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 11 of 11)
151. Bobby isn't especially bright. There's an entire FAQ from sci.physics.relativity about how wrong his ideas are.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/cad7359b7965e605/5047a3bae3df0aca?lnk=st&q=Robert+Winn+lorentz&rnum=2#5047a3bae3df0aca
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:47AM on Jun 26th 2007
152. On pboyfloyd (comment 146) re: My point is that you need to invoke God to create/design the universe before humans are able to come up with the idea of 'creating'/designing things to explain that there must be a God who is the creator/designer.
If you say that 'something cannot come from nothing' then say that 'God created the universe from nothing', you are simply saying that God CAN make something out of absolutely NOTHING.
But... I can make a bowl from clay and it is still clay and I can make a spoon from wood and it is still wood... so God must have made the universe from SOMETHING, himself maybe, and it must still be himself, right?
So what IS the 'something' that God made the universe from?
It must be some kind of energy, right?
If it is, then speaking strictly from a scientific point of view, we should be looking for it, for a way to detect it, right?
My comment - Have enjoyed the entire thread on this subject and have this to say to pboyfloyd: You have it exactly right! The Universe consists of Energy and Matter and science has demonstrated that one is transformable into the other (E=mc2). Science since 1997 is trying to find the answer to your question and is studying Dark Energy which makes up approximately 2/3 of the known Universe as far as current estimates go.
The key here is Dark . . . as opposed to Light energy and you got that right too. Something = Some-Thing where "Thing" is visible Matter and "No-Thing" is invisible Energy or "Nothing" which I believe is as close to the present description of "Dark Energy."
It's important here to recognize that "Nothing" is different from the way we look at Nothing(= the Absence of Some-Thing). The "Nothing" (or Alpha from which Every-Thing or All) came from is experiencing itself in this Universe through you and me and every other Thing as it transforms itself and all of us from this state of original "Nothingness" back to its Origin (= Omega or End) at which point all of us will know our true nature as Divine Beings (Children of God) since we will have completed our Journey on the Path of Enlightenment (= Light vs Heavy; as Matter pulls so far apart that it is no longer visible = "Nothingness".
Congratulations, pboyfloyd, you have finally gotten it right!!! - Karl
Karl at 6:32PM on Jun 26th 2007
153. @ Karl (comment 149)
Ahh, yes, I see, I see... if we simply redefine the word 'nothing' to mean anything we want it to...
hmmm... YES... there IS a God... shoot... there's lotsa them ... they're all over the place.
Seriously though Karl, I must admit that I am stuck thinking that 'nothing' is, in my definition of the word 'nothing'....
... if scientists are resurrecting the notion of 'ether' or 'aether' then they should just say that and quit with the 'nothing isn't as nothing as you think it is' nonsense.
Reality is. There are on gods.
pboyfloyd at 7:30PM on Jun 26th 2007
154. Typo...
I said, "There are on gods."...
What I meant was... There are no dogs.
pboyfloyd at 7:39PM on Jun 26th 2007
155. Hello Pboy,
Didnt know if you didnt know that I did not permanantly go away from Why Darwin Skares Conservatives but I came back again and I like your point on 146 back there bout how did God create something from nothing. Oh my. Dont wanna steal Steve's glory so I will not say anything yet but if he does not respond Im a gonna say something. Ok, bye.
Michelle at 9:37PM on Jun 26th 2007
156. Hey Steve, could you ask God what the winning numbers are going to be for the next Superlotto? Think of all the Christian good that that cash could do.
Why don't you think that God will somehow influence chance just once or twice... you know.. to show us all that HE is real. I have seen men and women thank God for much more complicated 'miracles' than divulging six or seven lousy numbers.
What's the deal, Steve? Where's HE at when you need him? We're counting on your 'in' with HIM to help the poor and needy.
Oh, no.. that's right.. it doesn't work like that... it works like complete chance, right?
Why is that, Steve... that things which could be easily 'fixed' by God to alert us to his presence appear to happen by complete chance?
