Jeff Jacoby on Isaac Newton
Maybe Jeff Jacoby thought we couldn’t tell who this was about from the very first sentence. I will point out that more than 3 centuries have passed since Newton’s appointment.
Jeff Jacoby: A teacher with faith and reason
DID YOU hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn’t simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.” Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning,” he determined, it means 3988 BC.
Share This
Related Posts
-
North Carolina Lays Groundwork To Establish State Religion
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
-
Sunday Sermon: Cornel West
Posted on Mar 31, 2013
-
The Kingdom of God and the Politics of Christianity
Posted on Oct 28, 2012
-
President Ahmadinejad Tells U.N.: the ‘Ultimate Savior’ is Coming – with Christ (Kayhan, Islamic Republic of Iran)
Posted on Sep 28, 2012
This thing about Newton has floated around the Internet for awhile now. It would be significant if Newton renounced his scientific works because they threatened his religious beliefs. Even today there are scientists who hold fundamentalist religious views. But these beliefs are opposite ends of thought, one is guided by faith the other by logic and reason. The danger is when people try to combine the two.
Isaac Newton’s beliefs matched most closely with arianism, considered a heresy by virtually all Christian denominations because it denies the divinity of Jesus.
Sure sounds like a “fundamentalist” to me. If Jacoby bothered to actually look at the kind of God Newton described, and not merely his use of the word “God,” he might have actually learned something about both science and religion. Instead he’s shown his ignorance of both.
Oh, and rather than bending over backwards to hire him, Cambridge would have thrown him out the door (as a matter of law at the time) if he had publicly revealed his beliefs. I guess that reveals Jacoby’s ignorance of history as well.
Fundamentalists don’t like to point out that Newton was anti-trinitarian. He spent a lot of time studying what he felt were adulterations in Bible texts, which led him to deny the presence of the Holy Trinity. The fundamentalists of his time were not too tolerant of his apostasy :
We are talking about Isaac Newton the alchemist, right?
His science was based on observations of the natural world.
His perusals in the Bible were conducted in search of secret codes and hidden meanings.
It was simply alchemy.
Well, the nature of a certain kind of fundamentalist is to have problems recognizing that the passage of centuries or even millenia can make a difference to lots of things. And frankly, I’ve never been very impressed by anything of Jacoby’s.
I maintain that based on my experience if a prospective candidate for an academic position at a top-notch university had racked up objective accomplishments in “Natural Philosophy†(what we now call physics) and mathematics comparable to Newton at an equivalent point in their career, the hiring committee would sign him on the spot if he were wearing a clown suit, had spaghetti in his hair and prayed five times daily to the God of Fluorescent Lights. Newton’s accomplishments are nearly unfathomable. Today we give slam-dunk Nobel prizes to folks who advance understanding in the ways Newton did and universities slaver over faculty with Nobel laureate potential to the extent that they’ll overlook all kinds of proclivities. Just so we’re clear, Michael Behe and William Dembski, for instance, are no Isaac Newtons.
But here’s the much more important thing to remember: when Einstein (with the special and general theories of relativity) and Schrodinger/Heisenberg (with quantum mechanics) showed how Newton was WRONG, the scientific community recognized it, accepted it, and, wholesale, adopted the NEW understanding. I wonder how that would have worked out for the worshippers at Our Chapel of Newton’s Principles?
Did you hear about the politician that had illegitimate children with an unpaid servant?
Did you hear about the famous artist that had a relationship with a sixteen year old boy?
Your personal beliefs, be they religious political or anything else, should have zero influence on your getting a job, as long as they don’t interfere with your performance on the job. This is naturally more easily said than done. If I’m interviewing 20 potential biologists, and I know that some of them claim to believe the literal story or creation, I will be much more inclined to hire the candidates that hold the concept of evolution in high regard, being central to biology. Of course, the likelyhood of finding very many creationist biologists is about that of an Issac Newton level scientist showing up at an interview wearing a clown suit, with spaghetti in his hair and praying five times daily to the God of Fluorescent Lights.
Jacoby’s statements in his closing paragraph are just as relevant now as they were 300 years ago, though, Holly:
Yet most of the commenters seem to miss that point as they’re caught up in trying to trivialize Newton’s religious studies or disproving any claims that he was a ‘fundamentalist’ (the definition of which could vary but it’s really inconsequential to Jacoby’s point: that science is the study of the physical world and religion is separate from that and the two should complement rather than conflict.)
“science is the study of the physical world and religion is separate from that and the two should complement rather than conflict.”
—-
SHOULD complement RATHER THAN conflict? I don’t think so.
Science, by definition, is the study of the natural world. Start introducing elements of the spiritual or supernatural, and you’ve strayed outside the realm of what science can properly address Whether conflict between the two arises or not depends on the nature of scientific findings and religious beliefs. When conflict does arise, there should be no question about which is which. The greatest leaps forward (tha nature of the solar system, etc.)
came about precisely because science stuck to its defined area of the physical world and refused to be polluted by religious beliefs.
An individual scientist, however, is more than his job. He is perfectly free to delve into whatever areas interest him, be that art, religion, metaphysics, magic or puppetry.
When he goes to the lab or office, however, to do science, he must confine himself to the study of tha natural world.
Science and religion can compliment each other in a person, but not in science. To suggest otherwise is to destroy the very nature of scientific inquiry.
I have no idea what you are talking about, Doma. Where did I advocate using religion as a substitute for studying natural phenomena? Things that are observable, measurable, etc, are the domain of science. Making pronouncements that either declare or imply things that go beyond the measurable though, is beyond the scope of science and that is where some are now treading. Likewise, people should refrain from using dogma or faith to ignore the measurable and observable facts about nature. If each type of thinking and analysis remains in its own domain, then there is no conflict.
CS=
“Where did I advocate using religion as a substitute for studying natural phenomena? ”
==
Where did I say that you did?
Your use of the word ‘should’ (as I quoted). however,implies that the relationship between science and religion ‘should’ be of a certain kind.
I contend that there should be no ‘should’ involved.
Other than that, which to me is important, we agree.
I guess your point of contention is one on which I can’t agree with you. I absolutely think the relationship should be one of mutual respect. Religious believers shouldn’t ask that their beliefs be given credence on matters that are correctly addressed by scientific thought, and vice versa. It’s not just a matter of saying that an individual should be allowed to pursue his or her own beliefs, but on certain matters which are not addressable by science, society should respectfully consider religious viewpoints as they inform our understanding of human behavior and morality.
CS=
You’re talking about science, scientists and society as if they were all the same thing..
It would be a better world if all people respected all other people, including scientists atheists, religious people, accountants and the other men on the street.
Science (the work) can be concerned only wilth science, and whether scientific findings are considered respectful or hateful can not be a consideration, if science is to remain unadulterated..
The word ‘should’ when used to talk of respect alarms me. In the sense that ‘should’ is a recommendation, everything’s fine. In the sense, that people should feel obligated to respect certain people or ideas, it’s not fine. Forced respect is not respect any longer, it’s mandated behavior.
Being fond of free choice, I claim the right to choose what or whom I respect. I would wish the same freedom for sociery. Recommendations are welcome. Mandates are not.
Wheatever. I’m done with the subject.