Science versus Religion?
Gene Callahan points us to a man who is clearly not a scientific thinker, at least according to the criteria deployed by today’s rhetorical guardians of reason and knowledge. According to Wikipedia, this man used the Bible to make predictions about future events. He spent a great deal of time studying the dimensions and other properties of Solomon’s Temple (using the Bible’s first book of Kings as his chief source, which he translated himself from Hebrew), thinking they contained secrets to the universe, and in his own book on the subject he explained: “This philosophy, both speculative and active, is not only to be found in the volume of nature, but also in the sacred scriptures, as in Genesis, Job, Psalms, Isaiah and others. In the knowledge of this philosophy, God made Solomon the greatest philosopher in the world.”
Furthermore, this man wrote a great deal on the proper way to approach Biblical prophecy, wanting to refute clearly erroneous interpretations which (when falsified by events) would discredit the enterprise of learning objective truths about the natural world–and predicting future historical events–from reading the scriptures.
So who is this nutjob, who doesn’t understand the way empirical science works? Why it’s Isaac Newton, arguably the most important and greatest scientist in human history.
People whose comparative advantage is in the realm of abstract thought often found the best way to make a living was to enter a religious order-and theology itself was itself often quite abstract-where they would be supported in their endeavors that would not generally be regarded as especially productive.
Of course, these days we have state-sponsored research institutions but I’d imagine the theologist-scientist would be more common in an anarcho-Capitalist society.
I’ve never seen anything so absurd.
On the one hand, there is Newton the scientist: the man who formulated a useful set of theories and equations about mechanics, motion and gravity that scientists can still test, confirm or falsify by empirical evidence.
On the other hand, there is Newton the irrationalist: the man who believed in the Judeo-Christian god without convincing evidence (and much evidence against). The man who — like other ignorant and irrational men of his time — thought the Bible was the inspired word of god, without convincing evidence for this. The man who mistakenly thought it contained prophecies of the future and arcane knowledge of the world, and wasted his time on the ridiculous stuff you mention.
So Newton was an idiot savant, good to know.
Reminds me of LK the historian on the one hand and LK the devoted Keynesian on the other.
Or we can just say there was only one Isaac Newton.
It is not that he wasn’t a scientific thinker, just that he wasn’t thinking scientifically about these things. He is now known by everyone for his work on optics, calculus and gravity – when he was thinking scientifically. His work in these areas has been fantastically useful. He is not so well known for his prophesies and work on Solomon’s temple and alchemy, when he was using magical thinking. His work in these areas has not proved to be of any use at all. His prediction that the world would not end before 2060 has proved true so far, but this is not very useful. This illustrates magnificently that it not the genius of the individual, but the method used channel the thoughts that reaps the rewards. Science brings results, magic does not.
“Science brings results, magic does not.”
Science: Philosophy’s Handmaiden
http://www.str.org/articles/science-philosophy-s-handmaiden
“What about the statement that math cannot be proven scientifically? He gives an example of how it can be and here is what he writes: “Anybody can do the following scientific experiment. Put two apples in a pile and add two apples to the pile then test the mathematically predicted result of four apples total. …
“Now, I agree that math is objective truth. But I don’t think he has given us an illustration of science proving math. …
“What he does is clusters two apples with two other apples and points to the total as four and thinks he has tested math and proven it true. However, he did not test math. He exemplified math, and there is a big difference. …
“First, you need no apples or anything physical whatsoever to know that two plus two equals four. You don’t need to do an experiment to know that truth. Not only that, but secondly, the gentleman had math in place before he even started his example. He thinks he proved addition with his example. But he didn’t, because math was necessary for him to do what he did. …
“Now, where did he get the notion of “two”? Where did he get the notion of “add”? Where did he get the notion of “equals”? Do you see that these are mathematical notions which must be in place before you can even do this illustration? They are logically prior to the problem.“
Whatever the status of maths and logic, magic does not bring useful results. Newton: “This philosophy, both speculative and active, is not only to be found in the volume of nature, but also in the sacred scriptures…” When he used nature, he achieved great things, When he used scripture, he achieved nothing of significance.
From the article: “Scientism is the belief that science is the queen of all sources of knowledge, the source of reliable information about the world. On the other hand, religion and philosophy are just mere beliefs and you can’t really pit one against the other. ” He then goes on to discuss logic and maths, and certainly does not justify religion as a way of knowing about the world.
“What about the statement that math cannot be proven scientifically?” This is wrong thinking because science is about disproof rather than proof. I can disprove mathematical hypotheses – that all primes are odd for example, is disproved by the existence of two.
Harold wrote:
It is not that he wasn’t a scientific thinker, just that he wasn’t thinking scientifically about these things. He is now known by everyone for his work on optics, calculus and gravity – when he was thinking scientifically. His work in these areas has been fantastically useful. He is not so well known for his prophesies and work on Solomon’s temple and alchemy, when he was using magical thinking. His work in these areas has not proved to be of any use at all. His prediction that the world would not end before 2060 has proved true so far, but this is not very useful.
