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.
Sure you can; I hate your wit.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it.
I'm not trying to be churchy, just informative. You have every right to conceive of God's existence or lack thereof in your own way. I'm just saying that the Abrahamic God (as described in the Old Testament) gives the human race free will.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
In addition to now being the director of the Vatican Observatory, he's a scifi fan and a regular speaker at scifi cons on astronomy. Very enjoyable and very informative.
He's a serious scientist who also is a Jesuit Brother. That's not a conflict for him.
Here's more info at Wikipedia: Guy_Consolmagno
The Vatican Observatory also runs the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope on Mount Graham near Tuscon. Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope
It's optimized for photometry so it's a good fit with Brother Guy's research on asteroids and other small objects in the solar system.
He can also, apparently, choose to never exist.
about the world, you are not a good scientist," except when talking about global warming, because that science is settled.
I'll feed the Troll. Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Because the liberals agree with global warming. When the issue is something conservatives believe in, like anti-abortion, despite it being scientifically proven that babies can, after about 4 months, move, have a heartbeat and brain, sense pain, and react to stimuli, the science is ignored and remains unsettled (if not directly ignored in favor of whatever the liberals are pushing at the moment).
So can a chick fetus, just after a few days, even.
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.
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.
Strawman. You can speak all you want. Don't complain when it is pointed out that you are not speaking the truth. This is what science strives for.
No. Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science. Largely because of the Greek philosophical methods it adopted, which allows for postulating and expressing alternative views, and has a sophisticated view of epistemology. The church, however, has persecuted scientists many times, and surpressed scientific inquiry.
Just ask the Jesuits. Nobody could ever seriously question their faith. But their penchant for intense study and examination of the world has caused many to doubt their faith, leading the church to attempt to extinguish the order many times. Most recent example I read about was Buddhism, where in the late 1600s a handful of Jesuits had studied Buddhism in Asia for decades. Some other orders thought the knowledge they brought back (despite no Jesuit converting or otherwise waivering) was too threatening, and arrnaged for the pope to recall all the Jesuits in the far east. Some scholars have posited that some of the ideas the Jesuits brought back re Buddhism helped kindle the Enlightenment.
"Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God,"
Do you mean the same good which people believe flooded the world, killing untold number of human ? Which smote Sodom and Gomorrah under the pretense there was absolutely nobody, not even a child, which was innocent ? Which ordered various Israeli tribe to kill all adult , including children, but keep nubile women for themselves ? Killing children by mauling them with bear ? The one which ordered a father to kill its kids as a test of faith ? Or as a result of a bet ruined the life of another ?
The god of the new testament is somewhat kinder if only by its absence. But the god of the old testament is as far as "hand off" as you can be.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
yeah because flooding the whole of the globe and then putting in contradicting evidence in the earth is totally hands off.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
" Arizona, where the skies are clearer."
Also, the meth is cheaper, to stay awake at night.
Thank you for giving us permission to think. Now that I finally have that freedom I have to ask; is there a hands-on kind of god?
Yes, their names are available in the Fortune list of global banks and corporations. You are free to worship in any of their churches and tithe all of your earnings there. These gods are very interested in every single little detail of your life and will stop at nothing to get involved with you as much as possible. They're happy to influence your destiny, they just don't want you to know that they do.
You're free to "think" you are free whether you believe in God or not.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The Christian god loves you so, so, so much, that he died for your sins!
Now, in the of chance you might, maybe, not love him just as much, over there's the place he prepared for you. You know, just in case.
[/sarcasm]
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
You kind of proved the GP's point with your black and white reasoning, and it's about as far from the truth as possible.
I wasn't originally planning on going into detail about bad behavior by the Church, but you had to go and wave the red flag. So suck this up.
The number of people executed by the Spanish Inquisition is estimated to be between 3000 and 5000.
Was that supposed to rock me back on my heels or something? Have you any idea about the period under discussion? Genghis Khan put 40 million people to the sword by one means or another not long beforehand, double Stalin's total. The Black Death put between a quarter and a third of the population of Europe in the ground. It was a very nasty period with very nasty people doing very nasty things. Which brings us neatly to the next point.
Your argument that it's OK because of other good works is completely morally corrupt.
Good thing that's not the argument I was making then, isn't it. I said in the context of the times, the Church while no shining beacon of light was probably better than most, not that the crimes of the Church are perfectly okay.
Because that's your position translated to a more obnoxious context.
Amp it up, amp it up, make sure any disagreement with your hate gets classified as hate.
Even the slightest examination of history shows that religious authority over peoples live inevitably results in revolting behavior.
Funnily enough you could say the same about most Marxist regimes, except with more mass murder.
The final insult is your hypocrisy.
Maybe if you read what was actually written you'd have fewer windmills to tilt at.
And don't worry, I have plenty more insults.
Struck a nerve, did we? :D I'm good, I've got my popcorn a'popping and my feet on the coffee table to watch the show, so carry on.
