What do you think?
Rate this book
Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist
Blending memoir, science, history and theology, Guy Consolmagno takes us on this exploration of Vatican science. We tour the Vatican's meteorite collection and learn how astronomy progresses despite its dearth of tactile evidence. It seeks to prove that not all religion is hostile to science.
246 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2000
19 people are currently reading
276 people want to read
About the author
Guy Consolmagno
32 books45 followersAmerican research astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory.
B.A. and M.A. at MIT, Ph.D. at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, all in planetary science. After postdoctoral research and teaching at Harvard College Observatory and MIT, in 1983 he joined the US Peace Corps to serve in Kenya for two years, teaching astronomy and physics. After his return he took a position as Assistant Professor at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
In 1989 he entered the Society of Jesus, and took vows as a brother in 1991. On entry into the order, he was assigned as an astronomer to the Vatican Observatory, where he also serves as curator of the Vatican Meteorite collection, positions he has held since then. In addition to his continuing professional work in planetary science, he has also studied philosophy and theology. (source: Wikipedia)
B.A. and M.A. at MIT, Ph.D. at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, all in planetary science. After postdoctoral research and teaching at Harvard College Observatory and MIT, in 1983 he joined the US Peace Corps to serve in Kenya for two years, teaching astronomy and physics. After his return he took a position as Assistant Professor at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
In 1989 he entered the Society of Jesus, and took vows as a brother in 1991. On entry into the order, he was assigned as an astronomer to the Vatican Observatory, where he also serves as curator of the Vatican Meteorite collection, positions he has held since then. In addition to his continuing professional work in planetary science, he has also studied philosophy and theology. (source: Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
September 2, 2014
Obviously, I gave it 5 stars, so I love this book. Your mileage WILL vary, because the last third of the book (the trip to Antarctica to collect meteorites) is not going to be about a subject and personalities that you know, love, and cite in your refereed journal articles. I hope you enjoy it anyway, but it won't be as much as I did.
In fact that's not confined to the last third of the book, but it's present here and there throughout. If you're interested in learning a LOT about what current (well, the 70s to the 90s, since this is a memoir written in what, 2002?) planetary science is like, please do yourself a favor and pick up this book. Even more so if you're actually a Christian.
Another endearing part of this book is the author's humility. He's quite aware that he's not the world's greatest anything, and in fact he makes it pretty clear his religious superiors ordered him to put together this memoir because they think his life and vocation has been worth sharing. In response, he really minimizes his own role. As he retells his life, he is at subtle pains to make it clear that he was NEVER the smartest guy in the room, and that the academic success he has had has been due in no small part to being in the right place at the right time. Guy is, ironically, a pretty simple guy who happens to always have been in love with God and at the same time with His creation in a very real and detailed way.
In fact that's not confined to the last third of the book, but it's present here and there throughout. If you're interested in learning a LOT about what current (well, the 70s to the 90s, since this is a memoir written in what, 2002?) planetary science is like, please do yourself a favor and pick up this book. Even more so if you're actually a Christian.
Another endearing part of this book is the author's humility. He's quite aware that he's not the world's greatest anything, and in fact he makes it pretty clear his religious superiors ordered him to put together this memoir because they think his life and vocation has been worth sharing. In response, he really minimizes his own role. As he retells his life, he is at subtle pains to make it clear that he was NEVER the smartest guy in the room, and that the academic success he has had has been due in no small part to being in the right place at the right time. Guy is, ironically, a pretty simple guy who happens to always have been in love with God and at the same time with His creation in a very real and detailed way.
June 12, 2013
Brother Astronomer, Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, by Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ, McGraw-Hill, 2000.
In the Alban Hills south of Rome, there is a Jesuit who is an astronomer. He has degrees from MIT and the University of Arizona. He spent 25 years as a planetary astronomer. For the last 10 years he has also been a Jesuit brother, a student of the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius. For him his study is his worship. He spends half a year at the Specola Vaticana HQ in the Papal Palace at Castel Gandolfo. The other half of the year he is with the Vatican Observatory Research Group in Tucson.
His primary research interest is in the physical evolution of meteorites. The Vatican has one of the largest meteorite collections. It was a donation of the French nobleman, the Marquis de Mauroy. The collection is housed at the Pope's summer residence, a palace which is 600 years old and has two telescope domes. It was built as a villa by one who later became Pope and put Galileo on trial. The palace (and meteorites) are guarded by Italian police and the Swiss Guards.