Harold, believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. (To repeat for newcomers: Through junior high I told people I wanted to be a theoretical physicist when I grew up.) But I want to point out something interesting. Newton’s work on optics and gravity was WRONG. His prediction, gleaned from studying the Bible, was right (so far).
But you don’t care about that. What is the mark of scientific to you is not whether something is true, but whether other humans find it useful.
What if studying the Bible using Newton’s techniques yielded nothing but true predictions about the future?
I’m mostly just making a rhetorical point here, Harold, but I thought it was funny that you concede yes yes Newton’s “magic” turned out to be true (so far), but that’s not really a big deal in your scorebook.
“Newton’s work on optics and gravity was WRONG. His prediction, gleaned from studying the Bible, was right (so far).”
Good point – useful and true are different measures. Brings back to mind the joke about the balloonists:
A hot air balloonist blown off course and landing in a field, where he meets a man. The balloonist asks “Where am I?” and the man replies, “You’ve landed in a large field.” The balloonist then tells the man that he must be an accountant (or an economist, or a mathematician, or microsoft employee et al.) because the answer was completely accurate and utterly useless.
In some versions of the joke, the man replies that the balloonist must be in management because he doesn’t know who he is or where he’s going, yet he blames the innocent person below him.
Back to the point, science is always wrong, in that it does not tell the whole of the truth. Newtons gravity was more true than previous attempts to explain how things worked. I don’t believe it is accurate to say it was wrong, but that it was not completely right. If it was wrong, it would not have worked. Newtons biblical prediction has not been proved false, but is it true?
If I say I know Losers Nag will win the next Derby, then it does, was I speaking the truth? No, because I did not actually know any such thing, even if it later happened to occur.
“What if studying the Bible using Newton’s techniques yielded nothing but true predictions about the future?” Newtons true prediction was that things will carry on much the same until at least 2060. It does not take years of arcane study to make that prediction. Such true predictions are extremely easy. I can claim that after decades of extensive occult study and measurements of the pyramids I am finally able to make my prediction -the sun will rise tomorrow! What’s more, it will do so in the East! I would not expect to be acclaimed as an oracle. So Newton saying the world will not end before 2060 is not really much of a prediction, even if so far the world has not ended. If his techniques had indeed yielded nothing but true predictions that were not obvious, then I would change my mind.
In summary, his gravity etc was wrong, but closer to right than what they had before and it was not obvious or trivial. His biblical prediction was (so far )right, but obvious and trivial.
Here you have to give props to Keynes, Bob. It wasn’t unknown previously of course, but he was instrumental in pushing this side of Newton into the limelight.
My paper on this at the Notes and Records of the Royal Society (the Royal Society’s history of science journal) is here if anyone is interested: http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roynotesrec/67/1/25.full.pdf
Huh? So keynes’ economic theory can only be appropriately understood through his renowned penchant for buggery which no doubt informed his opinions on economics.
Yeah, I would not look to Sir Isaac Newton for lessons in theology.
However I contend that God is a God of science. The real issue is that people are irrational and take concepts and mix it with culture. This is the nature of man. I have seen reasoning and religious ceremony become entwined and this is a funny thing, it is part of the reason man should develop his own relationship with God and not simply trust to religion. For instance I have been a Christian Missionary. I remember in one remote location the sacramental service was being conducted and one of the priests started washing his hands in front of everyone before he offered the sacrament. This caused me to immediately seek this person out and talk to them.
His justification was, “This way they know my hands are clean when they eat.” my response, “Yes, that is great but think about what you may be communicating above and beyond that. Since the sacrament is a symbolic metaphor, by washing your hands people MAY begin to draw conclusions or begin to believe that this is part of the ceremony. Your innocent attempt at good hygiene may cause issues with people’s understanding of the meaning of the ceremony.”
The priest agreed ( thankfully ) and took my suggestion at washing his hands BEFORE he participated. Phew…
Anyway one of the difficulties of religious discussion is that people view God as a mystical being with properties that we cannot understand, yet he created a physical world in which laws and nature play a role. Modern philosophy, ignores that God is a part of this order and seeks to simply understand nature, without God. They take the understanding and cultural belief of times before and use it to ridicule and ignore the true method of finding God. Which is spiritual rather than simply physical.
Do I understand all of this process in which I speak with God… Nope… Just as I do not understand all the inner workings of a car yet manage to use it, or my own body for that manner. If I did I would much more easily be able to direct people to know God.
For those who are dead set against God, perhaps you are one of those who have simply been handed a cultural reference. If so I would suggest a more in depth personal study and to ‘try His word’. I have learned much from God. He has brought a great deal of joy into my life. Please seek Him out.
Cheers
So? Einstein’s life was mostly non-scientific as well. He’s bumped scientific understanding along a bit but most of his life was pretty mundane after that.
Well it seems that my post has angered both atheists and Christians. My work is done here…
Bob, Newton also believed in alchemy and had a very big collection of alchemist books in his library. Does that mean we should take alchemy seriously?
Daniel Kuhn, Keynes was Newton’s fellow alchemy nutjob. The influence is highly visible in his economic theory.
So Newton broke Rothbard’s law? 🙂