Happy Birthday Sir Isaac

[SteveGrenard]

In this week's comentary Randi celebrates the 25 December birthday of Sir Isaac Newton. Many are often at a loss to understand
how Newton's strong religious beliefs and interest in bible prophesies have conveniently failed to appear on the radar screens of "skeptics" such as Randi. Here was one of he greatest scientists of all time, a man lauded as having caused a
revolution and as having laid downed principles which pseudoskeptics tightly embrace to explain everything that is
near and dear to them yet they forgo reality and the realization that, by their current definition, Sir Isaac was nothing short of being one of the greatest paranormalists of all time .........

I am sure we all join Randi in wishing Sir Isaac a very happy 361st birthday


The following is a brief excerpt from: http://www.historicist.com/Newton/title.htm

"Even though his reputation rests on his scientific work, science occupied Isaac Newton’s interest for a relatively short period of his life. Even while he was finishing his monumental Pricipia at age 28, he had grown tired of science and became engrossed in interpreting the book of Daniel which had fascinated him since his youth. Over the remainder of his life he would write over 1,300,000 words on religious subjects with prophecy his principal focus. (Andrade)

His consuming interest in prophecy stemmed from three fundamental beliefs:

The book of Daniel was a pre-written history of the world and to interpret it would unlock a treasure of understanding.
The book had been sealed (Dan 12:4) and Newton believed the appointed time had arrived to break the seal.
God had chosen him to interpret it. This remarkable fact surfaced from recently discovered manuscripts of his. He was haunted all his life by this calling."

[BillyJoe]

There is no harm in emphasizing the positives.

[Chad Noles]

BillyJoe wrote:There is no harm in emphasizing the positives.

Isn't that what they accuse Dr. Rhine of doing?:p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In this week's comentary Randi celebrates the 25 December birthday of Sir Isaac Newton. Many are often at a loss to understand
how Newton's strong religious beliefs and interest in bible prophesies have conveniently failed to appear on the radar screens of "skeptics" such as Randi. Here was one of he greatest scientists of all time, a man lauded as having caused a
revolution and as having laid downed principles which pseudoskeptics tightly embrace to explain everything that is
near and dear to them yet they forgo reality and the realization that, by their current definition, Sir Isaac was nothing short of being one of the greatest paranormalists of all time .........

I am sure we all join Randi in wishing Sir Isaac a very happy 361st birthday


The following is a brief excerpt from: http://www.historicist.com/Newton/title.htm

"Even though his reputation rests on his scientific work, science occupied Isaac Newton’s interest for a relatively short period of his life. Even while he was finishing his monumental Pricipia at age 28, he had grown tired of science and became engrossed in interpreting the book of Daniel which had fascinated him since his youth. Over the remainder of his life he would write over 1,300,000 words on religious subjects with prophecy his principal focus. (Andrade)

His consuming interest in prophecy stemmed from three fundamental beliefs:

The book of Daniel was a pre-written history of the world and to interpret it would unlock a treasure of understanding.
The book had been sealed (Dan 12:4) and Newton believed the appointed time had arrived to break the seal.
God had chosen him to interpret it. This remarkable fact surfaced from recently discovered manuscripts of his. He was haunted all his life by this calling."

From a religious site, yes. Hardly skepticism.

Nice attempt of completely ignoring what he spent most of his time on after Principia: The Royal Mint.

Read what really happened in Newton's life here:
Isaac-Newton.info (http://www.isaac-newton.info/isaac-newton/)

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton/Later_life_--_the_Mint_and_the_Royal_Society)

Steve, what you are doing is a classic example of boosting a single fact and ignoring all those what contradict your point.

These "recently discovered manuscripts", have you seen them? Surely, you cannot mean the "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John", because that was published in 1733. So, let's see these "recently discovered manuscripts" that virtually nullifies Newton's work.

[SteveGrenard]

I received the following message by private e-mail in response to my Newton's birthday message. It is from a distinguished physicist and friend at Cambridge:

"Yes, indeed. The institute in Cambridge University which I see from my lab window each day is called the "Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences". When it was opened a small apple tree was planted which allegedly, via several generations of cuttings, is genetically related to the one which produced the apple that fell on his head. There has never been the slightest suggestion that Newton was associated with anything other than maths and physics. However, one thing which you might find amusing is that Newton's rooms in Trinity College are always allocated to the most distinguished resident college fellow. When I was an undergraduate their occupant was one of the world's most distinguished philosophers, the late C.D. Broad - who also had a reputation as a distinguished writer on the paranormal and on trying to fit psi phenomena into a philosophical framework. He has written some classic books on the subject. An appropriate tenant.


