Warning: long post!
Abstract: Neil deGrasse Tyson has argued that Isaac Newton’s religious views stymied his science, preventing him from discovering what Laplace showed a century later – that the planetary orbits are stable against perturbation. This conclusion is highly dubious. Newton did develop perturbation theory, and applied it to the moon’s orbit. His lack of progress is explainable in terms of his inferior geometrical, rather than algebraic, approach. Laplace built on the important work of Clairaut, Euler, d’Alembert and Lagrange, which was not available to Newton. Laplace’s discovery was not definitive – computer simulations have showed that the Solar system is chaotic. And finally, Newton does not give up on science and invoke God at the first sight of ignorance, saying rather “I frame no hypothesis”. His “Reformation” of the Solar System is plausibly not supposed to be miraculous. I conclude that scientists (myself included) are terrible at history.
Introduction
I’ve got a lot of time for Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is doing a wonderful job of bring the excitement and importance of science to the general public and to the next generation in particular. Despite its seeming disconnect from everyday life, astronomy is an important way to get people into science. Plenty of people who are now solving all manner of important problems in our society got interested in science via astronomy.
(Incidentally, I was a dinosaur nerd first. Put me in a science museum and I’m going straight for the fossils.)
I have a problem, however, with this clip (It’s long; I’ll quote the relevant bits below). In it, Tyson discusses a famous story about a conversation between physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace and Napoléon Bonaparte in 1802. Here is a passage from A Budget of Paradoxes by Augustus De Morgan (1872, p. 249-50), which is the earliest account that I can find.
The following anecdote is well known in Paris, but has never been printed entire. Laplace once went in form to present some edition of his ‘Systeme du Monde’ to the First Consul, or Emperor. Napoleon, whom some wags had told that this book contained no mention of the name of God, and who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with — ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy or religion … drew himself up, and answered bluntly, ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.’ (I had no need of that hypothesis.) Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ‘Ah! c’est one belle hypothes ; ca explique beaucoup de choses.’ (Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.)
Did it Happen?
No eyewitness reports Laplace’s zinger. We don’t get this story from Napoleon, Laplace or Lagrange. The only person in the room whose account we have is the British astronomer William Herschel, and he does not record the story above, but rather notes that “Mons. De la Place wished to shew that a chain of natural causes would account for the construction and preservation of the wonderful system. This the first Consul rather opposed.”
There is even evidence that Laplace opposed this anecdote, demanding its deletion from a forthcoming publication shortly before his death in 1827. (Source. p. 111.)
So the story is at least suspect. Laplace’s agnosticism needed a pithy parable, it seems, and someone obliged. The story should not be told without at least some sort of caveat.
Tyson’s Version
Napoleon was into the physics, the engineering and the material science of war. And so he immediately summoned up the five-volume production of Laplace and read it through, cover to cover. He called in Laplace and – I have the exact quote here – asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. That’s what Newton would ask. Laplace replies ‘Sir, I had no need for that hypothesis.’
A few details to note. Tyson says: “I have the exact quote here”. No, he doesn’t because no one does. The story is at best hearsay.
Even our dubious version of the story from De Morgan has Napoleon being informed about Laplace’s book “by some wags” and saying to Laplace “they tell me” that the book doesn’t mention God. So Tyson’s “cover to cover” detail is doubtful.
Note also Tyson’s version of Napoleon’s question. The earliest versions of the story have Napoleon asking about the absence of God from the book, not God’s role in the whole scheme of things. This exaggerates the scope of Laplace’s supposed answer. Stephen Hawking appreciates this point: “I don’t think that Laplace was claiming that God does not exist. It’s just that he doesn’t intervene, to break the laws of Science.”
Tyson’s Analysis
Let’s assume for the moment that the story is at least reflective of some conversation between Laplace and Napoleon. I’m particularly interested in the moral that Tyson draws from this episode. Tyson claims that Newton (1642-1727) should have discovered what Laplace (1749-1827) did – that that the combined pull of the planets on each other do not destabilise their orbits – but was hamstrung by his theism.
What concerns me is, even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God, and then your discovery stops. It just stops. You’re no good any more for advancing that frontier. You’re waiting for someone to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says “that’s a really cool problem, I want to solve it.” And they come in and solve it.
But look at the time delay – this was a hundred-year time delay. And the math that’s in perturbation theory is like crumbs for Newton. He could have come up with that. The guy invented calculus just on a dare, practically. When someone asked him why planets orbit in ellipses and not some other shape, and he couldn’t answer that, he goes home for two months and comes back: out comes integral and differential calculus, because he needed that to answer that question.
This is the kind of mind we’re dealing with in Newton. He could have gone there but he didn’t. His religiosity stopped him.
Could Newton have anticipated Laplace?
You should be immediately suspicious of Tyson’s account for this reason: Newton and Laplace weren’t the only two physicists on the face of the planet in the 17th and 18th century. Even if Newton was held back, what’s everyone else’s excuse? Did everyone catch Newton’s God-bothering disease, and only Laplace found the cure?
Hardly. Here’s a few relevant historical details.
A. Newton did develop a theory of perturbations.
Tyson’s “he could have gone there but didn’t because of religion” is immediately derailed by the fact that Newton went there. Here is historian William L. Harper, quoting Newton:
… Newton developed this method in an effort to deal with the extreme complexity of solar system motions. … The passage continues with the following characterization of the extraordinary complexity of these resulting motions.
