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 4 of 11)
46. I wrote: "So, that entropy increases when energy is added to a system is irrelevant to whether I know that Venus formed without a deity intervening and doing some special act."
I meant so that: entropy increases when energy is NOT added to a system is irrelevant...
Wes at 5:57PM on Jun 19th 2007
47. Of course science and religion are compatible. Many well-known scientists, including Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, are (were) devoutly religious, as studying science always leaves one appreciative of the fact that there will always be more out there that is not understood. It lends itself to allowing for mysticism, at the same time analyzing and fact-seeking in the natural world.
Religion is not very compatible with the social sciences however. Anthropologists, historians and the like, spend their time analyzing people and the ways in which man makes god to suit his own needs. It is much more difficult to believe in the supernatural when your life's work revolves around man.
The real question about science is whether or not it is compatible with religious fundamentalism, (Christian or Islamic- they are almost identical)which at its heart is a denial of anything rational, factual, humanitarian or compassionate. That is much harder for the mainstream, educated scientist to stomach. Religions that allow for intellectual honesty (liberal mainstream traditions, Jesuits, paganism, Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, etc...) would be more appealing to the well-educated.
Heather at 6:15PM on Jun 19th 2007
48.
Wes -
Yes, but science does not make assumptions like that. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There was no evidence to suggest that furry lobsters existed, until we found one. So it would have been premature to state, prior to that, that you can scientifically claim fuzzy lobsters do -not- exist: They did not exist to our knowledge at the time because we were incapable of observing them, but the possibility of their existence was not disproven and was later, in fact, proven.
Science is not in the business of disproving God, or anything, that it cannot discount with evidence of it's own via what we can observe. When we come to theoretical physics, there are some conclusions that have only metaphysical answers, so the idea of a metaphysical "thing" that could be defined as responsible for the creation of our Universe cannot be entirely discounted. I'm not trying to define the nature of that "God", and you're right in that most modern definitions of "God" have quite a lot of scientific evidence going against them.
Peter at 6:08PM on Jun 19th 2007
49. Here are three options:
1. An intelligent being that hasn't been around forever contributed to the existence of the known universe.
2. An intelligent being that HAS been around forever contributed to the existence of the known universe.
3. The known universe came into being without any intelligent being contributing to its coming into being.
The third seems the most reasonable to me. It is a simpler hypothesis. There is one less variable, and hugely and incredibly complex variable at that. And experience shows that simpler hypotheses tend to be more plausible.
But maybe I'm wrong. But maybe one or more intelligent beings did something to cause the known universe to come into being. It wouldn't be the first time that I've been wrong.
One question: Could a being be around forever? What would that mean? It doesn't make sense to me.
Wes at 6:11PM on Jun 19th 2007
50. “Yes, but science does not make assumptions like that.”
There is good reason to believe that no intelligent being contributed to the existence of the known universe.
“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There was no evidence to suggest that furry lobsters existed, until we found one. So it would have been premature to state, prior to that, that you can scientifically claim fuzzy lobsters do -not- exist: They did not exist to our knowledge at the time because we were incapable of observing them, but the possibility of their existence was not disproven and was later, in fact, proven.”
I concede that could end up being wrong. But not having any events caused by X sometimes do help us determine that X doesn’t exist. Vampires. Apollo. Cupid. Aphrodite. Leprechauns. Humans with 15 heads. Etc.
Wes at 6:16PM on Jun 19th 2007
51. Heather wrote: "Of course science and religion are compatible. Many well-known scientists, including Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, are (were) devoutly religious, as studying science always leaves one appreciative of the fact that there will always be more out there that is not understood."
Heather, Carl Sagan was an atheist. You can look it up on the internet. And Einstein called himself a nonbeliever in 1954, and he said that he did not believe in a personal God in 1954.
Also, lots of scientists do believe in God. But that is irrelevant to whether I know that there is a God. For one thing, a lot of times people get things wrong.
