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 2 of 11)
16. of course science and religion can be compatible...unless one is talking to a religious fundamentalist who takes literally every word in the Bible as historical fact (even the blatant contradictions such as two differing genesis accounts) and chooses to ignore that many of the stories are written as allegories and NOT meant to be taken literally. science can only go so far, it can't prove or disprove god's existence...it can, however, gauge the relative age of the earth and tell us that it's flat and that man descended from the ape, if some religious zealots choose to bury their heads in the sand to reality, well then, let them dream on but not let them teach our children
scott miller at 2:52PM on Jun 19th 2007
17. If you wish to read an amazing repudiation of Hitchens and Dawkins, I suggest the book Adults Only: Trendsetting Spirituality for the 21st Century (available at www.thebookforadults.com). It is a brilliant book on moral philosophy and elucidates why religion is not a cop-out and why one can't be moral without being religious. It is an absolute must read. I.C. Fingerer, the author, is a great writer and a renown bioethicist.
mat at 3:29PM on Jun 19th 2007
18. Newton lived 300 years ago. It was 'obvious' that humans were created. How else could it be? (Darwin wasn't born yet).
2000 years ago it was 'obvious' that the sun revolved around the Earth. It arched across the sky from East to West each day, how else could it be?
'Obviously' the Earth is flat. Look around you...flat...Humans on the opposite side of an orb would be standing footsole to footsole with us! Impossible!
Rob Y at 3:31PM on Jun 19th 2007
19. No Virginia, there is no God. The more you understand science, the less you need God and irrational explanations. I do not say this in arrogance. The most intelligent of us sometimes belief stupid things, just like the most naive may know some truths. I would rather belief in a conforting, good and rewarding God; just as I would prefer to belief on the goodness of all mankind and all that. It is just not rational J. Padilla, M.D.
J. Padilla, M.D. at 8:49PM on Jun 19th 2007
20. Scott Miller wrote: "science can only go so far, it can't prove or disprove god's existence..."
First, "science" can't prove things. Only a being could prove something. Inert matter can’t prove something. But maybe some PEOPLE can prove some things. Can I prove that there earth is not a flat dist that rests on the back of a giant tortoise. Maybe. But if someone says I can't, I'm okay with that. But it is at least very probable that the earth is not a flat disk that rests on the back of a giant tortoise. Can I prove that some humans have walked on the moon? Maybe. And I suppose I can prove that 7 + 5 = 12.
However, at this moment in time, no person can, to use your words, "prove or disprove god's existence." Now maybe there are beings on other planets who are capable of "proving or disproving god's existence."
But a question: Is it more plausible than not that one or more Gods exist?
I don't know for certain that I will be alive in five years. But probably I will be.
I don't know for certain that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. But it is more plausible than not that he did.
And will the descendants of some of the people alive today know whether one or more Gods exist? What about in 40 million years? What about in 400 million years?
Wes at 3:47PM on Jun 19th 2007
21. mat wrote: "It is a brilliant book on moral philosophy and elucidates why religion is not a cop-out and why one can't be moral without being religious."
Well, I'm moral and I'm not religious. There are hundreds of millions of people who are more and not religious. I know many personally.
Wes at 3:48PM on Jun 19th 2007
22. I just wrote a book that uses Biblical equations and philosophical observations as it relates to Scripture. There is a famous saying that, "God looked into the Bible and created the universe," which brings into question Hegel's thesis and ant-thesis as there is no need for contradiction based on this premise. Science and religion are surely linked. As the recent biographer - Issacson poignantly points out, Einstein held by the quote, "All I want to know is God's thoughts; the rest are details." I just wrote a book that discusses relevant issues to these matters. It can be found at -www.xlibris.com - Navigating the Sea of Talmud - A Memoir - By: Steven Joseph. I metion it as it has relevance to the above mentioned discussion. Thanks.
Steven Joseph at 3:55PM on Jun 19th 2007
23. Steven, here are two other quotes from Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
They are both from 1954. He died in 1955.
Wes at 3:54PM on Jun 19th 2007
24. If one is to start at a completely neutral point, then one must be agnostic. Theists make declarations which cannot be proven. Atheists also make positive declarations of the opposite sort which also cannot be proven. Since evidence of spirituality, not religion, permeates our lives, it is logical that scientists have been interested in investigating its source. Scientists are fascinated by mystery and seek to find primary principles.
If one's early influence was Judaism as was Newton's, then one might further seek to explain mysteries and primary principles referring to those beliefs. Likewise, Christians Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, etc. would try to apply their beliefs to solve the big mysteries. However, all successful scientists including Newton made clear distinctions between what was provable, and their personal, speculative, metaphysical beliefs.