“By reason of the deviation of the Sun from the center of gravity, the centripetal force does not always tend to that immobile center, and hence the planets neither move exactly in ellipses nor revolve twice in the same orbit. There are as many orbits of a planet as it has revolutions, as in the motion of the Moon, and the orbit of any one planet depends on the combined motion of all the planets, not to mention the action of all these on each other. But to consider simultaneously all these causes of motion and to define these motions by exact laws admitting of easy calculation exceeds, if I am not mistaken, the force of any human mind.” (Wilson 1989b, 253)
It appears that shortly after articulating this daunting complexity problem, Newton was hard at work developing resources for responding to it with successive approximations. The development and applications of perturbation theory, from Newton through Laplace at the turn of the nineteenth century and on through much of the work of Simon Newcomb at the turn of the twentieth, led to successive, increasingly accurate corrections of Keplerian planetary orbital motions. [emphasis added]
Indeed, Newton developed two perturbation methods, one of which “corresponds to the variation of orbital parameters method first developed in 1753 by Euler and afterwards by Lagrange and Laplace.”
B. Newton didn’t have the right tools
Why did Newton not achieve what Laplace did a century later? We have seen that it is not from want of trying. He was primarily interested in calculating the moon’s orbit, which is unavoidably a three-body problem: one cannot meaningfully simplify the problem by considering only the Moon and the Earth. Newton applied his method to the Moon, but not successfully. The first edition of the Principia notes: “These computations, however, excessively complicated and clogged with approximations as they are, and insufficiently accurate, we have not seen fit to set out.” Later editions remove this comment entirely. Newton was obviously dissatisfied with his calculation.
Why was Newton’s calculation unsuccessful? Was he too busy “basking in the majesty”? Historians have a more mundane explanation.
The first successful derivation of the Moon’s apsidal motion (or rather, of most of it) was announced some sixty years later, by Alexis-Claude Clairaut, in May 1749. Euler obtained a derivation in good agreement with Clairaut’s by mid-1751. … Jean le Rond d’Alembert published a more perspicuous derivation, with the degree of approximation made explicit, in 1754. Success came for Newton’s successors only with a new approach, different from any he had envisaged: algorithmic and global. The Continental mathematicians began with the differential equation, the bequest of Leibniz.
From Newton to d’Alembert, the essential theoretical advance in lunar theory consisted in the decision to start from a set of differential equations, while relinquishing the demand for direct geometrical insight into the particularities of the lunar motions.
Chris Smeenk and Eric Schliesser (highly recommended!) conclude:
Newton also faced a more general obstacle: within his geometric approach it was not possible to enumerate all of the perturbations at a given level of approximation, as one could later enumerate all of the terms at a given order in an analytic expansion. It was only with a more sophisticated mathematics that astronomers could fully realize the advantages of approaching the complexities of the moon’s motion via a series of approximations.
This is one of the most surprising things to the modern physicist about Newton’s Principia: having invented calculus, Newton doesn’t really use it. He thought that geometry was more insightful, more fundamental. This prohibited Newton from developing the analytic tools needed to incorporate the perturbations of the other bodies in the Solar System into his model, and – crucially – to evaluate the accuracy of his approximations. Moreover, Newton’s version of calculus is actually rather clunky compared to Leibniz’s, which was being used on the Continent.
Obviously, if Newton’s approach is floundering on the three-body problem (Sun, Earth, Moon) and a few centuries of observational data, the problem of the stability of all the planets in the Solar System into the indefinite future cannot be attacked with much confidence.
C. Laplace had some help
The idea that Newton could have come to the conclusions that Laplace did is extremely doubtful. We have already seen that his methods are not quite up to the task. Further, note the mathematicians who worked on the problem of perturbations to planetary orbits before Laplace: Clairaut, Euler, d’Alembert, and Lagrange. These are the greatest mathematicians of their age; Leonard Euler is arguably the greatest mathematician of all time: “Read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all.” That quote, incidentally, is from Laplace. Euler was a devout Christian and a Lutheran Saint. Apparently, having “God on the brain” didn’t prevent him – as it didn’t prevent Newton – from working on this scientific problem.
So, I think we can safely say that if Leonard Euler attempts to solve a mathematical problem and fails, the problem is a difficult one. And he took the problem very seriously: when Clairaut successfully applied perturbation theory to the Moon’s orbit, Euler described “this discovery as the most important and profound which has ever been made in mathematics.”
But these mathematicians didn’t merely make failed attempts; they laid the foundations for Laplace’s work. Joseph-Louis Lagrange, in particular, is crucial:
Though traditionally given credit for establishing the stability of the solar system, it is only after Lagrange’s work that Laplace made his first major contribution to the theory of the stability of the solar system.
Jacques Laskar gives Lagrange equal credit, referring to the “Laplace-Lagrange stability of the Solar System“:
Laplace and Lagrange, whose work converged on this point, calculated secular variations, in other words long-term variations in the planets’ semi-major axes under the effects of perturbations by the other planets. Their calculations showed that, up to first order in the masses of the planets, these variations vanish.
Newton, of course, was a mathematical genius. But we can hardly blame him for not being smarter than Clairaut, Euler, d’Alembert, Lagrange and Laplace combined.
D. The Solar System and the General Scholium
Did Newton ignore the problem of the stability of the Solar System so that he could call upon God as an explanation? Well, we have already seen that he did not ignore the problem at all.
Further, Newton developed his perturbation methods in 1685-6, according to Michael Nauenberg. The definitive statement of his theological conclusions drawn from physics comes in the General Scholium, an essay appended to the end of the second and third editions of the Principia in 1713 and 1726 respectively. With 40 years of reflection on the problem of the perturbations of the orbits of the planets and their theological implications, what does Newton have to say about God’s intervention in the universe?
