Reader Grania sent me a piece from the Catholic News Agency called “Vatican astronomer: science opens the door to dialogue.” Of course with a title like that the article is bound to be dire, and Grania added a note: “The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.” But that’s not completely accurate, for cognitive dissonance is the condition of mental disturbance experienced when one holds conflicting views simultaneously. There’s no evidence that the astronomer, Brother Guy Consolmagno, is disturbed in the least.
Consolmagno is described as “curator of the Vatican Meteorite collection” in the article, a job that surely allows him plenty of free time. He’s also a Jesuit, and, like Pope Francis, is from Argentina, although he got a Ph.D. at the University of Arizona and served in the Peace Corps in Kenya. (By the way, the director of the Vatican Observatory from 1978-2006 was one Fr. George Coyne, a name that caused me genuine cognitive dissonance.)
It’s a short article, but one replete with acommodationism; and I’ll highlight a few choice bits. One of its most annoying implications is that astronomy brings us closer to God and helps us understand the deity and his creation—but not just for Consolmagno but for everyone.
Of those who share his same field of study, the brother stated that “we are really all in this field of astronomy for the same reasons.”
“Astronomy is not going to make you rich, it is not going to get you powerful, astronomy is not going to get you girls, didn’t work for me anyway, but astronomy does connect you up with that same moment of joy that I also experience in prayer.”
Unless Jesuits are allowed to have connubial bliss, I doubt that Fr. Consolmagno can have “girls,” but the invidious part is comparing the joy of scientific discovery with that of prayer. Maybe the emotions are similar (I wouldn’t know), but I’d think the joy of finding out something new would be of a higher order than the joy experienced by communing with a nonexistent being.
But I quibble here; in the rest of the article Consolmagno implies that astronomy is for many—religious and layperson alike—a way to answer The Big Questions about humanity:
Highlighting how it was not his “cat” that wanted to look through the lens, the brother observed that this experience of wonder at creation speaks about man’s constant search for God, because “this is something human beings do, this is something human beings ask about.”
“They want to know what are those stars, why are there stars, why are we here, what is this all about, where did we come from,” he explained.
“This is what makes us more than just well fed cows and if you starve somebody from being able to ask those questions, you are denying them their humanity.”
Speaking of the link between science and religion, Br. Consolmagno observed that “it is an important part of being human to ask, who are we, how do we fit into this big universe, and it is an important part of being of human to recognize in this creation the hand of the one who made it.”
I’m not sure what the “cat” is about, although he may be invidiously equating it with the presumably incurious and dull “well fed cows”. But of course cats are curious! At any rate, what Consolmagno elides is the question of whether religion can actually answer those questions we’re compelled to ask. Perhaps he thinks that Catholicism gives answers, but then what about the divergent “answers” provide by other faiths? And if it’s an important part of being human to recognize the Creator God, then, well, I guess that most of us here aren’t human.
“The astonishing thing to me about astronomy is not only that the universe makes sense and I can come up with equations and explain it,” he continued, “but the way it makes sense is beautiful.”
“God chose to create a universe that was at the same time logical and beautiful, one that I can enjoy with my brain and enjoy with my heart,” he stressed, going on to say that this “tells me something about who God is and how He creates and how He’s expecting me to relate to Him.”
I challenge Fr. Consolmagno to give me an example of a universe containing us that doesn’t “make sense.” I doubt he can come up with one, though I can think of a universe that makes more sense than his. It’s a universe, as Sean Carroll mentioned in yesterday’s video, that contains only one galaxy—ours. Why would God want all those superfluous galaxies and uninhabitable stars, or those without planets? I suppose he could respond that there may be life in other galaxies, but then he’d have to further explain how those inhabitants could also be saved by Jesus, who lived and died on Earth. (Philosopher Michael Ruse once did this by positing an “intergalactic Jesus” who traveled through the universe saving people left and right.)
Finally, I’d like to know exactly what Consolmagno has learned from his astronomy studies about who God is and how he creates and how he wants us to relate to him. I suspect his answer would involve not astronomical observations, but special pleading involving what the Bible and Church teachings say. Can you really find out how God wants us to deal with him by looking through a telescope? And if God wants to make those answers clear, why didn’t he just put them in his holy scriptures? Did God really need us to wait until the 17th-century invention of the telescope to fully understand what he wants? Why is God so coy about revealing his presence and desires?
Addressing the fact that many are surprised at the existence of the Vatican Observatory, Br. Consolmagno stated that “that’s part of the reason we exist; to surprise people.”
“To make people realize that the church not only supports science, literally… but we support and embrace and promote the use of both our hearts and our brains to come to know how the universe works.”
Let us be clear. We can never understand how the universe works by using our hearts. Our hearts tell us what makes us feel good, and how we’d like things to be—but not how things really are. The heart is notoriously bad at ferreting out the truth.
As for the “dialogue” between science and religion touted in the article’s title, well, that’s just wishful thinking. It’s not a dialogue, but a one-way monologue: science tells religion that its claims are wrong or untestable, but religion has nothing to contribute to science. Such a dialogue is purely wishful thinking on the part of the faithful, and most scientists won’t have anything to do with it. As Sean Carroll noted, the idea of god doesn’t add, and never has added, anything to our understanding of the cosmos.
Here’s Consolmagno:

His appearance reminds me of someone, but I can’t put my finger on who. Maybe George Clooney with glasses?






