A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's mindsabout to religion.” - Francis Bacon

Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) has been called one of the most influential men in human history, even by today's scientists. He was a scientist, mathematician, astronomer and theologian. His Principia Mathematica has been called “the greatest book of science ever written, bar none.” By 1664, Newton had already fused the two major strands of modern science; the rational and the empirical.

All this, and yet his interest in science and astronomy were secondary to his profound obsession with the Bible. Newton owned more than 30 Bibles, which he studied extensively for 30 years. He became a master of Biblical studies surpassing most clergymen and wrote more about theology, than science and math combined.

The clockwork precision with which the universe functions was for Newton, anything but the result of blind circumstance. For behind it all he sensed the presence of intelligible planning and purposeful direction.

He concluded that the underlying unity in nature, revealed to man by rational inquiry and observation, was the product of the Divine Mind. He worked with the belief that there is a double revelation of God; the one contained in His words found in Scripture and the one to be found in nature and it's general laws.

He wasn't a great scientist in spite of his belief in an Almighty Creator, he was a great scientist because of it. Due to his firm conviction that the Creator is a God of order, Newton was able to proceed, relying on established truths. He felt that as God's natural laws applied in one instance, they would consistently apply in others. The order he saw in small things, he felt confident would be seen in larger things. For example, just as he observed that gravity was an invisible force at work on the Earth, the law could be extended further to the universe, affecting the orbits and placement of planets, moons and stars.

He strongly believed that natural and divine knowledge could be harmonized and shown to be one. Only when the two were joined did their objects and events acquire full significance and existential import. In his way of thinking there was no place for warfare between science and religion. Newton felt that religion and science are inseparable; two parts of the same life-long quest to understand the universe.

Atheism was nothing new, even in Newton's day. In fact, he assisted Richard Bentley in writing sermons refuting it, entitled, “A Confutation of Atheism.” Being a scientist who also believed in a Creator put him somewhat at odds with his Atheist friends.

At the same time, because the Bible was Newton's touchstone for testing teachings and doctrine, he relied more on Scripture and less on established orthodoxy, which put him at odds with the Church. However, he was reluctant to go head-to-head against it for fear of persecution. As late as 1698 the Act for the Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness made it an offense to deny the Trinity doctrine.

He took Scriptural understanding in it's purest form, straight from the source. Newton believed that by carefully removing the patina of mysticism Church doctrine had accumulated over the centuries, he could lay bare the truth. And in his extensive studies, the truth that he found differed considerably from what was being taught as established doctrine.

He learned for example, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by Christ and was unknown to early Christianity. In refuting the Trinity, Newton firmly held that reasoning should be used. He argued that nothing created by God was without purpose and reason, and Bible teachings would be sustained by similar application of logic and reason. He declared the Trinity doctrine as unintelligible, saying, “What cannot be understood is no object of belief.” He found order, harmony and consistency throughout the Bible, so much so that the Trinity doctrine stood as out of place as a stain on a page.

It's easier to put faith in “experts” who discount the validity of the Bible. It's easier to let someone else do your thinking for you. It's easier to ridicule the Bible as a book for the uneducated and gullible. But only the Scripturally uneducated attempt to do so.

The loudest criticism comes from those who have not even read it. Second to that, criticism comes from those who wish to change it to suit themselves. Thirdly, criticism comes from those who chafe at the thought of accountability to anyone but themselves. It must be admitted that motive is a factor.

Isaac Newton was an expert greater than most and within the pages of the Bible he found knowledge and understanding that no man could have contrived. People will spend their lives devoting time to things far less significant.

It's not a coincidence that the Bible is available to anyone on Earth that wishes to read it. It might be worth finding out why Newton believed it to be the most important book ever written.

(In this I have quoted from various sources, including the book, “Isaac Newton – In the Presence of the Creator”. Written by Gale Christianson, a Newton biographer.)

The point you make Mark is a valid one in my opinion...one I agree with. However 26 letter's post is informative isn't.

On a narrow point it is true that sometimes great scientific minds have deep faith in God. Francis Collins, admired by many as a leading scientist wrote a book which I have read entitled 'The Language of God.' Collins was the man, as you most likely know, who was chiefly responsible for unwinding the Human Genome. So it is true that a good scientfic mind can also believe in the existence of God. In his book he tries, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to marry his belief in the existence of God with his belief in evolution.