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Newton states that “This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” This is about the creation of the whole physical order in the first place, not about God intervening in the laws of nature to perform a miracle: “In him are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God.”
In the Scholium, Newton notes a major gap in scientific knowledge:
Hitherto we have explain’d the phænomena of the heavens and of our sea, by the power of Gravity, but have not yet assign’d the cause of this power.
Here is a golden opportunity for Newton, facing a scientific gap in our knowledge, to invoke God as the very power of gravity itself. His famous response:
But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses [hypotheses non fingo]. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phænomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
For a fellow who is supposed to be looking for any gap in scientific knowledge as an excuse to insert the direct intervention of God, Newton’s doing it all wrong.
Interestingly, Newton seemingly appeals to the intervention of God in a single sentence in Opticks, published in 1704.
For it became [God] who created them to set them in order. And if he did so, it’s unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature; though being once form’d, it may continue by those Laws for many Ages. For while Comets move in very excentrick Orbs in all manner of Positions, blind Fate could never make all the Planets move one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, some inconsiderable Irregularities excepted, which may have risen from the mutual Actions of Comets and Planets upon one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this System wants a Reformation.
This is a puzzling passage, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it seems out of place – the context is about God’s sustaining of the “wonderful Uniformity in the Planetary System”. Mentioning “inconsiderable Irregularities” somewhat undermines Newton’s point.
Secondly, nowhere in Newton’s corpus can we find the calculations to sustain this claim, even though (as we noted above) he had pioneered perturbation theory. How did Newton convince himself that the mutual attractions of the planets increase the irregularities of the Solar System? We don’t know.
Thirdly, why is this not mentioned in the General Scholium? If this is Newton’s great scientific proof of God’s intervention in the world, why does it not appear in his most famous essay on God, at the conclusion of his scientific magnum opus? In light of its absence from the Principia, it is difficult to know how much weight Newton placed on this particular argument.
Finally, it is difficult to know exactly what Newton was thinking. It is, after all, a single sentence with no further comment. Leibniz, for example, responded to this passage in November 1715:
According to [Newton’s] Doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his Watch from Time to Time: Otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient Foresight to make it a perpetual Motion. Nay, the Machine of God’s making, is so imperfect, according to these Gentlemen; that he is obliged to clean it now and then by an extraordinary Concourse. … I hold, that when God works Miracles, he does not do it in order to supply the Wants of Nature, but those of Grace.
In response to Leibniz, Samuel Clarke argues in 1716 that Newton is not appealing to a miracle or a suspension of the laws of nature:
… the word correction, or amendment, is to be understood, not with regard to God, but to us only. … But this amendment is only relative, with regard to our conception. In reality, and with regard to God; the present frame, and the consequent disorder, and the following renovation, are all equally parts of the design framed in God’s original perfect idea.
In other words, Newton’s “reformation” would be entirely natural, part of God’s orderly sustaining of the universe, rather than a violation of its laws. (I recommend this article for more details). Newton is not committing the God of the gaps fallacy, because he does not see a gap.
E. The Solar System is not stable
Finally, Laplace and Lagrange’s demonstration of the stability of the Solar System was shown by later scientists to be inconclusive. Henri Poincaré established that it was impossible to produce exact solutions to the equations of motion in the n-body problem, where n is bigger than 2: approximate solutions by means of infinite series are the only viable solutions. Moreover, these series generally diverge, making them useless for prediction over infinite time. Laplace and Lagrange’s calculation is informative but not decisive.
Since Poincaré, computer simulations have shown that the orbits of the Solar System are chaotic over timescales of a few billion years. So the “Laplace solves it” part of Tyson’s story has a problem: Laplace didn’t solve it.
Conclusion: Scientists suck at History
What historians do is read primary sources, in the original languages as much as possible, consider all the characters involved, trying to understand their context, their influences, their personal lives and their professional motivation. Nuance, nuance, nuance.
What amateurs do – myself included – is read secondary sources, skim for interesting sections, pick favourites, judge anachronistically, and hope that an amusing anecdote or two can summarise an entire cultural milieu. (Huxley vs Wilberforce is a great example.) We want simple stories of progress, pithy quotes and heroes who look like us.
The historian Steven Shapin, reviewing Steven Weinberg’s recent book “To Explain the World”, gives the view from his discipline of scientists who attempt to write history.
There’s a story told about a distinguished cardiac surgeon who, about to retire, decided he’d like to take up the history of medicine. He sought out a historian friend and asked her if she had any tips for him. The historian said she’d be happy to help but first asked the surgeon a reciprocal favor: “As it happens, I’m about to retire too, and I’m thinking of taking up heart surgery. Do you have any tips for me?”
To illustrate the point, we can retell our story to make Newton the hero. Inspired by God’s providence, he argued correctly that the Solar System is ultimately unstable and was beautifully vindicated by modern computer simulations. Laplace (cue the villainous music), desperately seeking to avoid God, promotes the idea that the Solar System is perfectly stable, allowing his agnosticism to hold back the progress of science and delay the discovery of long-term chaos among the planets by Poincaré and modern physicists.
We can even make Lagrange the hero, since he is at least as important as Laplace in the scientific study of the Solar System. Lagrange is there with Napoleon – so the story goes – to counter Laplace’s myopic inference that, since God doesn’t poke the planets moment by moment, He is not needed. Shall we immortalise Lagrange’s answer to Napoleon, rather than Laplace’s?
This is whig history – the heroes of the past are the people who, for whatever reason, believe something like what I believe now. Why does Tyson venerate Laplace, the agnostic? Because Tyson is an agnostic. That’s all the story proves.
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Newton (Part 2) is here.