"Also, if you look at Newton's writing it seems that he had a mystical approach even to the very mathematical questions of his laws of motion and of gravity. He was much exercised by the question of "action at a distance". How could gravity act when there is nothing joining the masses concerned? He went through several convolutions on the subject, and at one time thought about particles that are continually being exchanged and which carry the force - something like the modern idea of gravitons." (Prof W)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I received the following message by private e-mail in response to my Newton's birthday message. It is from a distinguished physicist and friend at Cambridge:

"Yes, indeed. The institute in Cambridge University which I see from my lab window each day is called the "Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences". When it was opened a small apple tree was planted which allegedly, via several generations of cuttings, is genetically related to the one which produced the apple that fell on his head. There has never been the slightest suggestion that Newton was associated with anything other than maths and physics. However, one thing which you might find amusing is that Newton's rooms in Trinity College are always allocated to the most distinguished resident college fellow. When I was an undergraduate their occupant was one of the world's most distinguished philosophers, the late C.D. Broad - who also had a reputation as a distinguished writer on the paranormal and on trying to fit psi phenomena into a philosophical framework. He has written some classic books on the subject. An appropriate tenant.


"Also, if you look at Newton's writing it seems that he had a mystical approach even to the very mathematical questions of his laws of motion and of gravity. He was much exercised by the question of "action at a distance". How could gravity act when there is nothing joining the masses concerned? He went through several convolutions on the subject, and at one time thought about particles that are continually being exchanged and which carry the force - something like the modern idea of gravitons." (Prof W)

Why can't we learn the name of this "distinguished physicist and friend" of yours, Steve? What possible reason could he have for being anonymous?

[T'ai Chi]

Newton studied many things other than science (calculus, optics, physics, etc. etc.), although he thought the following were within the realm of science, like alchemy and religion (theology, philosophy, prophesy, anti-trinity, and church history).

Interesting resources: http://members.aol.com/stevesnobelen/, and http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/transcripts_intro.html.

Afterall, he wrote that the “most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” :)

Remember Newton the next time skeptics bash believers just for being believers. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Remember Newton the next time skeptics bash believers just for being believers. :)

"The next time"? When have skeptics "bashed" believers just for being believers?

Who are these skeptics you refer to?

Can we get examples?

Do you think it is fair to compare how people were thinking in the 1700's with 2003?

[Torlack]

Being a great mathematician doesn't preclude Newton from being totally nuts on other subjects. I don't think I will ever understand why people feel that they have produced some type of victory when they point out that people we might admire had their own silly ideas.

[Torlack]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


"The next time"? When have skeptics "bashed" believers just for being believers?


Many times I would guess. But that is a side issue and a distraction from the real point.

The real point is that it is silly to have to accept ALL of Newton's ideas just because he is Newton and one of the great men in math.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Torlack
Many times I would guess. But that is a side issue and a distraction from the real point.

Perhaps. I would still like to see it addressed, though. Evidence, always.

Originally posted by Torlack
The real point is that it is silly to have to accept ALL of Newton's ideas just because he is Newton and one of the great men in math.

Absolutely correct. Newton was, by all accounts, a thoroughly unpleasant man to be around, but that does not detract from his scientific achievements.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Do you think it is fair to compare how people were thinking in the 1700's with 2003?

Yes, especially when they are many, many people, many scientists, who still think the same thoughts now that Newton did in the late 1600's and early 1700's about 'intelligent design'. There have simply always been dissenters who view the Darwinian account as inadequate and have some evidence.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, especially when they are many, many people, many scientists, who still think the same thoughts now that Newton did in the late 1600's and early 1700's about 'intelligent design'. There have simply always been dissenters who view the Darwinian account as inadequate and have some evidence.

Thank you for your reply.

Do I take it that you only mean proponents of ID, when you talk about "believers", or do you have someone else in mind?

As far as I know, believers in ID are not "bashed" for believing in ID, but are criticized because of their lack of evidence.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In this week's comentary Randi celebrates the 25 December birthday of Sir Isaac Newton. Many are often at a loss to understand
how Newton's strong religious beliefs and interest in bible prophesies have conveniently failed to appear on the radar screens of "skeptics" such as Randi. Here was one of he greatest scientists of all time, a man lauded as having caused a
revolution and as having laid downed principles which pseudoskeptics tightly embrace to explain everything that is
near and dear to them yet they forgo reality and the realization that, by their current definition, Sir Isaac was nothing short of being one of the greatest paranormalists of all time .........


Uh, why should Randi or anyone else mention Newton's tendencies toward paranormalism when they are lauding his scientific achievements?