It's not as though you have any choice in the matter.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
So basically you are claiming that hate cannot exist if infinite love exists, right? Isn't that a bit like saying negative numbers cannot exist because there are infinite positive numbers?
(Disclaimer, I am an atheist)
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Check your facts -- Galileo didn't get into trouble for his heliocentric theories, he got into trouble for calling the pope an idiot for asking for the evidence -- who was on the side of science there? Galileo had been told to stop teaching heliocentrism in Church schools unless he had some evidence to support it, and Galileo threw a hissy fit and refused to stop. Even the inquisition said that if he had evidence to support the theory he'd be in the clear. (Unfortunately, the only evidence he had was from telescopes, which were unproven and many scientists at the time regarded in much the same way as scientists regard E-meters nowadays.)
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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.
I'd take a mosey through the Greek pantheon. You'll probably find a couple that meddled in the affairs of mortals.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
If you mean actual reasoning debate about whether AGW is happening, yes, that's pretty well over. If you mean how it's going to proceed, what the costs to humanity will be, or what to do about it, there's plenty of debate. If you mean debate as in one side talking science and the other arguing with nitpicks and ad hominems, it's still going on.
The Earth's surface is warming up. That's based on observations, and is not open to question. There's no halfway reasonable way to interpret the data as anything other than not-particularly-steady warming. There's also observations like what's happening with polar ice (it's diminishing) and unusual weather patterns (although it has to stay unusual for a long time to constitute good evidence).
Since the Nineteenth Century, we've known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere would warm the place up. Since 1850, the concentration has gone from about 280 parts per million to about 400, also not open to question. The change in the isotopic distribution of the carbon in the carbon dioxide (specifically, the amount of carbon-14) strongly suggests that the change is due to the release of old carbon, such as our burning of fossil fuels, and in fact we are burning sequestered carbon in amounts more than large enough to account for this change (suggesting that some of the carbon dioxide is being absorbed somewhere). There's no other obvious reason for the warming (climate scientists measure the sun).
Given this, we have the rough outline of a theory that we're burning fossil fuels (also not open to question), which increases the carbon dioxide in the air, which warms up the Earth's surface. This is Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are no competing theories that match the observations. Such a theory would have to say that the carbon dioxide doesn't have its expected effect because of X, and the observed warming is due to Y. I'm not saying that couldn't happen, but I've seen no indication of what X and Y might be. Until someone comes up with such a theory, the science is pretty well settled. That doesn't mean it can't be unsettled if somebody has a bright idea, but at this stage that seems very unlikely.
The next question is where it's going from here, and that's hardly settled, although the projections all indicate rising temperatures for some time if we don't do anything differently. Other questions include how much harm that's going to do, how much it'll be helpful, what happens if we vary the amount of sequestered carbon we burn, and what other means we have to change the global climate. Again, there's a lot of debate, although there's a general consensus that it will be be very expensive if we don't do something.
The question of what we should do about it is political and economical, not scientific. It would be nice if the politicians involved would pay attention to the science, though.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's no argument about the science involved in abortion. We can determine all that.
The question is moral, and there's no way to settle that scientifically. There is no scientific way to determine who has what moral rights, or how to reconcile conflicting rights.
My position is that a woman has the right to not endanger herself for another's benefit. If my brother needed a kidney donation, and I was the only match, there's no law that says that I have to give him one. If I agree, I can back out at any time. I believe that in bone marrow transplants they kill the patient's bone marrow first, to prepare for the transplant. In a case like that, I have the legal right to agree to donate, wait until the recipient's marrow is destroyed so the recipient is going to die pretty fast without a transplant, and back out. Similarly, I don't believe a woman should be legally forced to support a fetus with her own tissue. This is why I believe that a woman should have the legal right to get an abortion. (This is not entirely a moral argument, and I strongly support some laws that make it possible for people to do things I consider immoral - free speech, for example.)
We know how fetuses develop in the womb. We all know that they develop a heart, a brain (which starts having recognizably human activity after a while), and can move on their own at certain stages. There is no scientific controversy. What people seem to disagree about is at what point human rights come in, and that isn't a scientific question. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it isn't a human, for all moral purposes, until human-like brain activity starts. Other people disagree.
I will point out that Roe vs. Wade didn't say that any pregnant woman could get an abortion at any time. It rejected legal limits on abortion in the first trimester. After Roe vs. Wade came out, I was expecting lots of states to pass laws that went up to the edge of what the Supreme Court said they could do, and it didn't happen. In fact, a law that forbade abortions past about four months (the time you mentioned) except for medical reasons wouldn't affect things much, as most abortions are well before that.
The science of prenatal development is pretty well settled, and I haven't noticed anyone arguing about it. The ethics, and what the law should say, are not scientific questions and are subjects of debate.
(By the way, I'm not aware of legal systems that treated abortions like murders. This means that those people who argue that abortion is murder do not have general acceptance or tradition on their side. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, although I am saying they're wrong, but it's up to them to argue for a reclassification.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes