- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,237
- Reaction score
- 402
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Newton was certainly one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He laid out the three laws of motion in his extraordinary Principia Mathematica. He discovered the law of universal gravitation, the famous inverse-distance-squared law. He wrote much about light and optics after performing his own original experiments on light. He invented calculus. He rejected the authority of the Greek philosopher Aristotle and promoted experiment-based science.
Newton was an interesting cat. I have a few quibbles with the above:
Kepler actually discovered the inverse square law. Newton figured out how to make Kepler's laws consistent with Galileo's kinematics of uniformly accelerated motions. He did invent calculus, though Leibniz had done so a decade before and kept it private. He also accepted the necessity of rational principles, though he did want to see results confirmed in experiment. He actually turned to alchemy as a means to try to demonstrate through experiment the omnipresence of God. He hoped, perhaps dimly, that he could actually distill a few ounces of God and show it to some of his closest friends--John Locke and Robert Boyle, in particular.
He was anti-trinitarian, though this was at least partially for scientific reasons. He thought God is literally a substance that suffuses all of space. He was committed to the principle of sufficient reason, and to the ultimate intelligibility of the universe. These commitments, in turn, were part of a larger Neoplatonic turn in early modern philosophy, of which Newton was a part. God was, for Newton, the ultimate ground of being, and from God, all things emanated through a number of "aethers," each of which was gradually more material. God's omnipresence was needed to explain physics, in Newton's view. The Holy Spirit fit into the scheme, but Christ was a wholly different thing, one that didn't fit into the scheme in the same way. He speculated at times that Christ's incarnation might be useful to explain the mind/body problem, but he never came anywhere close to formulating anything consistent or coherent on this point.
One further point: Newton disputed (as had Erasmus and Luther, and many others, before him) 1John 5:7--often called the Comma Johanneum. They were probably not aware, but Cyprian of Alexandria, writing in the 3rd century, appears to have quoted this passage from John's First Epistle, suggesting the passage is original, or at least very early.
I was pretty sure that this was all fairly well known. But now I'm second guessing myself. Maybe the author of that article is right and this is all "not commonly known". If that's the case, where are we going wrong? Surely they still teach about Isaac Newton in school.
This is incorrect.He did invent calculus[Newton], though Leibniz had done so a decade before and kept it private.
A mere human "distilling" The Creator?- where did you get this from?- I doubt Newton would be a party to any such.He hoped, perhaps dimly, that he could actually distill a few ounces of God and show it to some of his closest friends--John Locke and Robert Boyle, in particular.
Are you sure this is Newton's view? It sounds more like Spinoza to me.He thought God is literally a substance that suffuses all of space.
Newton thought that all reference to the Trinity in the Bible was fraudulent interpolation, and no part of the canon was excepted. BTW Newton, who had a sound command of of Latin and Greek from the usual academic requirements of the time, taught himself Hebrew, and became quite an expert of not only of the complete scriptures but also of the first several centuries of church history, with full command of the primary sources.One further point: Newton disputed (as had Erasmus and Luther, and many others, before him) 1John 5:7--often called the Comma Johanneum. They were probably not aware, but Cyprian of Alexandria, writing in the 3rd century, appears to have quoted this passage from John's First Epistle, suggesting the passage is original, or at least very early.
I have read two bios of Newton, the psychbabble version by Manuel, and the legitimate scholarship by Westfall.
Unfortunately I read them over 20 years ago, and cannot now put my hand on either. If I find Westfall I may have more to say here.
This is incorrect.
It was Newton who invented calculus years before Leibniz, and kept it secret. Leibniz's notation is much easier to use, though, and has been universally adopted.
The two great geniuses eventually became embroiled in a horrendous priority dispute over the invention of calculus, more as the result of Newton's aggression than Leibniz's, although both discredited themselves during the affair.
A mere human "distilling" The Creator?- where did you get this from?- I doubt Newton would be a party to any such.
Are you sure this is Newton's view? It sounds more like Spinoza to me.
Newton thought that all reference to the Trinity in the Bible was fraudulent interpolation, and no part of the canon was excepted. BTW Newton, who had a sound command of of Latin and Greek from the usual academic requirements of the time, taught himself Hebrew, and became quite an expert of not only of the complete scriptures but also of the first several centuries of church history, with full command of the primary sources.
USViking said:I have read two bios of Newton, the psychbabble version by Manuel, and the legitimate scholarship by Westfall.
Unfortunately I read them over 20 years ago, and cannot now put my hand on either. If I find Westfall I may have more to say here.
