Newton transmitting to Voyager from Kitty Hawk

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnny

New member
Isn't it amazing how they don't see it?
The only amazing thing in this thread is you trying to make science seem like faith, when, by very definition, science (or the belief in the scientific method) cannot be based on faith. Science demands observation, testing, and repeatability. I'm not sure what dictionary you're using, but that is not faith. We have arrived at our understanding of the universe by observation. So, it is with confidence a scientist can say that Newton would have a very similar world-view to a modern scientist, if he were a scientist.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Johnny said:
The only amazing thing in this thread is you trying to make science seem like faith,

I'm not trying to make science seem like faith. I'm simply pointing out that even scientists aren't immune from holding onto some particular dogma with religious zeal.

when, by very definition, science (or the belief in the scientific method) cannot be based on faith.

I agree.

Science demands observation, testing, and repeatability. I'm not sure what dictionary you're using, but that is not faith.

I never said it was.

We have arrived at our understanding of the universe by observation.

And interpolation, combined with a bit of speculation.

So, it is with confidence a scientist can say that Newton would have a very similar world-view to a modern scientist, if he were a scientist.

You don't consider Newton a scientist?
 

The Berean

Well-known member
Today's secular scientific community would probably think Newton was a cook with cooky ideas.
Occult studies
The unpublished work of Isaac Newton included much that would now be classified as occult studies. He worked extensively outside the strict bounds of science and mathematics, particularly on chronology, alchemy, and Biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse). Much of his writing on alchemy may have been lost in a fire in his laboratory, so the true extent of his work in this area may have been larger than is currently known. He also suffered a 'nervous breakdown' during his period of alchemical work, which is thought by some due to the psychological transformation that alchemy originally was designed to induce, though there is also speculation it may have been some form of chemical poisoning.

Newton was an astronomer as well, and as astrology and astronomy were one and the same for thousands of years leading up to and during Newton's time in history (think combination word: astrolomy), it is not at all illogical to suggest that he studied or at least dabbled in astrology. Astrology and alchemy had already been intertwined for thousands of years (see those main articles); conversely, Newton's deep studies into mathematics were obviously related to his breakthrough theories in gravity and astronomy, for which he is best known.

As Isaac Newton was (indisputably) a well known alchemist of his time period, and astrology and alchemy were and in some cases still are very closely linked, it is plausible that Newton had a very good working knowledge of astrology, or at the very least a basic understanding of astrological methodology as it was related to alchemy. Logically then, one would certainly have to know a good bit about astrology in order to use alchemy effectively, and Newton along with other prominent alchemists of his time definitely knew this.

It is, however, somewhat anachronistic to assume that the importance he attached to these is closely connected to contemporary attitudes. The work modern observers would call scientific, were perhaps to him of lesser importance. He was of his time, in still placing emphasis on rediscovering the occult wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, the common reference to the "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanistic is somewhat misguided, as John Maynard Keynes observed in 1942 after purchasing and studying Newton's alchemical works:

"Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." - John Maynard Keynes


Speculations regarding Newton's beliefs
-Newton believed that Pythagoras must have known about Gravity, and even toyed with the idea of including margin notes attesting it.
-He, for that reason, did not use his "fluxions", but rather geometric proofs which he thought would have been more accessible to geometers of Pythagoras's era.
-He also believed that Hebrews before the Great Flood knew of the atomic structure of matter.
source
 

The Berean

Well-known member
I CANNOT imagine a secular scientist saying such words today.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God [pi]avToKpTwp, or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect; these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God; a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion; for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind mataphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances. Gravitation towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from the sun decreases accurately as the inverse square of the distances as far as the orbit of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelion of the planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelion of the comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.

And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit operates.

Source: Newton, Principia
 

Johnny

New member
You don't consider Newton a scientist?
No, I meant if he so chose to be a scientist.

Today's secular scientific community would probably think Newton was a cook with cooky ideas.
Newton had some crazy ideas, but many did in those times. I just read an essay last night in "The Best American Science Writing: 2005" by James Gleick that touched on these things. We can't forget, that, while his contributions to science were great, he was also just a product of his time. John Keynes encouraged us not to think of Newton as "the Sage and Monarch of the Age of Reason", but as an "intense and flaming spirit".

Just as a side note, because this is a religious forum, Newton didn't believe in the trinity.
 

ThePhy

New member
I note that the Rev. Enyart has found time to post about 40 times since this thread was last touched. So he has time to respond to TOL threads that catch his interest. So I am pinging this in hopes that he will use a bit of that TOL posting effort giving answer to the issues still floating in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top