A Jerusalem exhibit of Isaac Newton's manuscripts has some newly-discovered papers showing Newton's calculations of the exact date of the Apocalypse. Using the Book of Daniel, Newton argues that the world will end not earlier than 2060. "It may end later," Newton writes, "but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophecies into discredit as often as their predictions fail." Newton also interprets biblical prophecy to say that the Jews would return to the holy land before the world ends.
Yemima Ben-Manehem, curator of the exhibit, remarks that "these documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world." Newton's massive corpus of work reveals that he wrote almost as much about Scripture as he did about science, and indeed he saw his discoveries as showing the handiwork of the divine creator. All of which raises the interesting question: if arguably the greatest scientist of all time was such a fervent believer, indeed if most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians, what can we make of the insistence by contemporary atheist writers--from Dawkins to Pinker to Hitchens--that there has been an unceasing war between science and religion?
The atheist case relies on a few key episodes, mostly involving Darwin and Galileo. In my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity I will show that these episodes have been ideologically manipulated, and that the "lessons" drawn from them are largely fictitious. Here's a small example of that. We have all heard about the famous showdown between "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. When Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his grandfather's side or his grandmother's side, Huxley famously responded that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a cleric who used his learning to prejudice people against scientific discoveries. The only problem with this incident is that it seems not to have occurred. Huxley apparently made it up to make himself look good. It's not reported in the minutes of the scientific association meeting. Darwin's friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, was present at the debate. He gave Darwin a full account, which says nothing about Wilberforce's alleged jibe or Huxley's supposed rejoinder. In fact, Hooker told Darwin that Huxley had failed to answer Wilberforce's arguments so that he (Hooker) felt compelled to come to Darwin's defense. Nevertheless Huxley's winning rebuttal lives on in atheist propaganda.
Are science and religion compatible? Don't ask Dawkins and Hitchens, ask Isaac Newton.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 11)
1. iqI found Extreme Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
qaowqdmsad at 10:28AM on Jan 24th 2009
2. And yet there are arguments against cloning because it "goes against god's desires", for example.
Oh well. Ignoring the misses is par for Dinesh.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:41AM on Jun 19th 2007
3. Darwin is to biology as Ptolemy was astronomy.
Observations and understanding are not always the same.
Darwin was very observant.
jim at 12:15PM on Jun 19th 2007
4. To quote Galileo,"Why would god give me a brain if he didn't want me to use it?"
Joe at 1:00PM on Jun 19th 2007
5. Yup, Isaac Newton also believed in the necessity of regular “corrections” by God to preserve cosmic equilibrium, but was shown to be wrong by Laplace, who used much more accurate observational data. Laplace showed that no such interventions were necessary.
I guess I won't be holding my breath for 2060.
John M at 2:16PM on Jun 19th 2007
6. Of course there has been an unceasing conflict by religion on science.
Dinesh D'Souza says, "..if arguably the greatest scientist of all time was such a fervent believer, indeed if most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians..."
The fact is that science would be pointless if scientists, even 'arguably the greatest scientist' believed that the world operated by means of miracles, God's Will, the power of prayer and such.
Newton's work on calculus, gravity, optics etc. was science... and that is what makes him 'arguably the greatest scientist' of his time... but it hardly lends any credence to these silly predictions.
No doubt eM or some other of your sycophants, sock-puppets or whatever you call each other will rebut me saying that indeed you worded your post in such a way that I have not really addressed it and should simply shut up and agree with it.... I predict this, in fact.
pboyfloyd at 1:47PM on Jun 19th 2007
7. There's that wierd glitch again.
pboyfloyd at 1:48PM on Jun 19th 2007
8. Darwin had little knowledge of biology, collected no evidence, made errors in reporting species at the Gallopagas Islands. He saw neither finches nor turtles. The birds he actually saw were mockingbirds, how ironic! True science does not conflict with the Bible or the God of the Bible. Newton discovered this truth, while Darwin the non-scientist, did not.
Wayne Matulis at 1:57PM on Jun 19th 2007
9. Dinesh wrote: "All of which raises the interesting question: if arguably the greatest scientist of all time was such a fervent believer, indeed if most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians, what can we make of the insistence by contemporary atheist writers--from Dawkins to Pinker to Hitchens--that there has been an unceasing war between science and religion?"
I don't know what you mean by “unceasing war between science and religion.” Could you elaborate on that?