Who are the "many" who are at a loss to "understand how Newton's strong religious beliefs and interest in bible prophesies have conveniently failed to appear on the radar screens of "skeptics" such as Randi?"

If Newton also had a fetish for dressing up in woman's clothing and having his bottom spanked by choir boys should we mention that everytime we talk of his achievements?

[T'ai Chi]

Well no, but most if not all of what Newton did was to understand his conception of God and God's creation.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well no, but most if not all of what Newton did was to understand his conception of God and God's creation.

Well, whatever his motives were, good things came of it.
To me his motives are less important than the scientific achievements that came from them.

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, let's bring the milk to the table and leave the cowpats in the meadow.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Well, whatever his motives were, good things came of it.
To me his motives are less important than the scientific achievements that came from them.

Well, that's true, but it is somewhat misleading to present his work in a package that is wholly absent of the conditions, motivations, and reasons for it that definitely involved his views of God and religion.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
Isn't that what they accuse Dr. Rhine of doing?:p I assume the smillie means you are joking.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Well, that's true, but it is somewhat misleading to present his work in a package that is wholly absent of the conditions, motivations, and reasons for it that definitely involved his views of God and religion.

Well, having just looked at Randi's commentary the mention of Issac Newton is very short. Should Randi have mentioned Newton's religious beliefs in this extremely brief tribute?
Or is there other sources where Randi, or other skeptics for that matter, have attempted to subvert Newton's supernatural beliefs?

Personally, I would have no problem mentioning that Newton was religious. It is certainly not uncommon in human history for great thinkers to hold religious beliefs.
Years later we can look at them with a more sober mind and understand that it was a more a sign of the times than anything else that propelled their paranormal beliefs.

But, I have trouble believing there is some sort of effort on the part of skeptics to ignore Newton's religous values. Maybe they just aren't worth mentioning in the larger context.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by KelvinG

But, I have trouble believing there is some sort of effort on the part of skeptics to ignore Newton's religous values. Maybe they just aren't worth mentioning in the larger context.

I would challenge anybody to find a skeptical paper where Newton or his physics were invoked and his religious views were mentioned favorably. Most don't mention them at all, or downplay them as if they were just a hobby of his. In truth, Newton wrote over 4 million words on religion, much more than any other thing he studied. Religion was his main topic and the others were hobbies.

This paper is pretty informative; on Newton, science, and religion:

http://members.aol.com/stevesnobelen/religion.doc

It shows that Newton wasn't so much a scientist who tinkered around with religion, but a thelogian who took time out to do some science.

Randi's commentary was interesting when he said:

"Instead, most of the world chooses to believe that another guy was born on this day, a notion for which there's no proof at all."

because Newton himself believed this 'other guy' was born, and Newton did his scientific work specifically as a duty, and to learn about God.

Saying that Newton's belief was simply a sign of the times is hardly a thorough treatment because religion has been the sign of every time.

[KelvinG]

OK, but all I'm saying is that I find his motive for what he did mostly irrelevant.
If a scientist discovers great things and claims he did so because he was trying to prove there is no God, I wouldn't dwell on it too much either.
In fact, I've read many articles, books, etc, by scientists who have proclaimed themselves as atheists, but manage to not even mention their beliefs in their work. They stick to the science.

Great, Newton was a religious man. Word up. More power to him.

[BillyJoe]

Einstein also wasted most of his life in a fruitless search
but we still prefer to talk about his Relativity.

We are optimists. We prefer to drink milk than throw cowpats.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Einstein also wasted most of his life in a fruitless search
but we still prefer to talk about his Relativity.

We are optimists. We prefer to drink milk than throw cowpats.

I assume you are speaking for yourself and I am glad you optimistically drink your milk.

The problem is that a lot of skeptics including the head honcho around here throw a lot of cowpats. Heck in half a sentence he did it in this short item about Newton. He managed throw one big cowpat right at JC.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Thank you - again - for your reply.

Do I take it that you only mean proponents of ID, when you talk about "believers", or do you have someone else in mind?

As far as I know, believers in ID are not "bashed" for believing in ID, but are criticized because of their lack of evidence.



......wtf is this cowpat-throwing thing anyway? A hillbilly contest or what??

[T'ai Chi]

I'm wondering how many people here would have called Newton a "quack" or dismissed him as a "believer" way back when...

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Hey, if you don't wanna, just say so....

[thatguywhojuggles]

Ultimately Newton is known for science. I had never heard of the religion stuff. Ask any ordinary person, and I'm sure most will have the same perception.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Ultimately Newton is known for science. I had never heard of the religion stuff. Ask any ordinary person, and I'm sure most will have the same perception.