26 Letters is just highlighting a facet of this man's mind that interests her, and possibly many others. She is not sidelining his other achievements... just highlighting something that may not be common knowledge.

But your post was on the nail and I am making a narrow point that does not change your statement.


(Hmm... hows that for a new found tolerance? )

---

He that increases in knowledge increases in pain.

Well spotted Ding dong you are not wrong but on song.

---

He that increases in knowledge increases in pain.

Thank you for your post, 26 letters. Having read a comprehensive biography of Newton and his work I am quite familiar with the information provided and continually enjoy the inclusion of material relating to him in many articles.

Many of Newton's eccentricities lead some commentators to believe that he had the equivalent of the condition known today as Asperger Syndrome.

His exemption from ordination to the Anglican priesthood, normally a condition of any Cambridge Fellowship, was granted by Charles II, resolving the issue surrounding Newton's refusal to accept the Trinitarian doctrine of the church, and enabling him to occupy the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in 1669.

It was interesting to learn that on a number of occasions when Newton was required to fulfill lecturing obligations and none of his students showed up, apparently because he was difficult to understand, Newton proceeded with his lectures anyway, speaking to an empty auditorium for the full duration.

---

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."

Luftmarque: 'Sure, and he was also a serious alchemist. Why is his belief in God and the Bible of more interest or relevance than his belief in alchemy? Should we, by extension, also reconsider our lack of belief in alchemy? If you are merely making the point that some scientists, some good ones, have been deists in the past and some are now well who could or would want to argue against that? If all scientists believed in God would that be reason to believe in God?'

True, Luftmarque - though I think one of the reasons why Newton's apparent theology (along with other luminaries who believe in God) is interesting is that it flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that religion is for the blinkered or childish thinkers of the world, who are religious for the convenient security offered by a omnipotent and benevolent God and afterlife. Whether Newton et al are right or wrong in framing scientific phenomena within a religious perspective is moot. What matters is that great minds, with all their faculties for intense critical thought, are capable of reconciling reason with faith.

---

I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.

William Blake

Come to think of it, if every single scientist in the world (except me) believed in God, would that be evidence for the existence of God? And, if we want to talk about "scientists who were also deists," wouldn't the poster boy be Darwin himself?

---

}- Mark -{ ASPARAGUS Asparagus in a lean in a lean to hot. This makes it art and it is wet wet weather wet weather wet. —Gertrude Stein, Tender Buttons

But Mark isn't it a valid point to look at the different facets of a person? What's wrong with just acknowledging it? It has got nothing to do with letting go of our own views just a broadening of the mind

You have already made your point in your first post, and I agreed with it. Why the aggression

Buxton said and I also agree with this


What matters is that great minds, with all their faculties for intense critical thought, are capable of reconciling reason with faith.

I say

No one is suggesting it proves the existence of God...it doesn't. The point is a narrow one that shows that great minds are not just confined to those who believe in atheism or evolution. Surely that is a fair point.

---

He that increases in knowledge increases in pain.

Certainly not. Great minds include both atheists and theists. After all, what has religious and godly beliefs got to do with science?
But then again, if one tends to attribute things not explicable at the moment to their 'faith' and 'belief' (like God) rather saying that it cannot be proven with 'existent scientific tools', then that would be a murder of science and also truth. Don't you think?

---

Gotcha, bud, again

worldsclyde: 'I personally think science and religion should remain separate. Religion is another word for magic to me.'

This is exactly the mindset that is confounded by figures like Newton. Like I said, the conventional wisdom is that informed people dismiss the mysticism of religion - because lucid thought and faith cannot be married.

But this is patently nonsense. As Dreamy said: 'The clockwork precision with which the universe functions was for Newton, anything but the result of blind circumstance. For behind it all he sensed the presence of intelligible planning and purposeful direction.'

Newton (amongst others) see the workings of the universe as evidence of a divine power putting these events into motion. Their research brings them to a sense of the divine.

What that is, and how it works, is as much a mystery as most of the universe. Not all believers are simply dismissing the unknown as the magical work of God, a neat way of tidying up unexplained phenomena without needing to unearth the troublesome facts.

For this reason, I refute km's statement: 'if one tends to attribute things not explicable at the moment to their 'faith' and 'belief' (like God) rather saying that it cannot be proven with 'existent scientific tools', then that would be a murder of science and also truth.'