Are you upset by Tyson’s take on this because you are Christian, or simply a deist
A Newtonian 🙂
Aah … So, not a Christian or a deist then?
At least a deist, if you must know. But I’d rather talk about the issues.
Arkenaten: Have you stopped beating your wife?
If it helps, I have stopped beating yours.
That’s good. Now, for your next step, try formulating why you leapt to conclusions about dr. Barnes’ view based on nothing but this post.
Basically, my comment to you was a mirror of your first, making just about as much sense as your comment did. Dr. Barnes, being a kinder (and smarter) person than me, chose to take it in good humor. Me, I was looking for something that actually could be said to have some substance.
You up for the challenge?
Actually I did not leap to conclusion based solely on this post at all. Now who’s leaping to conclusions, hmm?
Furthermore I am not for one second questioning Dr. Barnes intellectual capabilities, neither his intelligence nor his sense of humour.
Challenge? Why are you a Christian or do you think Luke needs a pet monkey to speak on his behalf?
Oh, my. A troll.
I’m sorry for this derail, dr. Barnes.
What Troll?
I have followed Luke’s blog for a while and commented where I felt it appropriate.
Althiught the physics are way beyond me I read nevertheless and find many of his articles fascinating.
If you have a relevant point to make then make it, otherwise I strongly suggest you remove the carrot from your backside and grow up.
Okay. A relevant point.
You left the first comment on this post. It was a comment that had nothing to do with the content of the post. And it came in the form of “have you stopped beating your wife”, i.e a loaded question.
Since then, you’ve dodged a challenge, and your tone is deteriorating rapidly. Furthermore, just to head off the “tone-troll”-challenge, it has deteriorated without you making any substansive argument.
Now, having read your replies – such as they are – I surmise that you dislike the post. Or, perhaps more precisely, you think that the argument dr. Barnes makes must have its roots in religion. You have, however, not spelled this out, and you have given no reasons for why.
What I’m rambling to get to is this: why did you feel like commenting on this article, what do you think about it, and why do you feel that a religios world veiw is required to make the points the article makes?
In general, from my experience, those who defend the Fine Tuning argument tend to have religious leanings, or favour some sort of Intelligent Design belief and also tend to be critical ( rightly or wrongly) of any position that may be counter to this view. I have no background in science so I am unable to argue either way.
I have asked Luke if he had any Christian leanings before – on a couple of occasions I think (not sure?), and no answer has yet been forthcoming.
Bloggers such as unklee, a forthright Christian and outright supporter of Fine Tuning is a strong supporter of Luke and from my experience unklee has never shown any overt support for any scholar or academic that did not have at least some Christian leanings.
Are we clear now?
Sure.
I still don’t understand why you picked this post, given that it’s about another branch of knowledge entirely: history (or, more spesifically, history of science.)
I do know that there tends to be an outcry from the net whenever something like this view is presented (most often involving Galileo and heliocentrism), but what dr. Barnes does here is to present the story the way historians of science generally tend to do it.
(For the record, for my part, I have a master’s degree in history, and I happen to be a Christian.)
I have already explained that I have asked for details regarding Dr. Barnes any Christians leanings Dr. Barnes may have.
Why do you have a problem that I ”picked” this post?
What sort of historian are you? ( which period specifically?)
And may I also ask how you square away your belief in the character, Jesus of Nazareth when the Pentateuch is recognised by the majority of archaeologists and the majority of Rabbis as Historical Fiction?
Not to derail the post, merely getting a feel of where you are coming from?
I merely think it’s odd. If fine-tuning is what makes you wonder, why pick a post dealing with … something else entirely? Doesn’t make sense to me, so I asked.
Also, I don’t get the question about Jesus and the Pentateuch. Unless I’m sorely mistaken, Jesus isn’t mentioned in the Pentateuch. I don’t read the Bible like a history book (please do not take that to mean that I think nothing is historical) – it’s clearly a collecition of different sorts of texts. And scholars generally agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person (which does not automatically make him God).
My field is Ethiopia, modern era. I tend to read a bit of history of science on the side, as it’s interesting, and considering the anecdote at the end (with the historian and the surgeon), I already know a bit about the historical method.
Luke seemed upset with Tysn and I asked was it because he was a Christian as Tyson expressed that Newton was hampered because of Christianity.
I struggle to see what you are finding difficult with this?
I did not mention anything about the historicity of the character Jesus.
I asked ow you square away your belief in him as a god knowing the Pentateuch is historical fiction.
Surely there is no need to explain the basis of Christianity to a Christian?
“I asked ow you square away your belief in him as a god knowing the Pentateuch is historical fiction.
Surely there is no need to explain the basis of Christianity to a Christian?”
I have absolutely no clue as to what you intend to say with these sentences. Just to point to the word itself, the basis of Christianity is Christ. Who, as I’ve mentioned, isn’t part of the Pentateuch. So, extrapolating from that, I really struggle to see any sense in your comment.
Because the NT is generally regarded as fulfillment of OT prophecy for one.
That Jesus mentions Moses ( who is a work of fiction) is another point.
And the Genome Project has demonstrated that the original coupe as per biblical specs is an impossibility.
So, how do you square away you faith that the character Jesus of Nazareth is also Yahweh when the Pentateuch is regarded as historical fiction?
Also, it may be because of my background in history, but dr. Barnes’ problem with Tyson seems to be his inability to do the most basic background check on matters historical. Given the sources available, and what is quoted here, Tyson has very little to back up his claim (nothing at all, historically speaking), while there is ample evidence to reject it. Which makes his statements … irritating. He is a learned man. He should know better.