For whatever it is worth, there was a poll conducted in 1998 among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, which is the most prestigious organization of scientists in the United States. Here is a link:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
About 7% of the scientists who responded to the survey indicated that they have a personal belief in God. 72% did not. 20% checked the box for “doubt or agnosticism.”
I suspect that most scientists in the world are atheists or agnostics. For one thing, there are a lot of scientists in China. And I'm confident that most philosophers in the world are atheists or agnostics.
Also, some claims that are important to people, and that some consider part of their religion, are claims that some people know to be false. For example, the known universe is not less than 10,000 years old.
Wes at 2:00PM on Jun 19th 2007
10. I wrote: "About 7% of the scientists who responded to the survey indicated that they have a personal belief in God. 72% did not. 20% checked the box for 'doubt or agnosticism.'"
I should add that it looks like the scientists in the survey were asked whether they believe in a "personal God." The results of the survey might have been different if they were asked simply whether they "believe in God."
Moreover, generally people who aren't religious get along reasonably well with people who are religious. We can disagree about whether there is a God and still treat each other civilly.
Wes at 2:06PM on Jun 19th 2007
11. Thank you Mr. D'Souza, for this excellent post. The next time I teach logic I'll definitely refer my students to it as a perfect example of an argument from illegitimate authority.
Newton was an expert at mathematics and physics. If use want to use him as an authority, these are the only relevant areas since these are his areas of expertise. If we want to use him as an authority in religion, then we must believe that angels correct the orbits of planets and that the trinity was a fraud.
But hey, since he was a great mathematician let's use him anyway. Let's take his example in chemistry and practice alchemy. Maybe we too can be killed by mercury poisoning.
Josh R at 3:54PM on Jun 19th 2007
12. I was educated at a Catholic college way back in the fifties. My enlightened biology professor claimed that as long as one interprets Genesis' account of creation to mean not a 24-hour "day", but an eon, there is no dichotomy between the Bible's account and the theory of evolution. We must, however, believe that God infused an immortal soul into the human the moment he evolved. And so, religion and science are compatible after all.
Ginny Papp at 2:29PM on Jun 19th 2007
13.
Two great scientists were mentioned in the article, Newton, a Jew, and Albert Einstein, an athiest. So on what basis does Dinesh say..." most of the great scientists of the past five hundred years have been practicing Christians..".
Maybe he is using the same basis as those who say America was founded by Christians, on Christian principles, which, of course,is not historically true. The majority of our founding fathers were deists, some like Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and Madison,were vocally anti the Christian religion.
http://www.chestnutcafe.com/cafe/US_History.html
http://www.youmeworks.com/whatwasabesreligion.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/lincoln9911.html
http://www.pointsouth.com/lincoln/religion3.htm
And the treaty of Tripoli, signed by Adams, clearly states the USA was not founded on Christian principles.
Ya just gotta love those of religous faith. They can spin such nice tales, without any need to factually prove them.
And that is why Hawkins is correct, there is an in herent conflict between science and relgion. Science is based on what man knows, relgion is based on what some men think they know.
cdnbirch at 2:44PM on Jun 19th 2007
14. Why is it that religion means christianity only? If indeed science and religion are compatible then they should be compatible with all other religions too. Most christains would see the stupidity of all other religions quite easily as most of people of other religions can see the stupidity of christiainity.
Vinod Bhardwaj at 2:48PM on Jun 19th 2007
15. Ginny wrote: "I was educated at a Catholic college way back in the fifties. My enlightened biology professor claimed that as long as one interprets Genesis' account of creation to mean not a 24-hour "day", but an eon, there is no dichotomy between the Bible's account and the theory of evolution. We must, however, believe that God infused an immortal soul into the human the moment he evolved. And so, religion and science are compatible after all."
Do you think that is what the person(s) who wrote Genesis meant? Maybe. But there are a lot other claims some people hold that they call part of their religion that some people are warranted in inferring are false. For example, a snake didn't talk to Eve. And Methuselah didn't live to be 969 years old.
We shouldn't talk about whether "science and religion are compatible." It doesn't get us very far. It is very unspecific, very vague. Obviously there are some claims that are important to some people that are known to be false. Some people who were part of the Heaven’s Gate group had some beliefs that I’m quite confident are not true. It is more useful to talk about whether specific inferences are warranted or not. Talk about those specific claims will help us get a better sense of which claims are warranted and which claims are not. For example, did God turn inert matter directly into Adam, and then take out of one of Adam's ribs and make Eve? No. Self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, including all the humans.
Wes at 2:49PM on Jun 19th 2007