No one need know, no bragging necessary... simply put the 'fix' in with God... and no more homeless... why not?
Is it because you are just mean, Steve? That must be it, the Christians ARE winning the lotteries but they are selfish.
Seems to me that the self proclaimed miracle workers of today are more inclined to want some money than to be giving it away.
This is interesting, as DD is inclined to say.
pboyfloyd at 5:35PM on Jun 27th 2007
157. @ pboyfloyd (comment 150 &151) Sorry about the delay . . . did notice you skipped an awful lot of ideas along the way. Should have known you'd get hung up on "Nothing" and meant to add one more thought I forgot to slip in back then:
You may have heard of the phrase "The Peace that passes all understanding" and the "Nothing" I'm referring to falls into the same category. The best I can do in to convey it is through the metaphor of children (as in we are "Children of God").
When my youngest son at 3 or so suddenly bolted toward the street, he surprised me but I managed to catch him before he got there and my first reaction was to make sure he "understood" doing that wasn't an option. I'm not stressing that a spanking or fear-based approach is key when someone doesn't understand why they're being punished but it does make the poin, and in his case, we never had a problem like that again. What I'm stressing is that it's virtually impossible to explain to a 3-year old why high-speed traffic is a no-no; similarly, it's tough to teach young ones the physics of an electric stove and why it's not a good idea to touch the coils when the stove is on . . . that's the kind of "understanding" I'm referring to when it comes to "Nothing."
When I ran across this concept the distinction that this pure, absolute "Nothing" impressed me with was that even the concept of Zero and Numbers wouldn't exist for us to "understand" it.
Now I know that might not make a dent in your consciousness but if the prior posts are any indications, you can find specific examples of where a similar "understanding" is evidenced. In fact, I'm sure you feel the same way about me. All I can do is give you my best shot . . . and recommend you think about all the other supporting information I provided in my earlier post.
With regards to your statement"there are no gods" I can only say that when the subject of atheist, agnostic, theist, etc. came up earlier (Einstein, Sagan, and Asimov, et. al.) the big point most seem to miss is that all three men rejected the notion of a "Personal" God . . . again I believe they were smart enough to know there is a higher power and to personify it would not only limit that power but also enable man to abuse it with oversimplified explanations (again for "Children" of one kind or another -- not necessarily chronological, for example) which I'm sure you've found to be the case with religious doctrines. Einstein, for example, expressed a definite belief in a higher power and routinely referred to it with a more "expansive" (but just as limited) term: The Universe.
Have a great weekend! I'll check on you later - Karl
Karl at 12:20AM on Jul 1st 2007
158.
Well, I think Karl got it right here :)
Einstein, Asimov, and Sagan all did not believe in a personal or moral God. They did somewhat believe that some form of Creator had a role in our existence, however. By Christian understanding, any amoral God disqualifies one from belief and makes them an atheist, but from the writings of these three, they were obviously not completely averse to concept of creation from a being outside of our comprehension or natural laws. So far, at least, there are only metaphysical explanations for many of the phenomenon regarding the creation of our universe. This does not mean that all suggestions are valid to fill in that gap, it means that religious and scientific explanations, to this point at least, are equally meritous until it can be shown that a natural process was involved in the creation of matter.
Peter at 3:14AM on Jul 4th 2007
159. Respondent #125. Thanks for the heads up on the erroneous credit for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I stand corrected. But I'd still like to know how a physical entity- the 'primordial mass'- can have NO beginning? Something cannot come forth from nothing,or to put it another way, nothing cannot produce something. If you could educate me on that one I'd really be in your intellectual debt.
John David Stone at 5:22PM on Jul 9th 2007
160. When ANYONE out there can tell me how this 'primordial mass' just sprang into existence all by itself with a sensible explanation which does not delve into biased fantasy and unsupported extrapolation upon preset prejudices then I'll say your theory has creedence, NOT before.
John David Stone at 5:55PM on Jul 18th 2007