From my reading it seems that Tyson was expressing a point of view that he believed Newton was hampered by his Christianity.
The post gave the impression that this assertion was considered erroneous and I merely asked was Dr Barnes upset because he was a Christian or a deist.
And …. he has stated he is a deist, at least.
Which suggests more than a deist.
As Dr Barnes is not an historian I thought maybe he was simply upset because of some religious leanings, which to some extent have panned out.
I don’t think this will mean the end of the world, you will be happy to know, but an idea if not full understanding of one’s religious leanings ( or lack thereof) always helps to know what sort of foundation a person ultimately bases their worldview upon, don’t you agree?
You for instance, consider yourself a sinner, and that a first century itinerant Jewish Rabbi is also Yahweh in the flesh and is your key to eternal life and that he died a horrendous death for your benefit.
Such a belief makes a world of difference in many discussions.
While it may feel like it to you, fact is (note the “fact” there) that looking at this from a historical perspective, Tyson is rubbish. And this is not the view exclusively from deists or Christians.
Basically, what you should consider is the argument. You have instead gone straight for the motivation.
Also, whether there are only real or imagined charachters in the Pentateuch doesn’t really play much into whether there is a God or not. I still have not any idea why you should consider it an important point wrt having a faith or not. Some may, but I don’t understand that either.
Now, I feel we’ve strayed way off topic. I think that if we should continue the discussion here, it would be better to keep to the theme of the post.
I have explained almost to the point where I am wondering if I should type in crayon that, the reason for my initial question was not whether Tyson’s view on the history was fact – it could be completely erroneous for all I know – but whether Dr Barnes objection was based on his own possible religious leanings.
That Newton was apparently a Christian ( as were numerous scientists of his era) is often cited by lay Christians and apologists alike when looking for reasons to defend Christianity and to show it was an influencing factor if not a motivating one for people such as Newton, and even others from different fields such as Bach or Mozart.
To reiterate: Tyson’s view might seem speculative, I agree, and maybe it is outright nonsense? But, once more this was NOT the reason for my question.
I hope I have cleared this point up for you? I realise that sometimes I might seem abrasive to some people and maybe I am missing something.
So, if you are still unsure feel free to ask again,
As to the Pentateuch:
Of course it matters if the characters were real or imagined as it has a direct influence on the Christian belief in the god-man character, Jesus of Nazareth.
Furthermore, the original Canaanite deity, Yahweh, is only found in the bible, and as the Pentateuch is myth then so too the story of the Patriarchs , the Exodus and conquest of Canaan.is myth. And of course as is the tale of the Ten Commandments,
Further more, Original Sin, Salvation and the Resurrection are all tied together for Christians.
As the evidence derived from the Genome Project flatly refutes any claim to an original human couple as per biblical specs this brings to the fore the entire question of the lineage of the character Jesus of Nazareth , and ultimately the claimed need for”salvation”, whatever the heck that is.
So, I reiterate, how do you manage to square away your belief in this aspect of your faith based on the strength of the evidence that the Pentateuch is nothing but historical fiction?
You seem, in your comment, to conflate “Christian” with “Bilical literalist”. That is sometimes encountered, but it is not a neccesary component of christianity. Your objection is noted and disregarded.
Conflate literalist? Not in the least. I am – for the sake of this discussion – accepting,
a) you are an Old Earth Creationist.that accepts (at east ) some form of evolution as fact.
The gods forbid you are a Young Earth Creationist.
b) you at least accept the tenets of the Nicene Creed. (and maybe the notion of the Trinity?)
c) Consider the character Jesus of Nazareth to have physically risen from the dead.
d) Believe in the Virgin Birth, Miracles and the notion that you consider yourself ( and all humanity) a sinner and the only way to attain salvation is by accepting that Jesus of Nazareth as your saviour.
And also that Jesus is Yahweh in human form ( made flesh) and the Creator of the Universe.
How we doing so far?
Please correct any or all rather than simply churlishly type ”disregard(ed)”.
This is a bit tiresome, for several reasons:
Firstly, I have asked you some questions as to what you thought of this post and why (if true) you didn’t like it. You have not responded, indeed you have ignored it.
Secondly, I have a couple of posts ago said I think we should return to the theme of the post. You haven’t showed in your writing that you have noticed, and have in practice ignored it.
Thirdly, you are leaping to conclusions wrt my faith and what it “should” entail – which tiring.
Taken together, the sum of what you do not respond to suggests a lack of respect for the word “dialogue”. Considering that, “curlish” responses should neither surprise you, nor do you have much to complain about. You reap what you sow – that much is true whether you believe or not,
Now, I’ll make an answer, but continuation of the discussion hinges upon you improving your answering skills.
You say: “a) you are an Old Earth Creationist.that accepts (at east ) some form of evolution as fact.”
This is only true if you consider Big Bang “Creationist”. I do believe in a creator God, who made heaven and earth – but I don’t see any clash at all between evolution and God. Why you have imagined that, I don’t know.
“The gods forbid you are a Young Earth Creationist.”
A question would have been better. You sorely need to work on your communication skills. Still, answered above.
“b) you at least accept the tenets of the Nicene Creed. (and maybe the notion of the Trinity?)”
Certainly. As does every Christian. How does that relate to your Pentateuch?
“c) Consider the character Jesus of Nazareth to have physically risen from the dead.”
Yep.
“d) Believe in the Virgin Birth, Miracles and the notion that you consider yourself ( and all humanity) a sinner and the only way to attain salvation is by accepting that Jesus of Nazareth as your saviour.”
