Astronomy is boring

I'm taking the Science-focused Human Event course, mostly because it was the only one that fit into my schedule. It's pretty lame. For the first month of the course, we basically argued about the nature of space. This is one of those questions where debate will get you to a certain point, but beyond this point, further discussion is basically smashing your head against a wall. I think we reached that point about two weeks in. Anyways, now we're learning about the development of heliocentrism. And it is BORING. Not to mention rather odd in its argumentative form. A quote from Kepler's Epitome of Copernican Astronomy:

The Philosophy of Copernicus reckons up the principal parts of the world by dividing the world into regions. For in the sphere, which is the image of God the Creator and the Archetype of the world—as was proved in Book 1—there are three regions, symbols of the three persons of the Holy Trinity—the centre, a symbol of the Father; the surface, of the Son; and the intermediate space, of the Holy Ghost. So too, just as many principal parts of the world have been made—the different parts in the different regions of the sphere: the sun in the centre, the sphere of the fixed stars on the surface, and lastly the planetary system in the region intermediate between the sun and the fixed stars.

But wait! Shouldn't the Sun represent the Son? After all, there's only a one letter difference between them. That's about the level of metaphysical argument Kepler makes, though his geometric arguments are more rigorous (and more boring).
Anyways, it's pretty dry stuff. I'd much rather be reading Kant in the Humanities-focused course.