But don't you see. It's a huge skeptic conspiracy!! Everyone knows that if we mention Newton's religious beliefs it is an advocation that God exists!! Such truths must be quashed!!;)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Ultimately Newton is known for science. I had never heard of the religion stuff. Ask any ordinary person, and I'm sure most will have the same perception.

That's the thing. I find it more than a little odd that we've all heard of his science, while at the same time hearing next to nothing about his religion, which was his real motivation it seems. :(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's the thing. I find it more than a little odd that we've all heard of his science, while at the same time hearing next to nothing about his religion, which was his real motivation it seems. :(

Perhaps it just shows where the real worth of Newton's work lies....

[Jeff Corey]

Mendel was a monk.
And he fudged his data.
Fisher was a statistician who demonstrated that in 1935.
Or maybe the gardiner who actually did all the scutwork knew Mendel's hypotheses.
Or maybe Mendel's gardiner's dog ate the data.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Fisher was a statistician who demonstrated that in 1935.


What are you saying Fisher demonstrated?

Newton was an amateur theologian who wrote over 4 million words on the subject, by far more than he wrote on any other subjects, and happened to do science as a part-time hobby (even though, he'd say that him doing what we call science was really discovering God/God's laws).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What are you saying Fisher demonstrated?

This. (http://www.unbf.ca/psychology/likely/evolution/mendel.htm)

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Newton was an amateur theologian who wrote over 4 million words on the subject, by far more than he wrote on any other subjects, and happened to do science as a part-time hobby (even though, he'd say that him doing what we call science was really discovering God/God's laws).

"Science as a part-time hobby"??

It virtually consumed him for a great many years. Sheeeesh.....

You cannot judge the value of his work based on how long it took. Did you read the links I posted? No?

So what if he wrote over 4 million words? Goethe wrote a big, fat book about color, completely worthless.

Quantity is not quality.

Sheeesh......"science as a part-time hobby".... :rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

This. (http://www.unbf.ca/psychology/likely/evolution/mendel.htm)


Thanks Jeff! ;)


You cannot judge the value of his work based on how long it took. Did you read the links I posted? No?


Assume much? Yes? :)

One of the links you gave above, when searched for the strings "theology", "God", and "religion", come up entirely empty. That is very interesting, don't you think? Do you think that link gives a fair and balanced view of Newton?


"Science as a part-time hobby"??
It virtually consumed him for a great many years. Sheeeesh.....
Sheeesh......"science as a part-time hobby".... :rolleyes:

Well, there's evidence for that view.

He spent more than 50 years on theology (more than any other subject)... wrote more than 4 million words on it (more than any other subject)... Considered natural philosophy (what we'd incorrectly categorize as 'science' today) as key to understanding God / God's creation... Newton himself believed his theology persuits to be "a duty of the greatest moment"... Newton's intentions to use his Principia to further the design argument...

In fact, his whole mindset, from what I understand, was to study the "Two Books", that is, the Bible of course, and the 'book' of nature, to understand God / God's creation. He simply believed that the study of nature is a subset of religion. Therefore, as already mentioned, what simply call science was what he'd call theology and learning about God.

The now increasing availability of Newton's theological papers and emerging historiography reveals these things.

A short excerpt from the link I gave, http://members.aol.com/stevesnobelen/religion.doc, sums it up nicely:

"A few short years after Newton was interred in Westminster Abbey in 1727, a monument was set up over his grave. It depicts the great man reclining on four books signifying the range of his thought and endeavour: the Principia, the Optics, chronology and theology. Later in the eighteenth century positivist Enlightenment propagandists defaced this edifice by chiselling off the latter two books. Over the past two decades labourers have been busy reattaching them.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Thanks Jeff! ;)

You're welcome...

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Assume much? Yes? :)

One of the links you gave above, when searched for the strings "theology", "God", and "religion", come up entirely empty. That is very interesting, don't you think? Do you think that link gives a fair and balanced view of Newton?

You watch too much Fox News.

Instead of merely typing a few search words, why don't you read the content? A superficial search does not replace actual studying.

Should we always include the whole story, from his shoe size, to his favorite breakfast? An article about Newton's achievements must primarily deal with his scientific works, because those have stood the test of time. Nobody cares about his amateur (your description, not mine) thoughts on religion, because they have made nil impact.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well, there's evidence for that view.

He spent more than 50 years on theology (more than any other subject)... wrote more than 4 million words on it (more than any other subject)... Considered natural philosophy (what we'd incorrectly categorize as 'science' today) as key to understanding God / God's creation... Newton himself believed his theology persuits to be "a duty of the greatest moment"... Newton's intentions to use his Principia to further the design argument...