Just because some believers use faith as a comfort blanket against the real world doesn't mean it's hokum.

---

I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.

William Blake

It's kind of funny how some of you disregard the fact that in the past theology was pretty much the only option. If not for that, there would've been few "great minds" among supernaturalists. It's most likely that, with the amount of evidence being available at present, most of them would now be agnostics or atheists.

LilyLily: 'It's kind of funny how some of you disregard the fact that in the past theology was pretty much the only option. If not for that, there would've been few "great minds" among supernaturalists. It's most likely that, with the amount of evidence being available at present, most of them would now be agnostics or atheists.'

26letters has responded to this, but I have to add that this is the sort of conventional wisdom that gets bandied about without qualification. Even in the ages when the Church (and other faiths) ruled societies, adherence to religious practice was by no means as widepsread as people seem to assume. So if people are disregarding this 'fact' it's because it is actually a pretty big fiction.

---

I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.

William Blake

I re-read the piece and this line: He wasn't a great scientist in spite of his belief in an Almighty Creator, he was a great scientist because of it. and found it bothersome. What about other great scientists who were atheists? By this logic, we have to conclude that those great atheist scientists were great because of their atheism.
Or is it that one cannot be a great scientist at all without being a theist? But that would be wrong - there are atheist yet great scientists as well.

---

Gotcha, bud, again

Gradyone, that is a very well written post...
I have just one question, don't you think that one should base one's belief on something at least? I mean why should one just believe something in a scientific era, when mankind is pushing its own limits?
We do not know if there was a 'beginning of existence' as such and while you can say that there was nothing before that, a problem that still plagues us is that we cannot explain how that beginning happened, if it at all had. So much so to the point that we are beginning to question the very 'belief' that there was any beginning at all. We have nothing- absolutely nothing to show how existence could have had a beginning. It is just like the egg or chicken which came first situation when it comes to the 'first instance of existence' - matter or energy?
So I wonder how we can believe something that we cannot prove in any way and is leading us to believe slowly that perhaps we might never be able to prove it at all. Though attempts will never stop of course. And they shouldn't.
While I fully agree that every person is entitled to hold his/her own beliefs regarding this or any matter, it is just not scientific to believe in something that has no basis at the moment.

---

Gotcha, bud, again

Is everything a 'belief'? I do not want to venture into the nuances in meanings of the words belief and faith, but assuming they are one and the same, I would like to put belief/faith without basis at one end of the spectrum and b/f with basis at the other end. And I would like to assume we are existing indeed. See, if I am assume that each individual is not existing and they are only assuming the world around them, how can this be possible that we can actually experience the same events whether natural or man made at the same time? There are billions of people with so many 'realities' associated with everyone and somehow all of those seem to overlap, as far as events that happen on earth or in its vicinity are concerned. So, I think there is a 'basis' for believing that we DO exits. So, in that, I am on the right end of the spectrum, I think.

So, now that we DO exist presently, we can say that matter and energy, two interchangeable forms of 'existence', are the building blocks of anything and everything around us. And more importantly, if we leave out the possibility (for the moment) of a higher, supernatural being (god), then we can safely assume that matter and energy are the only things that are needed for something new to be created. So far so good? So, with that logic, matter and energy, either one or both, must have been needed for the 'beginning' of existence, if there was one, right? But then, if there was matter or energy to ensure that beginning, it is not really a beginning is it?

So it would seem that the concept of beginning of existence could go in either of two directions:
1. it is wrong. May be there was no beginning at all. Everything has been here for ever and ever. I know that there are scientific theories which suggest otherwise, but there is also enough to suggest that there may not have been a beginning at all.
2. There was some higher power that made everything possible at the onset.
And in that, if we are correct in our assumption (Which was based on our existing science) that matter and energy is required for everything, then automatically that higher power actually becomes something that is made of matter and energy. And then, we complete the vicious circle since, the God itself is then a composition of matter and energy and there will be debates as to whether 'god' as such had a beginning or not and where it came from it had one.

See, it is all chicken and egg, till we progress. Till then, I would like to keep my options open,
But of course to each his own :)

---

Gotcha, bud, again

To the great minds and highly educated. From the mouth of Jesus. Then he said to his servants, " The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. "Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite them to the wedding. For many are called but few are chosen.