I sort of expect you to jump on a “everyone goes to hell”-conclusion from this. However, while I do believe in “the ressurection of the body (Apostolic Creed), there is no mention of damnation there. I don’t see the doctrine some have about hell to be correct.
“And also that Jesus is Yahweh in human form ( made flesh) and the Creator of the Universe.”
Well, you have that answer already.
Now, why did you react to this post, and why?
First, a hat tip to Luke for extending an inordinate amount of patience on this thread. Thank you kindly, sir!
@Oystein
Apologies if I have not answered certain questions. I thought I had, but it seems I have either missed them or misunderstood. Let me try to put the record straight with this reply.
First up, which god are you talking about, please? Clarity is important here, so I would kindly ask you to be specific.
Also, I didn’t assume you did not believe in evolution. Unless you were YEC.
Actually, not all Christians accept this as a given. You will have to do a bit of research on this yourself. As I have already mentioned, the New Testament is seen as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. As the Pentateuch is nothing but Historical Fiction it renders Jesus as a saviour/god-man impotent; also nothing but a work of fiction. (not the historical character, I hasten to add, simply the nonsense Christians invented)
See Answer above
Which is a sort of answer, without quite admitting you are a sinner and requiring a saviour. Well done. Little bit of a hand wave, there, but this is to be expected when faith is called into question, especially where it clashes with evidence.
Oh, and the Virgin Birth is a load of rubbish as well. But I am pretty sure you are perfectly aware of this and the reasons why? If not, let me know, okay?
Yes, which merely echoes my reply concerning how one’s worldview influences one’s day to day business.
As I have been at pains to explain to you, the Pentateuch is now consideredHistorical Fiction, – I am sure you don’t really require citations for this, do you? But I can, of course, if you are serious.
Therefore, Yahweh is also a mythological character and thus the character, Jesus of Nazareth ( notwithstanding all other matters) could not possibly be this deity you genuflect to.
In fact, Yahweh was a Canaanite deity at first and is even believed to have had a consort. You know this I’m sure, yes?
Why and why ?
Must I write the answer twice or is this a ‘typo’ due to you getting a bit irate?
As I strongly believe that religion – all religion – has an overall negative effect on society – and the evidence bears this out – I was curious if Dr Barnes’ reason for writing this critique of Tyson’s take on Newton was due to any religious leanings he may have, rather than simply to correct an (possible) erroneous historical perspective. If this were the case, it might illustrate a certain amount of personal bias – the same of which he accuses Tyson.
So, now you have the answer why I addressed the post and you also have the knowledge that the Pentateuch is historical fiction and why it undermines your belief in the character, Jesus of Nazareth being a deity.
Having been made fully aware of this, and now not being able to claim ignorance, how do you square away your belief in Jesus of Nazareth being Yahweh in human form?
Unless you are going to dispute that the Pentateuch is historical fiction of course?
Well, are you?
“I have explained almost to the point where I am wondering if I should type in crayon that, the reason for my initial question was not whether Tyson’s view on the history was fact – it could be completely erroneous for all I know – but whether Dr Barnes objection was based on his own possible religious leanings.”
Why are you personally interested in Luke’s thoughts? It is an old rule of logic that the truth or lack thereof of an assertion is independent of the competence of the speaker (the world’s biggest fool can say that the sun is shining, but that doesn’t make it dark outside).
Other bloggers have documented NdGT’s mistakes in other topics concerning the history of science. As a prominent pundit, it is legitimate to point out when he goofs up. The motivation is unimportant, unless one can demonstrate that similar mistakes not involving religion are not targetted (and even then, that doesn’t make the criticism false).
Suppose a white blogger from Alabama (for the record, I am white and was born in Alabama) posted something criticizing NdGT. Would you then ask if the fact that the critic was white and from Alabama (and, jumping to conclusions, possibly a member of the KKK) was motivated by racism?
Personally, I am an atheist, and believe in the traditional Christian God as little as I believe in Zeus or Odin, and see no evidence for Deism, design, etc. (I have also written a paper which claims that some fine-tuning claims are, shall we say, inflated.) Nevertheless, it is interesting that several prominent cosmologists (Lemaitre, Ellis, Barrow) are religious (though not in an Alabama KKK way) and, as far as I can make out, this doesn’t influence their work in science. (At the same time, most cosmologists are probably atheists, though—perhaps because they have better things to do—few are as public about it as an old white man living in Texas, Steven Weinberg.)
So, ultimately you believe a god is responsible for the universe, yes?
Do you also believe in a personal god or simply a Creator who did his thing then upped and left us all to our own devices?
“There’s a story told about a distinguished cardiac surgeon who, about to retire, decided he’d like to take up the history of medicine. He sought out a historian friend and asked her if she had any tips for him. The historian said she’d be happy to help but first asked the surgeon a reciprocal favor: “As it happens, I’m about to retire too, and I’m thinking of taking up heart surgery. Do you have any tips for me?””
If I’m not mistaken, Weinberg himself has quoted this passage. He is aware of his own limitations, and knows what he is doing. (And Weinberg’s limitations are better than most people’s abilities.) In any case, it is misleading to claim that the quote above fairly categorizes Weinberg’s book.
I haven’t read Weinberg’s books, so I’m only commenting on Shapin’s opinion of it. Mostly, I find the story entertaining.
I’d certainly like scientists to take history more seriously. Shapin says:
‘The announced purpose of this book isn’t understanding the past in its own terms, but “judging the past by the standards of the present,” awarding, as historian Charles Homer Haskins once put it, “medals for modernity.” ‘
So, sure, Weinberg knows what he’s doing. The question is whether this kind of approach inevitably distorts the past into our own image.