His scientific work has dealt with the density and porosity of meteorites in relation to the weathering they undergo. There are about 15,000 known meteorites. 1,000 of these have been seen to come from the sky. Four of these have been recorded photographically so as to calculate their orbits. All four were discovered to have originated from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
He studied the rare earth element content of some meteorites. He was working with basaltic meteorites that are much like the lava of Earth. These meteorites originate from the beginning of the solar system. Little or no geochemical change has affected them since then. In particular, he worked with the rare earth element distribution in eucrites, a subclassification of basaltic meteorites that have well-formed crystals.
He had started with lunar basalts and then began to consider eucritic meteorites. He built upon the work of McCord who had done reflective spectra of solar system objects. The reflectance spectra were formed from light through a telescope that then passed into 24 filters of differing color. The filtered light was rated electronically for color. McCord then compared the reflectance spectra to laboratory spectra of known samples to find out of what the solar system object was made. McCord had mostly worked on the Moon. He compared telescopic views of the Moon with the lunar rocks returned from the Apollo program. Later he began to view asteroids.
Gaffey had found that the asteroid Vesta had a reflective spectra that, in detail, was very much like basaltic meteorites. It was the only asteroid to match up so well. Another scientist, Stolper, had originated the partial melt model for eucrites. The author found that the rare earth element distribution for eucrites was in line with Stolper's model. Also, the Lewis model of equilibrium condensation for solar system chemistry could be the possible starting point for the make-up of the source of the meteorites.
In sum, the eucrites might have originated from a good-sized asteroid of regular minerals in normal distribution and having undergone a small amount of melting. If only a small amount of melting occurred, then the asteroid is still there, in space. It should have the reflectance spectra of eucrites. Vesta is the only asteroid having a basaltic achrondrite, (eucritic) composition. Ergo, eucrites have Vesta as their source.
He became coauthor of "Composition and Evolution of the Eucrite Parent Body : Evidence from Rare Earth Elements". The article was accepted for publication and became influential because it adhered to a form of political correctness. The acceptance of this article leads the author into a discussion of how science is done. Others who have come before him think it is done by means of symbolic logic. The logical positivists think science is reality. The historicists find that human values enter in. Science is what a group of scientists say it is. The historical realists stress predictive value. Components of science can gain predictive status by the use of reason and by their level of sociability. He thinks the science he did relating to the eucrites mostly derives from historical realism.
How is science being done in regard to ALH84001? This Martian meteorite has been said to contain evidence of life. The author has his doubts. Mars had presumably had an equilibrium between its rocks and its atmosphere. A severe disequilibrium would be evidence of life. ALH84001 is severely changed. One change involves carbonate. Carbonate could have a microbial component. But Martian carbonates are chemically different from the carbonates of earth. Some have seen in the carbonate grains of magnetite which if seen in earthly rock is proof of a bacterial presence. But the scale for these Martian bacteria is very small. Mineral grains could be masquerading as bacterial evidence. Contamination of the samples is a possibility. Then, again, they could be from a Martian bacterial-like life form. If the level of evidence is in a zone of doubt where perception depends on a large element of guesswork then the outcome of judgment is prefigured by the desire to believe. What one believes can be what one sees. Lowell swore he saw canals on Mars. A few other people could also see them. The canals, as time went on, became their personal vision.
Galileo had a personal vision that came to be a part of science as we know it. If those of medieval times adopted the Ptolemaic system to demonstrate a moral order, says the author, Earth was toward the bottom of a great chain of Being and not the center of the Universe. The author devotes many pages to supplying a corrective to the mostly accepted view that the Church was only a heavy and Galileo was only a hero, as borne out by the trial of 1633. The author maintains that the "jealous, possessive attitude of Grassi and Galileo…caused the final breach."
Copernicus had published his book at the request of a churchman, Cardinal Nicholas von Schoenberg. The Church used predictions derived from the Copernican system to reform the calendar in 1582. Tycho Brahe's better later observations rendered Copernicanism obsolete, so thought the astronomers of the time. Brahe showed the Copernican system had glaring defects.