The road to hell - if you pardon the expression - is paved with good intentions. It doesn't matter what Newton's intent was. What matters is what impact his discoveries had.

You are confusing then and now. Today, we can freely say that we do not believe in god. In those days, it was not only dangerous, it was also pretty much unthinkable. Because of Newton and other scientists - not theologists, mind you - we are able today to view the universe as it is, not as we think - or wish - God created it.

Goethe also considered his color theory his greatest achievement. Too bad it turned out to be wrong, from the very first page. Should we negate his literary works because of this? Of course not.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In fact, his whole mindset, from what I understand, was to study the "Two Books", that is, the Bible of course, and the 'book' of nature, to understand God / God's creation. He simply believed that the study of nature is a subset of religion. Therefore, as already mentioned, what simply call science was what he'd call theology and learning about God.

So?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The now increasing availability of Newton's theological papers and emerging historiography reveals these things.

A short excerpt from the link I gave, http://members.aol.com/stevesnobelen/religion.doc, sums it up nicely:

"A few short years after Newton was interred in Westminster Abbey in 1727, a monument was set up over his grave. It depicts the great man reclining on four books signifying the range of his thought and endeavour: the Principia, the Optics, chronology and theology. Later in the eighteenth century positivist Enlightenment propagandists defaced this edifice by chiselling off the latter two books. Over the past two decades labourers have been busy reattaching them.

..."positivist Enlightenment propagandists"? Who were these people? Why should we, in 2003, be responsible for what some people did 200 years ago? Have you heard anyone here advocating the deliberate desecration of Newton's grave?

Your argument is one big straw man.

[BillyJoe]

the hillbilly could throw some cowpats around the place but no he will just drink his milk and go home

[Hamish]

So what if Newton was driven by his theological/alchemical beliefs? You can't judge a 17th century man by modern standards. The religious tone of the time was particularly strong. Many people were being burnt alive for their beliefs and being brought up in this sort of society was bound to instill religious fervour of one sort or another.

So Newton believed in things which today we consider paranormal. So what? This doesn't have any bearing on the fact that he was able to formulate the laws of motion, gravity and bring us calculus (although Leibnitz might have disagreed). If he'd discovered the philosopher's stone, we'd be celebrating him for that as well. The fact that it was never there to find is not his fault and not something he could have possibly known at the time since chemistry hadn't been invented.

I can just see people two jundred years from now saying something like: "I can't believe they spent all that time looking for dark matter, when it can't possibly exist!" or somesuch.

And if I hear one more story about the apple hitting him on the head I'll scream. This is a popular myth which has sprung up from people reading too much into cartoon drawings in physics books. There is an account of an apple falling and at no point in Newton's memoirs does it mention it falling on his head.

[BillyJoe]

It did you know.....and then it bounced right off his hard head and straight through a little yellow road sign.

[Hamish]

:D

Not a road sign though. I hope there aren't any laser hazards on the roads near where you live.

[Rolfe]

Seems to me that some people have a problem with recognising that intelligent people do not all agree that it is a self-evident truth that God does not exist.

Many highly intelligent and deep-thinking people see no such self-evident conclusion, both in Newton's time and now.

Make all the rational arguments you like. However, sneering dismissal of a version of belief suitable for a child of five, and assertions that people like Newton were blinded to the "obvious" by the times they lived in, are unworthy approaches.

Rolfe.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You watch too much Fox News.


Nope, sorry, I don't. Who knows where you got that one from.

I do, however, read actual research on Newton, including his own writings.


Instead of merely typing a few search words, why don't you read the content? A superficial search does not replace actual studying.


Yeah, I agree. I did read the links; both of them. Why on Earth do you keep claiming I didn't? What one of the pages utterly failed to mention are several things that were extremely important to Newton's life, which is highly one-sided.


Should we always include the whole story, from his shoe size, to his favorite breakfast?


Of course not, but we should include the things that were an integral part of Newton's life and guided his work. We definitely should not omit them.


Today, we can freely say that we do not believe in god.


Well sure, people are free to say it. What that has to do with Newton I have no idea, because Newton definitely did believe in God.


Because of Newton and other scientists - not theologists, mind you - we are able today to view the universe as it is, not as we think - or wish - God created it.


As already mentioned, Newton was not only a scientist but a theologist, and he did his work to support the design hypothesis, which many people today do believe.


Your argument is one big straw man.

Nope, sorry. My argument is based on emerging historiographical evidence which primarily include Newton's own writings.