It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to understand the past, history, motivations of people at the time, the context etc, then a Whig interpretation of history is obviously wrong. However, if one wants to understand not only modern science but also how it came to be, then it is not necessary to retrace all the blind alleys and so on.
Science is not just the product of its time, as Kuhn argued. I see an analogy to black holes: they can form in an infinite number of waves, but eventually ring down to a final state independent of the method of origin.
Weinberg states that his book is Whiggish in its approach to the history of science, and also notes that the inventor of the (disparaging) term “Whig interpretation of history” was also himself Whiggish with regard to the history of science.
A non-sequitur, because there are counter-examples. As I pointed out, you might as well ask whether, since Luke is white and Neil is black, his criticism was motivated by racism.
Does the music I listen to influence my work in cosmology?
Yes, religion and cosmology have the potential to overlap, and in my view they do, but there are people who keep the two separate. In my view, this is only because they don’t take their own religion seriously enough, but as long as it doesn’t influence their views on cosmology, it matters little to me.
Great.I am pleased for you that it matters little.
However, it matters a lot to others; Ken Ham and William Lane Craig for example.
Your racism analogy is trite.
Do you have a particular point you are trying to make?
If so, simply spell it out.
Thanks.
This is a bit odd. I’ve said I’m a Christian, so when you ask “What god, please”, it is a question answered a long time ago. It is furthermore answered again in the question about the Nicene creed. If you disagree, let me know.
Then you write: “As the Pentateuch is nothing but Historical Fiction it renders Jesus as a saviour/god-man impotent; also nothing but a work of fiction.”
Eh… no. Short and simple.
What this seems to be is a sort of short circut: God doesn’t exist because the Pentateuch isn’t wholly historical. Seeing as this knowledge isn’t new, and seeing as there are Christians in all fields of scholarship – even history – after this fact is known should tell you (note the should there) that your argument isn’t a slam dunk. God’s existence isn’t decided on whether the Pentateuch is wholly historical.
“Oh, and the Virgin Birth is a load of rubbish as well. But I am pretty sure you are perfectly aware of this and the reasons why? If not, let me know, okay?”
Here, you are assuming your conclusion. Given that God doesn’t exist, sure, what you wrote is correct. However, we are not in agreement on that premise. Therefore, your conclusion isn’t valid for everyone (note: it may be correct eventually, but you’ll have to die to find out..).
The thing is: if you accept that God exist, you are dealing with a force outside the laws of nature. In fact, you are dealing with the one who set those forces in place. That such an entity could change those laws, or circumvent them, isn’t unbelievable – given the premise.
In short, you need to prove your premise before you can confidently make the claim above.
Dinnertime, will continue later.
@Ostein
Yes, sorry about that. I realised as I worked through the comment that you genuflect to Yahweh. But I clicked send and it was too late. Silly of me.
Er … yes. As Christians claim the character, Jesus of Nazareth is Yahweh in human form and Yahweh is a work of fiction then Jesus of Nazareth cannot be this deity.
Marcion tried to do away with Yahweh as he viewed the OT god as a bit of a monster, or as Lewis Black the comedian calls him a ‘’Prick’’, and was only a deity for the Jews. But of course, the church realised that doing away with Yahweh would mean no Original Sin and all that encompasses so they refunded Marcion his money, sent him packing and eventually declared him a heretic. It is thought that because of Marcion’s gospel the church were forced to get its skates on and come up with their own version. Why don’t you know all this, and why are you fighting the argument based on silly non-historical points?
Furthermore, the Old Testament was written by Jews for Jews and was never intended for gentiles like you. Now, as the vast majority of Jewish scholars and Rabbis and Archaeologists and historians consider the Pentateuch Historical Fiction on what grounds do you, a non – biblical scholar dispute this claim?
I am surprised you are unaware of all this. I thought you were an historian?
It is a slam dunk among Jewish scholars etc. It is simply a question of facing the truth. The Genome Project has already kicked the notion of Adam and Eve into touch. We know The Flood is nonsense.
The Patriarchs are also works of fiction and so is the Egyptian captivity and the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. It is all a geopolitical myth. And there is evidence to show this, before you throw back the absence of evidence line.
As for you Christians acknowledging this. Well, while some have do you honestly think the Pope is seriously going to stand up in St Peter’s and announce: ‘’Sorry, just kidding, we made it all up.!’’
He should, of course, but he won’t.
Catholic Theologian, the late Ray Brown is on record stating that this should not be taken as a literal event. And he was speaking under Catholic Authority. You want a citation for this too?
That you would suggest the virgin birth is real is flabbergasting. Have you not read and understood the prophecy to King Ahaz or are you going to slap me with the ridiculous ‘’Dual Prophecy’’ trope?
Furthermore, Paul is adamant Mary gave birth naturally and John doesn’t touch this with a barge pole and neither does Mark.
So, this appears to have degenerated to Cherry picking. Simply hand wave away the evidence and expert testimony to suit your own needs. This is faith – your personal view of reality – and quite frankly has nothing to do with evidence. Very disappointing.
I don’t need to prove a damn thing. Experts have already produced the evidence refuting what you believe. That you refuse to accept is your business and you are free to believe whatever you like.
Before I get to part 2 of your previous comment, let me just state that in your latest comment you didn’t come near my argument in any shape or form. Simply put, you are raising a straw man, attacking it vigorusly and – of course winning. However, it doesn’t relate to my post.
Perhaps I haven’t been sufficiently clear, so let me try again:
God’s existence does not in any shape or form rely on the Bible. If God exists, he does so whether there is a Bible or not. Using the Bible in the way you do, to deny the existence of God, is putting the cart before the horse. And while you are correct in much of what you say, the fact is (fact, note) that you haven’t really come close to my argument.