Grassi asked why comets had so far not shown retrograde motion, as Copernicus would have it. Orbital motions of comets, if known to be in elliptical orbits, had already been addressed by Kepler, but not many were paying attention and Galileo opted for circular orbits and no Keplerian laws, perhaps because he may not have understood Kepler's Latin.
Galileo was pushing some hot buttons that fired up the political scene and put points of debate before the Dominicans and the Jesuits. Religion was a serious business then. Science was an oddity pulling off some grandstand plays that could upset many an apple cart.
Galileo replied with a demand for experience and not the authority of the ancients. This is seen as a laudatory position to take up, but he also, says the author, sarcastically lied and put off those who might have aided him later. At Galileo's trail, the Jesuits stayed silent. The author maintains Galileo's trial of 1633 has served the purpose of bigots - antireligious and antiscientific.
The petard upon which to hoist the Church by science-as-religion adherents is the trial of Galileo. The author states that the trial was unique in Church history. The Church attempted to put science in a Biblical straightjacket. Yet Origen, St. Gregory, St. Augustine, and St. Aquinas taught the Bible as of God, not Nature. The Bible is transcendant poetry. Science is not of transcendance, nor are the religious fundamentalists.
Galileo truly committed the sin of popularization. What was properly understood by the Church and not by the commoner was where Galileo ventured. His official crime was disobedience.
Galieo's pop science, in his day, was far more useful than today's brand that craves spilt second entertainment. Not learning, entertainment. Not seeking, it's a give-me. At least one component must be free. Gnosticism for the masses. Astronomy has been called upon to answer questions regarding the end, the beginning, and a good deal in-between. The astronomers' answers aren't about human beings. Human beings are ultimately, decidedly not rational. Ultimately science is based on a nonrational concern for what-is. Religion subscribes to what-is-not, rationality need not be employed. Knowledge proceeds by asking. If we didn't need to ask, we wouldn't need answers. All rational knowledge is incomplete and forever will be. No rational knowledge is good, it only exists. Within religion is a good God creating a good Universe, says the author.
St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation is mentioned by the author as ratcheting further along the scale of good, a progressive trajectory while an evil, if it would be so, Creation ends in itself. Humankind partakes of Nature as a participatory element of a concern for what-is-not.
Some of humankind, a powerful group of planetary scientists, had blocked his research. A set of petty acts had become a vicious feud. Shades of Dominicans and Jesuits circa Galileo! The first spreadsheet program was being produced, he could get involved at a very lucrative salary. And there was a librarian. She was fun and attractive. He called the Peace Corps. On weekends, in Africa, in upcountry Kenya, he showed the natives what their countryside and the stars looked like through a small telescope. No ETs were seen.
ETs, if found, do not, in general, mean the end of religion in general. The author believes that as for Christianity, the ETs may make a contribution to theology, to expanding it. He regards alien contact as an opportunity for learning. We are to learn from our cosmic "cousins".
He closes his book with an account of his 1996 adventures in Antarctica hunting for meteorites. The blue ice fields of this southernmost region yield a great number of extraterrestrial rocks. His team got the biggest pile of clothes since they would be on the windy plateau. No sundown for months. Air like at 10,000 ft. but they had no vegetation at this sea level locale to cover smells of engines and mildew.
He was confronted with questions about the theological and philosophical significance of reports of fossil life in the Antarctican Allan Hills meteorite NO. 84001. Most people down there at the scientific base , like adolescents, were hostile to religion.
What was big, heavy, sturdy, and painful to steer? - a meteorite search team snowmobile. You don't sit at the controls of their snowmobiles. You faced sideways to see ahead and behind. Obstacles encountered in the path of a snowmobile were best taken straight on. He once became disoriented as he piloted around a valley-like bowl of snow. He was heading up the side, the engine was sputtering so he gunned it and went airborne, straight on past the rim of the bowl. A seagull flew under him as the plot of War and Peace played out in his mind. No problem, he had to come back down. How? He landed on the landed snowmobile. The engine died, his tailbone never recovered, and the search went on.
The not now unknown Antarctic plateau scared the hell out of him. They journeyed to a blue lake, a blue so very deep and bright. There by the lake they would collect OCs (ordinary chondrites) by removing a glove and letting their fingers freeze to a collection bag - the better to open the bag.