Wes at 6:19PM on Jun 19th 2007
52. Great scientist are good but sometimes get it wrong - God never is wrong. Centuries before Galileo (1564-1642) theorized the earth was round, Scripture declared that the Almighty "sits upon the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22). "He hangeth the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)
Louise at 6:25PM on Jun 19th 2007
53. Natural Selection does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that the entropy of the Universe is increasing. The Universe consists of both a system and the surroundings. When a system becomes more orderly, it does so at the expense of the surroundings. These occurances happen all the time.... think of water freezing. So, when systems (i.e. living things) evolve, they do so with an input of Energy.
There is a constant influx of radiant energy on this planet, and that is what allows living systems to become more orderly. Thus evolution aligns itself nicely with the principles of Thermodynamics.
Sharon at 6:25PM on Jun 19th 2007
54. Heather wrote:
"Of course science and religion are compatible. Many well-known scientists, including Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, are (were) devoutly religious, as studying science always leaves one appreciative of the fact that there will always be more out there that is not understood. It lends itself to allowing for mysticism, at the same time analyzing and fact-seeking in the natural world."
According to a 1998 poll, the vast majority of members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal God. Here is a link:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Now that is just some scientists in the US. But there are a lot scientists in China, which is a country with 1.3 billion people. China has a lot of atheists. And I suspect that most scientists in Europe are atheists or agnostics, though I haven't seen a poll on the matter. Japan, too. The great Japanese geneticist Kimura was an atheist.
Wes at 6:25PM on Jun 19th 2007
55. Heather, actually Carl Sagan probably is best characterized an an agnostic. I was looking through some quotes of his on the internet.
Wes at 6:30PM on Jun 19th 2007
56.
"I concede that could end up being wrong. But not having any events caused by X sometimes do help us determine that X doesn’t exist. Vampires. Apollo. Cupid. Aphrodite. Leprechauns. Humans with 15 heads. Etc."
We don't need to determine what does not exist through science, only what does. We build our current picture of the universe by what we know does exist and not what does not exist. But if we are simply to stop there and assume everything we know is everything there is to know and everything we do not have evidence for is automatically disproven, then science is dead and we will never advance beyond the state we are at currently. Without evidence, -all- theories must be accounted for -until- one of those theories is supported by enough evidence so that we can say with reasonable certainty that it is true. So stating that there is no God in any form to explain the metaphysical gaps in our science is discounting what could be a valid explanation for it, at least until an alternate explanation comes along that has significant evidence to support it.
I think some scientists in America are a little biased about what "God" is, because the only way they can define God is through the Christian definition of him and the Biblical account of creation which is disproven. Believing that a God as Christians define him does not exist is supported by what we can observe, but asserting that no God exists, made up of anything for any purpose or on any level of existence, is also a belief, it is not science.
Peter at 6:32PM on Jun 19th 2007
57. Here is something I found on the internet about Sagan:
"In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: 'My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it,' he said. 'An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic.'
Wes at 6:34PM on Jun 19th 2007
58. "We don't need to determine what does not exist through science, only what does."
I don't know what you mean by that. But there is very good reason to believe that there are no humans with ten heads and that there are no vampires. And there are no werewolves of leprechauns. Looks, somethings exist and somethings don't. And we can make warranted inferences that mermaids don't exist.
Wes at 6:36PM on Jun 19th 2007
59. Please read "The Hidden Face of God," by a Nobel Prize nominated physicist.
It seems only mediocre scientists refuse to accept logical interpretations of real world data that point to a Creator God, Who is beyond this world and, therefore, immeasurable-- out of their control.
Mary K. N. at 6:50PM on Jun 19th 2007
60. Peter, this is ridiculous. Let's stop being silly. There is very good reason to believe that there are no fifty foot men anywhere in our Solar System.
Come on. This is silly. Put this to rest.
Wes at 6:38PM on Jun 19th 2007