Slashdot Mirror
Talking Science and God With the Pope's New Chief Astronomer
sciencehabit writes: On 18 September, Pope Francis appointed Jesuit brother Guy Consolmagno as the new director of the Vatican Observatory, which employs a dozen astronomers to study asteroids, meteorites, extrasolar planets, stellar evolution, and cosmology. The observatory is based at the pope's summer residence south of Rome and operates a 1.8-meter telescope in Arizona, where the skies are clearer. Science Magazine chatted with Consolmagno about a variety of topics, including whether God gets in the way of doing good astronomy. Consolmagno said, "First of all, I want to provide space for other astronomers to do their work. And I also want to show the world that religion supports astronomy. It is often religious people who most need to see that; they need to know that astronomy is wonderful and that they shouldn't be afraid of it. I often quote John Paul II, when he said [of evolution] that "truth cannot contradict truth." If you think you already know everything about the world, you are not a good scientist, and if you think you know all there is to know about God, then your religious faith is at fault."
No scientist thinks they know everything. But that doesn't mean that scientists aren't extremely confident about certain things.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Sorry I don't care how cool this guy comes off, being a scientist and believing in fairytales is a conflict of interest for me.
So I suppose you ignore the contributions of all of these Catholic scientists, including all of these Catholic clerics who have made prominent scientific contributions (including the founders of many scientific disciplines)?
I'm no defender of the Catholic Church or of overzealous religious idiots in general. But your attitude is a pretty extreme version of the so-called Conflict Thesis, which is a product of 19th-century historical revisionism by a few ill-informed historians who wanted to claim that religion has stood in the way of science throughout history. This viewpoint has been widely discredited by modern historians of science, as pretty much the opposite was the case. Many religious people throughout history have actually had very strong urges toward scientific investigation, since they seek to understand and appreciate the workings of "God's creation."
On the specific topic of astronomy, the Jesuit order in particular has a very strong record of making significant contributions. Ever wonder why so many features on the moon were named after Jesuit scientists? It's due to one of the most influential treatises on astronomy from the 17th century, written by Jesuit scientist Giovanni Battista Riccioli. His Algamestum novum (1651) is largely forgotten today, but it made significant contributions to physics, putting much of Galileo's work on the laws of motion on a stronger theoretical footing.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about Riccioli's treatise is his exhaustive compilation of arguments for and against the Copernican theory -- 49 for and 77 against. Riccioli's discussion is a model for modern scientific debate: he critiques bad arguments on both sides, though for him he ultimately comes out in favor of the Tychonic theory (proposed by Kepler's mentor, which was a kind of hybrid between geocentrism and heliocentrism). It must be remembered that in 1651 there was no clear empirical evidence in support of heliocentrism -- astronomers had been looking for things like stellar parallax and Coriolis forces in projectiles for decades and hadn't found them. (It wasn't until the mid-1700s, a full century after the Galileo affair, that Bradley's chance observation of stellar aberration finally put Copernicanism on a solid empirical footing. Until then, it was just gradually adopted because the math was easier. And it wasn't until the 1800s that many of Riccioli's arguments against heliocentrism were finally refuted by empirical evidence.)
Imagine if we examined something like Riccioli's complex scientific debates as part of learning about the history of science, rather than our own scientific "fairytale" about Galileo triumphing over ignorant religion. In fact it was Galileo who was trotting out ignorant and weird arguments, while both mischaracterizing the strength of his own arguments and lampooning his opponents for their valid objections.
(His only empirical "proof" for heliocentrism revolved around the tides, which required there to be only one high tide per day, and which would have to occur at noon. Obviously this contradicted empirical evidence... but, well, that was the best he had. He also rejected Kepler's empirically derived elliptical orbits and Kepler's empirically derived theory of tides caused by the moon -- because, well, circles are more cool and lunar tides didn't fit his theory. This certainly doe
But neither case resolves the question of whether the fetus has a right to life. And even if it did, it wouldn't answer the question of whether that right trumps that of the person carrying it. And even of it did, it doesn't answer the question of whether the person carrying the fetus has the power to make a decision to terminate, for example in the case of severe malformations.
The rights of a person end when they start to impair the rights of others. The legal status of an embryo or fetus is inconsistent. If the mother is murdered, the suspect is charged with double murder. However, the mother can choose to terminate the pregnancy (at least through the first trimester) without any legal ramifications. The moral question has always been when does that embryo or fetus become human enough to enjoy human rights.
I think you would find that many conservatives are against elective abortions (especially if funded with tax money). OTOH, extremely few conservatives would judge a woman for aborting a pregnancy which resulted from rape, or if the woman's life was in undue peril, or if the fetus has a severe defect. There is debate and personal opinion over what constitutes a severe defect. Some feel that Down's Syndrome is reason enough to abort, while others feel something even more severe (malformed heart, for example) is the only reason to abort. Ultimately, only perspective parents facing such a situation can fully understand the choice they face.
But, hey, conservatives live in a world that is much more black & white than the rest of us. So I can't expect you to recognize the legitimacy of those questions. Nor even the legitimacy of whether society has a right to settle those questions instead of deferring to the woman, given how they relate to bodily integrity, how complex the issues are, and how entirely inconsequential (in real terms, not moral) the decision to abort is to society.
It's determined more by being religious than being conservative. I'm religious, spiritual, and conservative. I personally feel that individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices, but I don't want my money to fund things I'm morally opposed to. I am also in favor of protecting unborn children at the point where they could survive outside the womb (no late term abortions except in extraordinary circumstances). As to real terms vs morality, some say that morals are what separate humans from lesser animals.