Tent days were those days when the snow was blowing. They were at close quarters, going nuts, engaging in private revenge, dirty looks, and swapping life stories. In a red bag were the artifacts of his religion, observed at 2 AM when all others were asleep.
It was a tiny human environment hemmed in by insular scientists investigating an astronomical connection between a few cold, cold rocks and what's-out-there. Three small tents and an empty horizon. But the religion he was doing and the science he was doing put humankind into a scale for things, if not infinite, close to it. Meanwhile he walked on ice for weeks, rarely not feeling useless. Sunrise came from every direction.
Without faith in a Creator God, a Universe declared good, how, asks the author, can you justify the belief that this Universe is worth studying? Any sense, then, to studying it at all?
In the Alban Hills south of Rome, there is a Jesuit who is an astronomer. He has degrees from MIT and the University of Arizona. He spent 25 years as a planetary astronomer. For the last 10 years he has also been a Jesuit brother, a student of the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius. For him his study is his worship. He spends half a year at the Specola Vaticana HQ in the Papal Palace at Castel Gandolfo. The other half of the year he is with the Vatican Observatory Research Group in Tucson.
His primary research interest is in the physical evolution of meteorites. The Vatican has one of the largest meteorite collections. It was a donation of the French nobleman, the Marquis de Mauroy. The collection is housed at the Pope's summer residence, a palace which is 600 years old and has two telescope domes. It was built as a villa by one who later became Pope and put Galileo on trial. The palace (and meteorites) are guarded by Italian police and the Swiss Guards.
His scientific work has dealt with the density and porosity of meteorites in relation to the weathering they undergo. There are about 15,000 known meteorites. 1,000 of these have been seen to come from the sky. Four of these have been recorded photographically so as to calculate their orbits. All four were discovered to have originated from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
He studied the rare earth element content of some meteorites. He was working with basaltic meteorites that are much like the lava of Earth. These meteorites originate from the beginning of the solar system. Little or no geochemical change has affected them since then. In particular, he worked with the rare earth element distribution in eucrites, a subclassification of basaltic meteorites that have well-formed crystals.
He had started with lunar basalts and then began to consider eucritic meteorites. He built upon the work of McCord who had done reflective spectra of solar system objects. The reflectance spectra were formed from light through a telescope that then passed into 24 filters of differing color. The filtered light was rated electronically for color. McCord then compared the reflectance spectra to laboratory spectra of known samples to find out of what the solar system object was made. McCord had mostly worked on the Moon. He compared telescopic views of the Moon with the lunar rocks returned from the Apollo program. Later he began to view asteroids.
Gaffey had found that the asteroid Vesta had a reflective spectra that, in detail, was very much like basaltic meteorites. It was the only asteroid to match up so well. Another scientist, Stolper, had originated the partial melt model for eucrites. The author found that the rare earth element distribution for eucrites was in line with Stolper's model. Also, the Lewis model of equilibrium condensation for solar system chemistry could be the possible starting point for the make-up of the source of the meteorites.
In sum, the eucrites might have originated from a good-sized asteroid of regular minerals in normal distribution and having undergone a small amount of melting. If only a small amount of melting occurred, then the asteroid is still there, in space. It should have the reflectance spectra of eucrites. Vesta is the only asteroid having a basaltic achrondrite, (eucritic) composition. Ergo, eucrites have Vesta as their source.
He became coauthor of "Composition and Evolution of the Eucrite Parent Body : Evidence from Rare Earth Elements". The article was accepted for publication and became influential because it adhered to a form of political correctness. The acceptance of this article leads the author into a discussion of how science is done. Others who have come before him think it is done by means of symbolic logic. The logical positivists think science is reality. The historicists find that human values enter in. Science is what a group of scientists say it is. The historical realists stress predictive value. Components of science can gain predictive status by the use of reason and by their level of sociability. He thinks the science he did relating to the eucrites mostly derives from historical realism.
