This guy is pretty funny as he discusses — in a way and saying things you wouldn’t expect — the clash between science and religion from the perspective a trained scientist with an impressive resume who’s an astronomer at the Vatican. The above is the first half. For the full 54 minute version, go here.
For a slightly different look at religion, watch the full version of Bill Maher’s film, Religulous, here.
Hmm, ‘science describes, it doesn’t prove’. You might not like this guy’s religion, but he sure knows how to put some words together.
Even as an atheist, I don’t really perceive religion, in itself, as evil. The evil is in the dogmatism that often accompanies religious belief. Lose the dogma and reasonable people can gracefully agree to disagree. A marvelous interview. Thank you.
Pretty good interview.
However, when ee references that Pluto is no longer declared a planet and hence science is also suspect as being ‘factual’ is a bit of stretch to place creationism on the same level.
He lost some points there, but either way he is the best theologian I’ve heard.
The real question is why someone like him isn’t the pope? That is the mystery.
Actually, the Vatican is a majority owner of the large binocular telescope on Mount Graham here in Arizona, so they really are supportive of astronomy.
Of course the Vatican has a telescope. How else are they going to find where God’s at?
I genuinely like Bill Maher because he’s often very perceptive and entertaining but I don’t respect his film, Religulous, at all because Maher consistently represents religionists by those at the very bottom of the totem pole of theological understanding. I was completely bored by listening to Guy Consolmagno.
Just it. Vatican spots God on Pluto.
Just in. I’m typing in the dark. Geesh.
I’ll look forward to giving these a view later. Still, I’m prejudiced enough to say from these comments alone:
1. Amadangadingdong: To the degree it has any meaning, only science proves anything. Religion began with proof and after science showed it to be wrong on every bit and boogle, it has defaulted to the “faith” position.
2. pfkad—Its definitional. I define religion as one person’s relationship to god. After that, its all politics.
3. Dallas–always reasonable. “The Best” of any group rarely makes it too the top. Like “Survival Island” the best are voted off the island by losers.
4. Ariane–interesting. “Investment” in something that makes no money? ((Is that true?)) Must be their guilty conscience.
5. JimR–since you said that, can’t get the image of “Up Angles’ Skirts” out of my mind.
6. Shubee–its the bottom that supports the top.
7. Jimr–no doubling up. But I will rest on my seventh effort.
Nice video at the link. Opens with VLC.
1. Masters in Planetary Sciences with post doc work + a Jesuit.
2. Galileo– “no one knows what happened”==then he goes on with his own certainty about what happened.
3. Bold to say the Church was wrong about Galileo==why doesn’t he take on birth control or stem cell research?
4. Why does the church have an astronomer?—to address the myth there is a “split” between the church and science. HAH!! Everything we know about the church is wrong. They are a scientific bastion of open inquiry.
5. “Newtons Equations are a poem.” along with “Science never proves.”==yea, he does say that. It seems any self correcting system of knowledge is defective because it doesn’t START with the invariable truth. What a dope.
6. The problem with science is “it starts with a description and calls that proof.” As opposed to what?
7. So–I stopped watching at 15 min when they criticized atheism for its certainty. I’m just too thin skinned I guess.
Somehow I think my world view is better informed than listening to celibate misogynists lost in the intricacies of their outdated dogma.
#7 – Bobo
>>I stopped watching at 15 min when they
>>criticized atheism for its certainty.
Tee hee! Every religion has its sensitive types, doesn’t it?
#9 Bobo
Of coutse you know that human intelligence is very limited, as is it’s scope and perspective.
Ptolemy had some very elegant equations, later to be replaced by better ones. Same with all your scientists, at some point, even Einstein. Science is a means not an end. Proof is always temporary, waiting on a better theory. There is and always will be a great deal more to learn than all the accumulation of human knowledge past present or future. Your assumption that religion’s purpose is the same as science’s only demonstrates your lack of knowledge on both topics. Understandably so, both are so dreadfully underdeveloped in most humans.
#11–Mustard–I was actually more afraid than sensitive about it. Borrowing from Pulp Fiction–the two guys where so into themselves, I thought they were going to start giving each other blowjobs, so I stopped my “review.” Now I’m at 24 min and the conversation goes back to being typically religiously mundane==mocking everything they don’t believe. “Fundamentalist Culture” “Literalist Mentality”– I notice no mirrors around so they might catch a glimpse of themselves.
So yea–opposing sides to a controversy can paradoxically use many of the same words and concepts to describe each other. This rhetorical ass pit is no longer relevant when you actually have a problem in the real world to solve. So, when rhetoric can’t show you who is right==who is more likely right: The group that brings you an everlasting afterlife but nothing on earth, or the group that has given us everything else?
#12–amodedoma==tell us truthfully: most other people is everyone but yourself right? You’d love to be up there on stage wouldn’t you!
Silly to equate the majesty of scientific accomplishments and its findings and reversions yet to come with the completely bogus made up crap of religion.
#13 – Bobo
>> So, when rhetoric can’t show you who is
>>right==who is more likely right: The group
>>that brings you an everlasting afterlife but
>>nothing on earth, or the group that has given
>>us everything else?
A place for everything, and everything in its place, Bobo. Do you criticize the baker because he doesn’t provide you filet mignon? Record producers, because they don’t clean your swimming pool? The why criticize faith and spirituality because they don’t provide you with an understanding of quarks or genetics?
Pretty funny though, that the criticism of Atheists’ excessive certainty should sting so smartly.