USViking said:This is incorrect.
It was Newton who invented calculus years before Leibniz, and kept it secret. Leibniz's notation is much easier to use, though, and has been universally adopted.
The two great geniuses eventually became embroiled in a horrendous priority dispute over the invention of calculus, more as the result of Newton's aggression than Leibniz's, although both discredited themselves during the affair.
USViking said:A mere human "distilling" The Creator?- where did you get this from?- I doubt Newton would be a party to any such.
USViking said:Are you sure this is Newton's view? It sounds more like Spinoza to me.
USViking said:Newton thought that all reference to the Trinity in the Bible was fraudulent interpolation, and no part of the canon was excepted. BTW Newton, who had a sound command of of Latin and Greek from the usual academic requirements of the time, taught himself Hebrew, and became quite an expert of not only of the complete scriptures but also of the first several centuries of church history, with full command of the primary sources.
USViking said:It was Newton who invented calculus years before Leibniz, and kept it secret. Leibniz's notation is much easier to use, though, and has been universally adopted.
The standard as of now, I think.Westfall is pretty good.
It's an inference based on his stated desire to distill immaterial aethers (compare Aere et Aether to Praxis and On Nature's Obvious Laws of Vegetation), and his further belief that these emanate from a substantival and omnipresent God. Like any good Neoplatonist, he was working his way "up the chain," so to speak, only he wanted to use the experimental method to demonstrate the existence of what he posited.
To be clear, and I should have said this earlier, it looks like he had abandoned the attempt, though not necessarily the hope that it was in principle possible, by about 1708.
The Gregory Memorandum seems to confirm this was indeed Newton's view as early as 1705, the posthumously published third edition of the Principia also contains a declaration that God is omnipresent "not only virtually but also substantially."
But Newton would have considered any Trinitarian reference of any vintage except the original (e.g. the Gospel of Mark in Mark's own hand) to be interpolation, so it does not matter whether he knew of Cyprian's quote, because if he had known of it it would have been just another fraud to him.Yes, correct. That does not mean he had access to Cyprian's text (I'm not sure how commonly available his writings were at the time), or that Newton himself was right, especially in light of Cyprian's apparent early quote of 1John 5:7.
The standard as of now, I think.
I'll have to find my copy of Westfall before I can reply confidently, but the idea of being able to manipulate God in a scientific laboratory would I think be considered heretical even to someone of Newton's unorthodoxy. Mix a little ABC in a test tube, add to a little beaker of XYZ, heat for 20 minutes, stir, shake, strain, and the residue is God's essence, or substance, or something? Hm. I'll also need Westfall's comments on the Neoplatonism.
But Newton would have considered any Trinitarian reference of any vintage except the original (e.g. the Gospel of Mark in Mark's own hand) to be interpolation, so it does not matter whether he knew of Cyprian's quote, because if he had known of it it would have been just another fraud to him.
USViking said:he standard as of now, I think.
USViking said:I'll have to find my copy of Westfall before I can reply confidently, but the idea of being able to manipulate God in a scientific laboratory would I think be considered heretical even to someone of Newton's unorthodoxy. Mix a little ABC in a test tube, add to a little beaker of XYZ, heat for 20 minutes, stir, shake, strain, and the residue is God's essence, or substance, or something? Hm.
USViking said:But Newton would have considered any Trinitarian reference of any vintage except the original (e.g. the Gospel of Mark in Mark's own hand) to be interpolation, so it does not matter whether he knew of Cyprian's quote, because if he had known of it it would have been just another fraud to him.
Newton:“If you now compare all with -the Apocalyptic Visions, and particularly with the flight of the woman into the wilderness and the reign of the whore of Babylon, they will very much illustrate one another: for these visions are as plain as if it had been expressly said, that the true Church shall disappear, and in her stead an idolatrous church reign in the world.”
The Book of Mormon teaches that when the apostles wrote their books they were perfect but that before they went out to the world they went from Jewish to gentile hands and that the "great abominable church" "the whore of Babylon" altered the text and many plain and precious things were taken from them and then it went out to the world.
Newton was a sharp guy and it is pretty obvious that the New Testament itself tells of an apostasy of the Church. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy?lang=eng
I am not in this thread as an advocate for one side or the other of the Trinitarian issue. Nor am I an authority on scripture and church history, but there are certainly plenty of mainstream Christians who are who can offer protrinitarian arguments as plausible as Newton's antitrinitarian ones.
As for this "abomination" epithet no religion is immune from just indictment, although some are definitely worse than others, ane all are superstitions we would do well to be rid of.