How is science being done in regard to ALH84001? This Martian meteorite has been said to contain evidence of life. The author has his doubts. Mars had presumably had an equilibrium between its rocks and its atmosphere. A severe disequilibrium would be evidence of life. ALH84001 is severely changed. One change involves carbonate. Carbonate could have a microbial component. But Martian carbonates are chemically different from the carbonates of earth. Some have seen in the carbonate grains of magnetite which if seen in earthly rock is proof of a bacterial presence. But the scale for these Martian bacteria is very small. Mineral grains could be masquerading as bacterial evidence. Contamination of the samples is a possibility. Then, again, they could be from a Martian bacterial-like life form. If the level of evidence is in a zone of doubt where perception depends on a large element of guesswork then the outcome of judgment is prefigured by the desire to believe. What one believes can be what one sees. Lowell swore he saw canals on Mars. A few other people could also see them. The canals, as time went on, became their personal vision.
Galileo had a personal vision that came to be a part of science as we know it. If those of medieval times adopted the Ptolemaic system to demonstrate a moral order, says the author, Earth was toward the bottom of a great chain of Being and not the center of the Universe. The author devotes many pages to supplying a corrective to the mostly accepted view that the Church was only a heavy and Galileo was only a hero, as borne out by the trial of 1633. The author maintains that the "jealous, possessive attitude of Grassi and Galileo…caused the final breach."
Copernicus had published his book at the request of a churchman, Cardinal Nicholas von Schoenberg. The Church used predictions derived from the Copernican system to reform the calendar in 1582. Tycho Brahe's better later observations rendered Copernicanism obsolete, so thought the astronomers of the time. Brahe showed the Copernican system had glaring defects.
Grassi asked why comets had so far not shown retrograde motion, as Copernicus would have it. Orbital motions of comets, if known to be in elliptical orbits, had already been addressed by Kepler, but not many were paying attention and Galileo opted for circular orbits and no Keplerian laws, perhaps because he may not have understood Kepler's Latin.
Galileo was pushing some hot buttons that fired up the political scene and put points of debate before the Dominicans and the Jesuits. Religion was a serious business then. Science was an oddity pulling off some grandstand plays that could upset many an apple cart.
Galileo replied with a demand for experience and not the authority of the ancients. This is seen as a laudatory position to take up, but he also, says the author, sarcastically lied and put off those who might have aided him later. At Galileo's trail, the Jesuits stayed silent. The author maintains Galileo's trial of 1633 has served the purpose of bigots - antireligious and antiscientific.
The petard upon which to hoist the Church by science-as-religion adherents is the trial of Galileo. The author states that the trial was unique in Church history. The Church attempted to put science in a Biblical straightjacket. Yet Origen, St. Gregory, St. Augustine, and St. Aquinas taught the Bible as of God, not Nature. The Bible is transcendant poetry. Science is not of transcendance, nor are the religious fundamentalists.
Galileo truly committed the sin of popularization. What was properly understood by the Church and not by the commoner was where Galileo ventured. His official crime was disobedience.
Galieo's pop science, in his day, was far more useful than today's brand that craves spilt second entertainment. Not learning, entertainment. Not seeking, it's a give-me. At least one component must be free. Gnosticism for the masses. Astronomy has been called upon to answer questions regarding the end, the beginning, and a good deal in-between. The astronomers' answers aren't about human beings. Human beings are ultimately, decidedly not rational. Ultimately science is based on a nonrational concern for what-is. Religion subscribes to what-is-not, rationality need not be employed. Knowledge proceeds by asking. If we didn't need to ask, we wouldn't need answers. All rational knowledge is incomplete and forever will be. No rational knowledge is good, it only exists. Within religion is a good God creating a good Universe, says the author.
St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation is mentioned by the author as ratcheting further along the scale of good, a progressive trajectory while an evil, if it would be so, Creation ends in itself. Humankind partakes of Nature as a participatory element of a concern for what-is-not.
Some of humankind, a powerful group of planetary scientists, had blocked his research. A set of petty acts had become a vicious feud. Shades of Dominicans and Jesuits circa Galileo! The first spreadsheet program was being produced, he could get involved at a very lucrative salary. And there was a librarian. She was fun and attractive. He called the Peace Corps. On weekends, in Africa, in upcountry Kenya, he showed the natives what their countryside and the stars looked like through a small telescope. No ETs were seen.
ETs, if found, do not, in general, mean the end of religion in general. The author believes that as for Christianity, the ETs may make a contribution to theology, to expanding it. He regards alien contact as an opportunity for learning. We are to learn from our cosmic "cousins".