However, as one secular believer put it, "there must be something". Science and generic religion may be capable of integration if religion would be sufficiently secularized. Thus, one might start at Christianity, reduce back to spirituality, then to God, then primary force, or consciousness. Then science and religion might be melded.
Robert Tabor at 4:06PM on Jun 19th 2007
25. surely you will admit --that the famous quote of einstein is that --god doesnt play dice with the universe--could you really deny that einstein didnt see a connection
Steven Joseph at 4:12PM on Jun 19th 2007
26. science doesn't stand on its own
this is obvious considering the fact that many great scholars extrapolated finite scientific principles from the bible itself
if you don't believe the bible is divinley ordained then there is no contradiction - and science is merely predicated on biblical principles
Steven Joseph at 4:17PM on Jun 19th 2007
27.
Atheism is a matter of belief. True science is not a matter of belief. Let's learn to separate the two please. Evolution (the origin of -species-) is science, not belief. The origin of life or the Universe is belief at this point.
Most scientists happen to be what would be called "atheists" by most because most of the evidence, while not disproving a God or a creator, points away from any mainstream religion of today. Those who are Christians likely do not have the same view of the religion as most other Christians.
However, it doesn't really matter whether a scientist is an atheist or a Christian or a Buddhist or whatever. As Mr. D'souza must be well aware of by now, it's not your credentials that lend your arguments credence (anywhere, but particularly in science), it's the merits of the arguments you make. You can drop names of great scientists who were also Christians all day and it won't matter, because the merits of their scientific arguments had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with assuming the absence of divine intervention in favor of causes within the natural realm. Their religious assertions outside of their area of study are entirely un-scientific.
Peter at 4:19PM on Jun 19th 2007
28. einstein looked for simplicity -
either way science and religion are connected
the question is whether you belive in god or not
if you don;t then the world is random and man has a hand in science
if you do then science is divinely ordained anyway
Steven Joseph at 4:27PM on Jun 19th 2007
29. Why is it that those who oppose religion, Chistianity in particular are so mean-spirited, even hateful in their responses? Maybe this could be a sign of the correct stand on this issue. What's wrong with agreeing to disagree with a respectful tone.
terry at 1:05AM on Jun 20th 2007
30. Faith is what keeps otherwise honest people from looking for the truth.
With all the great advances in science and technology; I think it is a perfect time for the religiously faithful to question their faith. This certainly applies to all religious faiths; Christian, Islam, Judaism, and all who believe in a supernatural controlling God.
With all the DNA evidence that has been repeatedly duplicated within various scientific specialties; the arguments against evolution should be questioned by people honestly looking for the truth.
There is now so much repeatable evidence that the universe, and all matter, were created in a big bang; that here again, the religious faithful must question their faith.
What a shame that we are still killing one another over differences in religious Dogma.
This is one big world and we are all related. Let's learn to live together.
It seems to me, that as we evolved and our brains and thinking ability
improved, we started to ask: "Where did we, and those like us, come from."
The images on the walls of he caves in Europe and the written record left
by the Egyptians and other Middle East civilizations certainly ask that
question. Over several thousand years the Egyptians revered several
different Gods. The Greeks and the Romans worshipped several different
Gods. Only in the last 50 years or so did we learn that the Aztecs,
Mayans, Native Americans, and other civilizations in this hemisphere
worshipped various Gods. It wasn't until the Israelis discovered their
own personal monotheistic God, that most people exposed to those ideas
accepted that theology. Why didn't this God influence the earlier
civilizations?
Since the God of Israel told the Israeli priests that they were His chosen
people, non Jews had to find some way to be included and the result was
Jesus and Christianity. The Torah and the Bibles are now the two
guidelines for the growing idea of a monotheistic God. Mohammad was from
another ethnic group and he had his vision and the result were the Koran.
Muslims and the Islamic religion grew at an extremely rapid pace. The
resulting differences in these theologies came to a head when the Pope
decided that Islam was a false religion and it had to be stopped. That
battle is still going on. When the King and Queen of Spain decided to
spread Christianity around the world, Christopher Columbus gave them the
golden opportunity. The result in the Western hemisphere was the near
elimination of the great civilizations in this part of the world. Joseph
Smith then discovered the golden plates and The Church of Jesus Christ and
The Latter Day Saints resulted. This loving God neglected all the
previous theologies.
Many, if not most, of the differences in attitudes and values among the
people of the world, are the result of differences in religious dogma.
Modern science has given us a rare opportunity to realize that we are all
closely related and our differences in attitudes and values should be
resolved peaceably through negotiations. The big disagreement regarding
religion, life styles; homosexuality, abortion, etc., could be individual
choices and not dictated by those who differ.
When we accept the fact that there is no supernatural Deity, and we humans
are going to have to rely on one another, there may be peace in this world.
Larry J. Kluth
Larry Kluth at 4:41PM on Jun 19th 2007