BTW this Steve Jones guy has an apparent weakness for the fringes, did you know that? I was wondering if he was the same Jones who was involved in the "Cold Fusion" fiasco of the late 1980s, and googling indicates he was indeed, and is still at it close to 30 years later with no success in sight, his blogsite notwithstanding. He is also one of those tedious 9/11 conspiracy theory Truther types. That seems to have resulted in his leaving BYU under pressure.
What are some of these different perspectives?Well, keep in mind he's only one Newton scholar with a good reputation. There are plenty of others with different perspectives, including I. Bernard Cohen, Andrew Janiak, and Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs. They haven't all written biographies, but they're intimately familiar with Newton's life and thought, and they have quite a number of different perspectives. You have to read them all, as well as Newton's own writings, to get a grip on Newton.
Ah- so Cohen is a specialist on Newton's career as an alchemist. That is a subject I have negative interest in, and I admit I skipped most of Westfall's lengthy treatment.I think this may do a bit of a disservice to alchemy as Newton (or most other alchemists) understood it. The matter is both complex and unclear--I recommend B.J.T. Dobbs two books, "Hunting the Greene Lyon" and "The Janus Faces of Genius" for a good starting point; she's the only person to have written scholarly, book length examinations of Newton's alchemical manuscripts.
He devoted about 1/3 of his time to each of Math'physics, alchemy, and theology. The latter two efforts are nothing but massive curiosities of no value-added to the human condition. It is sad.As to what Newton would have thought, you'll get no argument from me.
As for this "abomination" epithet no religion is immune from just indictment, although some are definitely worse than others, ane all are superstitions we would do well to be rid of.
All I read was what you quoted in OP, and AFAIK it accurately represent's Newton's religious views.I wasn't aware of his history. He doesn't represent LDS views on those things, was let go by BYU with his nutty views. Does the article misrepresent Newton?
OK, but you should let go of the "abomination" stuff.And I disagree with all are superstitious.
I agree.Get rid of superstitious and racism and white supremacy. What's your thoughts on that?
It is an unfortunate choice of words almost everywhere encountered, especially when used in religious scripture as libel against non-belief.The abomination epithet was used by an angel of God in the Book of Mormon:
"The phrase "great and abominable church," which appears in an apocalyptic vision received by the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi 1 in the sixth century B.C. (1 Ne. 13:6), refers to the church of the devil and is understood by Latter-day Saints to be equivalent to the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters" described in Revelation 17:1. This "whore of all the earth" is identified by Nephi's brother Jacob as all those who are against God and who fight against Zion, in all periods of time (2 Ne. 10:16). Nephi did not write a detailed account of everything he saw in the vision, as this responsibility was reserved for John the apostle, who was to receive the same vision; however, Nephi repeatedly refers to its content and teachings, using various images and phrases (1 Ne. 13:4-9, 26-27, 34;14:1-4, 9-17).
Like John, Nephi and Jacob describe persecutions that evil people will inflict on God's people, particularly in the last days. The angel who explained the vision to Nephi emphasized that this great and abominable church would take away from the Bible and "the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord" (1 Ne. 13:26), causing men to "stumble" and giving Satan "great power" over them (1 Ne. 13:29; D&C 86:3; Robinson, "Early Christianity," p. 188). Though many Protestants, following the lead of Martin Luther, have linked this evil force described in Revelation 17 with the Roman Catholic church, the particular focus of these LDS and New Testament scriptures seems rather to be on earlier agents of apostasy in the Jewish and Christian traditions" (see A. Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 6, pp. 1036-38, Nashville, Tenn., 1977)...-Great and Abominable Church-Wright, Dennis A.
It is an unfortunate choice of words almost everywhere encountered, especially when used in religious scripture as libel against non-belief.
I said "libel against non-belief".I guess when they kill innocent people and alter the word of God in express purpose to harm people the angel thought it was a true description.
USViking said:What are some of these different perspectives?
USViking said:I cannot get out of my mind what an awful intellectual tragedy it was for Newton to devote so must effort to alchemy when he could possibly have been a second Boyle, or, in another direction, being an expert lensgrinder, a second van Leeuwenhoek.
USViking said:He devoted about 1/3 of his time to each of Math'physics, alchemy, and theology. The latter two efforts are nothing but massive curiosities of no value-added to the human condition. It is sad.
I said "libel against non-belief".
Non-belief is not the same thing as killing innocent people, which is an abomination, as when Herod massacred the innocents of Bethlehem, and as when, at an earlier date, God massacred the first-born of Egypt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?