He closes his book with an account of his 1996 adventures in Antarctica hunting for meteorites. The blue ice fields of this southernmost region yield a great number of extraterrestrial rocks. His team got the biggest pile of clothes since they would be on the windy plateau. No sundown for months. Air like at 10,000 ft. but they had no vegetation at this sea level locale to cover smells of engines and mildew.
He was confronted with questions about the theological and philosophical significance of reports of fossil life in the Antarctican Allan Hills meteorite NO. 84001. Most people down there at the scientific base , like adolescents, were hostile to religion.
What was big, heavy, sturdy, and painful to steer? - a meteorite search team snowmobile. You don't sit at the controls of their snowmobiles. You faced sideways to see ahead and behind. Obstacles encountered in the path of a snowmobile were best taken straight on. He once became disoriented as he piloted around a valley-like bowl of snow. He was heading up the side, the engine was sputtering so he gunned it and went airborne, straight on past the rim of the bowl. A seagull flew under him as the plot of War and Peace played out in his mind. No problem, he had to come back down. How? He landed on the landed snowmobile. The engine died, his tailbone never recovered, and the search went on.
The not now unknown Antarctic plateau scared the hell out of him. They journeyed to a blue lake, a blue so very deep and bright. There by the lake they would collect OCs (ordinary chondrites) by removing a glove and letting their fingers freeze to a collection bag - the better to open the bag.
Tent days were those days when the snow was blowing. They were at close quarters, going nuts, engaging in private revenge, dirty looks, and swapping life stories. In a red bag were the artifacts of his religion, observed at 2 AM when all others were asleep.
It was a tiny human environment hemmed in by insular scientists investigating an astronomical connection between a few cold, cold rocks and what's-out-there. Three small tents and an empty horizon. But the religion he was doing and the science he was doing put humankind into a scale for things, if not infinite, close to it. Meanwhile he walked on ice for weeks, rarely not feeling useless. Sunrise came from every direction.
Without faith in a Creator God, a Universe declared good, how, asks the author, can you justify the belief that this Universe is worth studying? Any sense, then, to studying it at all?
January 3, 2014
Written by a former university physicist, current Jesuit priest and astronomer at the Vatican, the book was interesting mostly because I'd never read anything by anyone with that mix of backgrounds. The book jumped between genres - a couple science-y chapters explaining his current work (curator of largest collection of meteorites in the world), some chapters devoted to his life story, a few chapters were his essays on topics of interest (how religious types and scientists are misunderstood by each other and the general public, drawing connections between the methods of both), an amusing chapter about whether one should baptize intelligent life from other planets. And several chapters about his adventure camping in Antarctica driving around on snowmobiles looking for meteorites.
He has an amazing life to tell (he also volunteered for the peace corps teaching astronomy in Africa) and a unique perspective. In some places, the casual folksy style grated on me a bit - and since the book was basically a collection of his talks and stories, some I loved and others I could do without.
He has an amazing life to tell (he also volunteered for the peace corps teaching astronomy in Africa) and a unique perspective. In some places, the casual folksy style grated on me a bit - and since the book was basically a collection of his talks and stories, some I loved and others I could do without.
March 31, 2015
Although this book is actually a collection of essays, I found Father Guy's perspective on the intersection of Christian faith and science very heartwarming. Part memoir (especially towards the end where he recounts his trip to Antarctica to search for meteorites), part science lesson (an early section explains the science of meteorites), and part theology (well-sourced quotes from prominent Catholic thinkers combined with sound reasoning to work through the oft-quoted problems submitted by atheists) this is an AMAZING work for its short length. Definitely a great gift for any atheist or agnostic or fundamentalist who believes God and science cannot thrive together because they have for thousands of years.
May 12, 2017
Five stars for the man, three for the book.
Brother Consolmagno is an impressive human being. A degree from MIT, PhD from Arizon (the Mecca, sorry, force of habit...the Vatican of Astronomy), Professor at Harvard and MIT, Jesuit brother (not a priest, a professed member of the order without taking Holy Orders...minor quibble to some), head of the Vatican Observatory, meteorite collector and all around interesting guy. I would not hesitate to have a beer with him. I'll even pay.