This is also why I earlier commented on you confusing Christian with a Biblical Literalist. One may be both, but being a Biblical Literalist is not a neccesary component of being a Christian. Your argument assumes that I am, or have to be, a Biblical Literalist, and that everything falls if the Pentateuch falls (as history). This premise is false.
You also say “Catholic Theologian, the late Ray Brown is on record stating that this should not be taken as a literal event. And he was speaking under Catholic Authority”
Here, you betray a lack of knowledge about the Catholic Church (which, btw, is not my church). Ray Brown held his views, other professors hold theirs, and of course there is discussion – but only the pope and the Councils have the authority to speak for the Church
As for your last comment, you are assuming a) that God does not exist and b) that materialism (or some closely related metaphysics) is the correct metaphysics. As you haven’t demonstrated either, and cannot assume that others should accept it on your word (you are not God..), your argument is moot. You may feel it’s a wonderful argument, but as it includes premises that are not universally agreed upon, it doesn’t hold in a discussion between us. You need to demonstrate that both a) and b) above are true before you can reach your conclusion.
Now, for this (I need to relearn the HTML-tags..):
“As I strongly believe that religion – all religion – has an overall negative effect on society – and the evidence bears this out”
If evidence bears it out, you should leave out the word “believe”. However, I don’t think the evidence bears out your assumption. That, however, does take us far away from where we are.
” – I was curious if Dr Barnes’ reason for writing this critique of Tyson’s take on Newton was due to any religious leanings he may have, rather than simply to correct an (possible) erroneous historical perspective. If this were the case, it might illustrate a certain amount of personal bias – the same of which he accuses Tyson.”
This is erronous reasoning. Simply put, an argument is true or false. Motivation does not change that. If you are going to disagree, you need to engage dr. Barnes on the substance of his argument.
The problem will encounter with your argument is that people will question your reasons for commenting. As has already happened – both from me (Christian) and Phillip Helbig (atheist). As I am not a mind reader, I will not question your motives, and neither has dr. Helbig. However, you do leave yourself open for those who believe themselves to be mind-readers.
Engage the substance. The motives may vary, but they don’t change the substance.
@Oystein
Let me stop you right there.
The god you worship, Yahweh, is only found in the bible.
You may claim there is a creator but then so do deists.
Now, once you acknowledge that the god you genuflect to is exclusive to the Bible we can continue. Until, then you are merely whistling in the wind I am afraid.
(Oh, and for the sake of this discussion we can dismiss Allah for now, okay?)
We don’t need to continue. If you insist on Biblical Literalism, we have little to say to each other.
If you are going to nit-pick about grammar/word usage then let me remind you the evidence supports the assertion that the Pentateuch is historical fiction.
Furthermore the evidence does bear out that that overall, religion’s impact is negative. Simply look at ISIS as a perfect (current) example. Or where you thinking we were solely referring to your religion. Oh, dear, I hope you are not that arrogant?
Oops… Sorry. Went a bit haywire with the HTMLS … Anyway, you’re a clever fella(?), I’m sure you can manage
I am not insisting on biblical literalism at all so please stop having a tantrum.
You are the one making the religious claims regarding your god.
If you dispute the fact that Yahweh is only found in the bible then the onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
To date all you have done is stamp your feet and hand wave.
I thought Christians were supposed to ”man-up” and answer faithfully or whatever you lot are told to do in 1 Peter ?
You want to sulk …. be my guest.
Perhaps I’ll go and watch a movie. Kingdom of Heaven is on in a few minutes.
You are throwing out so many straw men at this moment that my interest in engaging you is disappearing. Also, your tone has deteriorated to trolling levels.
I simply see no point in continuing – you don’t understand my argument, and you are simply not an interesting discussion partner.
If you consider I don’t understand your argument then you need to develop the communication skills to explain it.
Don’t whine at the pupil if the teacher is a half-wit.
I am so sorry you find me uninteresting. Would his improve if I were to shave my legs and change into a black cocktail dress
By the way,have you managed to come to terms with the fact that your, god, Yahweh is a myth? Or are you still in shock?
@Ostein.
Re: Your mention of HTML
Here’s an excellent link that will explain all you need to know about basic comment formatting using HTML
The blog is hosted by Nate Owens. He’s a deconvert, but don’t worry, he’s a marvelous chap and he doesn’t bite
He likes Jimi Hendrix too.
http://findingtruth.info/how-to-format-comments/
[…] « Neil deGrasse Tyson on Newton (Part 1) […]
[…] Luke Barnes, while admitting that he is ill-qualified in historical study, has looked at Tyson’s statements and found that Tyson seems to have got a lot of it wrong, seemingly relying on popular perceptions […]
You are far too kind to Tyson. This guy is one of the most ignorant fools in the arena today. Virtually every single thing this infant speaks is either overtly or covertly aimed at fortifying his personal atheism. The truth is nowhere to be found in his street corner, drunken bar room logic. He is truly one of the dumbest, most uniformed tubs of goo with a microphone.
[…] of the solar system due to blinders that resulted from his belief in God. Here are links to Part 1 and Part 2 of the blogs by Barnes, a cosmologist from […]
[…] of the solar system due to blinders that resulted from his belief in God. Here are links to Part 1 and Part 2 of the blogs by Barnes, a cosmologist from […]
[…] as consciousness” is a live option for explaining the nature of consciousness. (His history isn’t much better). Dawkins, who had no problem critiquing Aquinas for a few, fact-free pages in TGD (no, Aquinas did […]