own assumptions, rather than a neutral scientific default🌌 The implications of the Big Bang and why a universe with a beginning raises deeper questions about causation⚖️ The distinction between probability and proof, and how scientific reasoning is applied to metaphysical questions🧩 Fine tuning and whether the precision of physical constants points to design or coincidence🧪 The unresolved problem of how life emerges from non-life and why this remains a critical gap in scientific explanation📚 The relationship between science, philosophy, and religion, and whether they can coherently point in the same direction🧭 The argument that morality requires a source beyond human preference and legal convention📖 The role of historical continuity, including the survival of the Jewish people, in arguments about divine intention🧍 Human freedom, suffering, and the persistent question of evil in a world that may or may not be created with purpose🔔 Subscribe for more serious, unflinching conversations about belief, power, and the foundations of modern civilisation.📲 Follow Jonathan

On X

On Instagram

On Substack👇 Comment below — does the accumulation of scientific evidence strengthen belief, or does it simply expose the limits of what science can explain?