Unfortunately, the book isn't as good as the man. It is written as half-autobiography, half-introduction to science and Catholicism. The style is very introductory and colloquial which is too bad because I'm certain he has more profound things to say. Much like his friend and colleague George Coyne, I think he bites his tongue too much. I don't know if this was an attempt to not upset his superiors in the scientific or ecclesiatic world, or perhaps the American audience who are overly sceptical of scientific claims, but he holds back.
There are many interesting anecdotes from a truly amazing life and the book is a light fast read, but a little too light and a little too fast. I suppose this may have been intentional for the intended audience but...
Anyways, a couple gems:
"It may be possible to 'Find God' without an organized religion; but you'd have about as much hope of getting it right, as you would from trying to derive all of modern physics from scratch on your own." (p. 121)
"People think we are looking for philosophical answers with our telescopes. What we're actually doing is inspiring philosophical questions." (p. 149)
Brother Consolmagno is an impressive human being. A degree from MIT, PhD from Arizon (the Mecca, sorry, force of habit...the Vatican of Astronomy), Professor at Harvard and MIT, Jesuit brother (not a priest, a professed member of the order without taking Holy Orders...minor quibble to some), head of the Vatican Observatory, meteorite collector and all around interesting guy. I would not hesitate to have a beer with him. I'll even pay.
Unfortunately, the book isn't as good as the man. It is written as half-autobiography, half-introduction to science and Catholicism. The style is very introductory and colloquial which is too bad because I'm certain he has more profound things to say. Much like his friend and colleague George Coyne, I think he bites his tongue too much. I don't know if this was an attempt to not upset his superiors in the scientific or ecclesiatic world, or perhaps the American audience who are overly sceptical of scientific claims, but he holds back.
There are many interesting anecdotes from a truly amazing life and the book is a light fast read, but a little too light and a little too fast. I suppose this may have been intentional for the intended audience but...
Anyways, a couple gems:
"It may be possible to 'Find God' without an organized religion; but you'd have about as much hope of getting it right, as you would from trying to derive all of modern physics from scratch on your own." (p. 121)
"People think we are looking for philosophical answers with our telescopes. What we're actually doing is inspiring philosophical questions." (p. 149)
August 5, 2019
I had to skim through some of the science-y stuff, much to my disappointment.
I'm looking forward to another book of his on my stack, thanks to Mary Lou and Tim Noble.
In the chapter "Holes in the SAnd:"
"Both physics and religion ask you to suspend your disbelief and take, on faith, some pretty unlikely propositions, things that seem counterintuitive. It's only by using these unlikely propositions to solve problems, living with them, testing them by experiment, that you can fully understand them, and see just under what circumstances they are valid.....
"I remember discussing with someone the mystery of the divinity of Jesus, and whether this particular unlikely proposition was really necessary. I remember realizing , and saying out loud, that Jesus being God was an essential part of my faith.
"If Jesus were just a very good man," I said, "I'd have no reason to follow his religion. I'm a good man , too - and I guess , in my egotistical way, I'd be inclined to believe that I'm as smart as anyone else, and I could come up with a religion as good as any other human being's. It's the fact that it is God Himself saying these things that makes me stop and listen.
"And it's precisely because my religion has mysteries that I know it has a ghost chance of being true. Anything that makes complete sense at first glance can't challenge you, can't possibly teach you anything new, and can't possibly be completely true."
I'm looking forward to another book of his on my stack, thanks to Mary Lou and Tim Noble.
In the chapter "Holes in the SAnd:"
"Both physics and religion ask you to suspend your disbelief and take, on faith, some pretty unlikely propositions, things that seem counterintuitive. It's only by using these unlikely propositions to solve problems, living with them, testing them by experiment, that you can fully understand them, and see just under what circumstances they are valid.....
"I remember discussing with someone the mystery of the divinity of Jesus, and whether this particular unlikely proposition was really necessary. I remember realizing , and saying out loud, that Jesus being God was an essential part of my faith.
"If Jesus were just a very good man," I said, "I'd have no reason to follow his religion. I'm a good man , too - and I guess , in my egotistical way, I'd be inclined to believe that I'm as smart as anyone else, and I could come up with a religion as good as any other human being's. It's the fact that it is God Himself saying these things that makes me stop and listen.