At 41min24sec: Best self delusion ever stated: “Science, being invented by human being is not the truth. Science is always reaching for the truth, there is always more to know, so its not truth. Religion is the truth that we don’t completely understand.”
—-and no sense of dissonance at all.
#16–Mustard==you ask: “The why criticize faith and spirituality because they don’t provide you with an understanding of quarks or genetics?” /// I don’t. I criticize faith ((stop confusing faith with spirituality)) because it is patently ridiculous and explains NOTHING!!!! Religion would have so much more power and appeal as you seem to take it, IF there was only one religion. Only one alternative contesting for the hearts and mind of man. But sadly, there are many conflicting religions and the same religion’s truth changing over time, make the delusional status of “religion” self apparent.
49m15sec–on the growth of personal doubt==doesn’t understand sequential testing of the same group. His criticisms “must be” a rhetorical trick? Makes me start to think this guy just might be very dishonest.
Hard to tell with religious types though.
#14 bobbo
No such narcisist here, just contrast. I agree with you on many things, this motivates a response when I don’t. I understand that religion has not advanced like science, but this may be due to the fact that it’s become a social and political tool. But, for the most part the message is not lost. Imagine a world with our human scientific and technological prowess without any structuring of values. I tell you we’d all be dead by now without those religions your ancestors cherished and you seem to despise.
#18 – Bobo
>>((stop confusing faith with spirituality))
(((No))) confusion on my === part, (((Bobo))). It’s you who conflate faith/ spirituality with the hellfire and damnation of Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard.
>>it is patently ridiculous and
>>explains NOTHING!!!!
No, Bobo. It doesn’t explain quarks and genetics. Do you call your television set patently ridiculous because it doesn’t make telephone calls? Your lawnmower, because it doesn’t display pornographic videos?
>> But sadly, there are many conflicting
>>religions
To steal a line from 41, “there you go again”. Confusing “religions” with faith/ spirituality. One brings peace, dogmatic assertion of the other brings war and strife.
#20 – Amo
>>I tell you we’d all be dead by now without
>>those religions your ancestors cherished and
>>you seem to despise.
Bobo is like a petulant tween, stomping his foot and saying “I hate you, Mommy!” when his bedtime comes.
He’ll grow out of it. I hope.
# 20–amodedoma==there have been many threads here (some of which you must have read, but maybe not) thrashing the whole “religion as morality” argument.
Bottom line and post back if you “really” need detail: morality certainly has a Darwinian survival advantage developed in all herd animals. Anyone following most of the bibles “morality” would be quickly put to death for being an a-hole. So, yea==follow most but not all of Jebeesus’s teachings and you are on solid ground==just ignore the rest of the bible’s some 500 other commandments/directives/morality.
#21–Mustard==you say: “To steal a line from 41, “there you go again”. Confusing “religions” with faith/ spirituality. One brings peace, dogmatic assertion of the other brings war and strife. ////
I already posted that if you keep religion to yourself its fine. But who ever does that?
bobbo
Symbolic understanding and not literal interpretation, good advice to the religious and scientific alike.
#24 – Bobo
>>But who ever does that?
I do.
In spite of your endless efforts to make me evangelize my beliefs to you, I keep them to myself.
And it seems you’ve got your panties all in a twist over it.
>>I already posted that if you keep
>>religion to yourself its fine.
Well, not exactly. Ever since I’ve been reading your posts, you take it upon yourself to berate, badger, and belittle anyone who doesn’t hold your firm Atheist convictions. It seems YOU are the evangelist here, Bobster.
Whatever this astronomers education, he got to avoid stepping on the toes of his employer. So naturally he’ll express an opinion that doesn’t clash with Vatican law. Or he wouldn’t have the job he has, for very long. But so-called real astronomers are also under the gun of their patrons. And can’t express too radial an opinion, for fear of loosing their position too.
Astronomers tend to be atheists, when their patrons are also, and feel more comfortable with their kind around. And no college board wants an astronomer who prays, if it drives away any potential paying students. But in a so-called religious college or institution. Such an astronomer would be an attractive asset. So these stargazer’s beliefs are heavily influenced by their job security. That goes for the atheists, too.
Let me start by saying that for the most part I agree with pfkad for the most part.
Who said; “Even as an atheist, I don’t really perceive religion, in itself, as evil. The evil is in the dogmatism that often accompanies religious belief. Lose the dogma and reasonable people can gracefully agree to disagree. A marvelous interview. Thank you.”
Now let me also say that after having a 45 min one on one discussion with Guy in 2007 in front of my class he cannot handle any real dissent from his own opinions.(Maybe because he surrounds himself with people that agree with him most of the time at the Vatican) After he left I asked the class who had won the debate and all but a couple of religious nuts agreed that I did as he became so mad that he turned away from me after 45 min and said I will talk to anyone else. When nobody said anything he left the room. (He may not be returning to Michigan Tech after I roasted him in front of the teacher and the class) So after that till we have another sit down anything this guy says is held by me to be incompetent as he will have to prove himself to me in another in person debate.
If Guy reads this he will remember the debate in the Mind and Machines class at Michigan Tech in the fall of 2007 after he gave his two speeches on a stage at the Rozsa Center where he could control the discussion and attacked a few atheists I then found out he was coming to my class and so I was given the chance to debate him where he was not in control. Anytime anyplace I will be ready for you again Guy as I still have the notes I wrote (Instead of going to class) which I used to poke holes all in the “God Delusion” which Guy suffers from.