[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[Chris Gehlker]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

>
> On 04.12.2007, at 23:28, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>
>>> They can coexist in a community, but not in an individual if that
>>> individual is really a disciplined scientist. That individual can
>>> (and
>>> should) recognise that the religious hocus-pocus cannot be  
>>> completely
>>> and definitively disproven. That individual can even participate in
>>> the religion, but as soon as that individual really believes in it,
>>> that individual has ceased to be a scientist (at least according to
>>> my
>>> definition (: ).
>>
>> Silly me! I thought Newton and Einstein were scientists. Thanks for
>> setting me straight.
>
> Read up on Newton and you will find that it is widely reported that he
> was plagued by precisely this dichotomy. In his time, it was audacious
> and dangerous to question the existence of God and the authority of
> the church. He did. Both. So, that's one out of the way.

That Newton was a closet nonconformist in no way implies that he  
wasn't profoundly religious.
<http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Isaac_Newton.html>

"Newton believed in past miracles ("the sun standing still," however,  
he regarded as a poetic expression: Moses as a popularizer) and  
prophecies -- no longer needed. In general, he interpreted the Bible  
literally. (Among his effects upon death was a well-worn Bible (1660)  
-- now lost.) He performed meticulous exegesis of the Scriptures. He  
regarded Church history as of primary importance for understanding  
Christianity. An assiduous reader and an erudite historian (he knew  
Greek, Hebrew, and Latin), he examined scores of texts for corruptions  
and misinterpretations. His vehement anti-Catholicism stemmed from the  
initially political endorsement of Athanasius' creed and from the  
later biblical mistranslation by Jerome. He himself was convinced by  
the argument from design in its major features, not in minutiae;  
possibly a mystic in connection with his alchemical investigations, he  
always relied upon facts per se. Newton was a critical historian for  
his time, but he did have a fanatical belief in the writings of  
antiquity (e.g., a crucial fragment of Eudoxus). He was particularly  
attracted to the prophetic records of Daniel and St. John the Divine,  
which he regarded in agreement in the smallest detail. (Biblical  
prophecies, he felt, can be understood only ex post facto.) Newton's  
historical interests engaged his attention more than fifty years; his  
extant writings along this line are esoteric and scattered among  
numerous manuscripts. The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended and  
Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalyse of St.  
John were published posthumously (1728). Together, in the accepted  
historical method of that time, they provide a chronology of world  
history, sacred and profane. Both the Principia and the Optics close  
with affirmations about God; the famous "Scholium" of the former is a  
passionate statement about the creation. As our idea of the universe  
expands, so, too, does our concept of God.
Newton was wholeheartedly committed to the commandments of the Bible  
(O.T. and N.T.)-in an absolute sense. Unfortunately, he envisaged God  
more as a just ruler than a Father of grace, love, and mercy. He  
lacked emotion, although he did record 58 sins about Whitsunday when  
he was 19. He minimized ritual, as well as dogma. (He did not seek the  
last rites of the Church.) He noted that there were many rites among  
the early Christians, but only one faith.

Although the Royal Society had many divines as members, in the spirit  
of Francis Bacon, it barred any public discussion of politics and of  
religion-presumably for the sake of unity. Privately, however, Newton  
recognized that we all live in one world, our Father's world.

He regarded religion and science as interrelated; science, indeed, the  
handmaiden of religion, its Te Deum-hence no fundamental conflict. In  
both he insisted upon a common mental approach, a foundation of facts,  
historical and natural. He corrected the death date (34) of Christ,  
and that of the Argonaut's search (956) and hence of Troy's fall, 904  
(both about 3 centuries late by modern standards). His application of  
astronomical dating (eclipses, equinoctial precession, et at.) was  
revolutionary. He was, however, very much opposed to metaphysicians  
such as Descartes and Leibnitz, both in science and in theology. He  
looked upon history and nature as similar in that they both have  
latent secrets, both being actually simple and measurable.

Newton's whole life was dominated by religion, his search for the  
Creator of heaven and earth. Toward the end of his life he mused, "I  
do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I appear to  
have been but a little boy, playing on the sea-shore, and diverting  
myself, in now and then finding a smooth pebble or a prettier shell  
than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered  
before me."



Note that "He himself was convinced by the argument from design"

> (Taking this one a stage deeper though, there is some evidence that
> Newton was a poor scientist in comparison to Leibnitz. He was a gifted
> thinker and mathematician, maybe more gifted than Leibnitz ? but if
> the records are to be believed, less disciplined in method. Just, you
> know, throwing that in there.)

Liebnitz was also profoundly religious.
>
>
> As for Einstein, I have to admit that I don't know his real position
> on God. I know the throwaway quotes that get bandied around, but don't
> tell you anything. Care to enlighten me on his personal *beliefs* ?

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/>

--
Conscience is thoroughly well-bred and soon leaves off talking to  
those who do not wish to hear it.
-Samuel Butler, writer (1835-1902)