"And it's precisely because my religion has mysteries that I know it has a ghost chance of being true. Anything that makes complete sense at first glance can't challenge you, can't possibly teach you anything new, and can't possibly be completely true."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 9, 2022
Guy Consolmagno is a Jesuit Brother who also holds a Ph.D. in Astronomy. This book gives his perspective on how the two fields, Science and Religion, have interacted in his life. Very rarely does religion interfere with his science, but the reverse is not true. Once after a conference on whether or not a Martian origin meteorite contained fossils, he overheard two astronomers ascribe his skepticism to the fact that he was "the Vatican guy."
Guy gives a very entertaining account of his experiences as an Antarctic meteor hunter. He hid his practice of doing his daily Office (prayers a Catholic clergyman has to say everyday) and is taking of Consecrated Hosts apparently out of "deference" to his colleagues. I wondered if Guy had been a Buddhist Monk if he would have felt the same way.
Guy gives a very entertaining account of his experiences as an Antarctic meteor hunter. He hid his practice of doing his daily Office (prayers a Catholic clergyman has to say everyday) and is taking of Consecrated Hosts apparently out of "deference" to his colleagues. I wondered if Guy had been a Buddhist Monk if he would have felt the same way.
February 26, 2020
Very interesting but very technical, so a lot was over my head.
September 23, 2016
I have "known" Brother Guy through his Live Journal blog for some years and met him in person a few years ago at Renovation, the WorldCon in Reno. That was why I read this.
I liked it, but I enjoyed more the sections on his personal experiences rather than the history of science bits. I had no idea he had been on a meteorite-collecting expedition in Antarctica. That was interesting as his life leading up to becoming a Jesuit brother (before I encountered him, I thought the Jesuits only had priests - I didn't know they had brothers as well) and his work for the Vatican.
He explains at the back, though, the genesis of this book. It was based on earlier talks and lectures he had given in the past. This accounts for the unevenness - some were more scientific and some were more personal. I'm just interested in the personal. But I would still recommend it to others. Skip over what you don't enjoy.
I liked it, but I enjoyed more the sections on his personal experiences rather than the history of science bits. I had no idea he had been on a meteorite-collecting expedition in Antarctica. That was interesting as his life leading up to becoming a Jesuit brother (before I encountered him, I thought the Jesuits only had priests - I didn't know they had brothers as well) and his work for the Vatican.
He explains at the back, though, the genesis of this book. It was based on earlier talks and lectures he had given in the past. This accounts for the unevenness - some were more scientific and some were more personal. I'm just interested in the personal. But I would still recommend it to others. Skip over what you don't enjoy.
November 18, 2019
The blend of religion with science tends to be an unstable concoction for many, requiring the maintenance of two oft-opposing worldviews. Nonetheless, the author manages to thrive in an environment hell-bent on keeping pace with cutting edge science for largely (entirely??) religious purposes. Overall, an entertainingly-written book with great recaps on the author’s experiences in the scientific community and his personal views on the rifts between faith and reason.
November 12, 2015
As others have said, this book is a bit disjointed. More a series of separate essays than one coherent story throughout. I loved the overall theme and the glimpses into a scientific world I am not personally familiar with. I also love his message that spirituality and science do not have to be in conflict.
March 16, 2010
it's a bit scattered -- really more a bunch of essays than a coherent book, but his views on the non-exclusivity of science and religion are good reading, and his trip to Antarctica is pretty darn cool.
November 27, 2012
A Vatican Scientist. Hmmm... an oxymoron? Nice to see that the Church encourages science and discovery (and in fairness, always has), but Brother Guy just didn't get me excited. Too much Vatican and not enough science.
April 30, 2016
An Interesting Look At The Life Of A Vatican Astronomer
This book was written by a Vatican astronomer and tells about his professional life and how it is informed by his religion. He discusses both astronomy and a realistic view of religion among scientists.
This book was written by a Vatican astronomer and tells about his professional life and how it is informed by his religion. He discusses both astronomy and a realistic view of religion among scientists.
June 3, 2015
Interesting life and experience. Some chapters are a bit dry though.
May 30, 2016
Really enjoyed his story and perspective on science and the church but as a book it does't have much of a narrative arc, more like essays thrown together (but not framed as such).
July 16, 2016
I liked this book. I really liked the adventure to Antarctica hunting meteorites.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews