I recently commented on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s chiding of Isaac Newton for failing to anticipate Laplace’s discovery of the stability of the Solar System. He has commented further on this episode and others in this article for Natural History Magazine.
Tyson’s thesis is as follows:
… a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding.
To support this hypothesis, Tyson quotes Newton, 2nd century Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy and 17th century Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens. The remarkable thing about Tyson’s article is that none of the quotes come close to proving his thesis; in fact, they prove the opposite.
Newton and God
Tyson is quotes from Newton’s General Scholium, an essay appended to the end of the second and third editions of the Principia.
But in the absence of data, at the border between what he could explain and what he could only honor—the causes he could identify and those he could not—Newton rapturously invokes God:
“Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient; … he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. … We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion.”
To be blunt, what part of “he governs all things” doesn’t Tyson understand? God’s “dominion” – the extent of his rule – is “always and everywhere”. Clearly, Newton is not invoking God only at the edge of scientific knowledge, but everywhere and in everything. The Scholium is not long, so I invite you to read it; you will nowhere find Newton saying that God is only found where science has run out of answers. You will find him saying (echoing Paul) that “In him are all things contained and moved.”
When Newton states that “We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things”, he is not saying that we know God where we have failed to understand nature. For Newton, the list of “his contrivances” is the list of everything that that exists outside of God. Newton’s comment is explained by the immediately preceding sentences:
We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is, we know not. In bodies we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known, either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds; much less then have we any idea of the substance of God.
This is a restatement of a principle shared with Aristotle and the Scholastics: “Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses”. Once again, Newton is directly contradicting Tyson: we infer about God through what we know and observe about the world around us, “from the appearances of things”, not in scientific ignorance.
As we noted in Part 1, Newton does discuss areas of scientific ignorance in the Scholium: we know about gravity, but we not know “the cause of its power”. Newton, contra Tyson, does not leap at the opportunity to invoke God, but simply says “I frame no hypotheses [hypotheses non fingo]”.
Later in the article, Tyson says,
Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:
“The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane.… But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions.… This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Tyson has Newton wrong. This passage is about God’s establishment (“proceed from”) of the created order, not miraculous intervention. As we saw last time, the point about the stability of the Solar System is actually found in Opticks, not the Principia, and plausibly isn’t about miraculous intervention either.
Ptolemy and God
Tyson says of Ptolemy,
Armed with a description, but no real understanding, of what the planets were doing up there, he could not contain his religious fervor:
“I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia.”
Once again, we must ask: how does this prove that “They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance”? Read the quote again; Ptolemy is saying the exact opposite. He says that he can “trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies”. In other words, it is what he knows and understands about the heavens, as well as his own mortality, that fills him with awe.
Further, he is not appealing to God to explain the motion of the heavens. He feels awe, not ignorance. What astronomer, what human being, has not felt wonderment at the sight of the stars? Here’s Bill Watterson:
And Ralph Waldo Emerson,
If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile.
I am amazed that Tyson doesn’t recognise Ptolemy’s “shuddering before the beautiful“. Have the stars never filled him with ambrosia?
Huygens and God
Tyson says of one of Christiaan Huygens’s books, The Celestial Worlds
Discover’d:
God is absent from this discussion [of astronomy]. Celestial Worlds also brims with speculations about life in the solar system, and that’s where Huygens raises questions to which he has no answer. That’s where he mentions the biological conundrums Of the day, such as the origin of life’s complexity. And sure enough, because seventeenth-century physics was more advanced than seventeenth-century biology, Huygens invokes the hand of God only when he talks about biology:
“I suppose no body will deny but that there’s somewhat more of Contrivance, somewhat more of Miracle in the production and growth of Plants and Animals than in lifeless heaps of inanimate Bodies. … For the finger of God, and the Wisdom of Divine Providence, is in them much more clearly manifested than in the other.”
The opening claim is false; before Huygens discusses life, he refers to “the greatest part of God’s Creation, that innumerable multitude of Stars”. (All Huygens quotes from here.) He further objects to those who would,
… pretend to appoint how far and no farther Men shall go in their Searches, and to set bounds to other Mens Industry; just as if they had been of the Privy Council of Heaven: as if they knew the Marks that God has plac’d to Knowlege.
Huygens is obviously not content with ignorance, and rebukes those who try to limit human knowledge of the universe. Rather, he praises,
That vigorous Industry, and that piercing Wit were given Men to make advances in the search of Nature, and there’s no reason to put any stop to such Enquiries [emphasis added].
Further, before discussing life, Huygens notes that through astronomy, by viewing Earth – “this small speck of Dirt” – from on high,
We shall be less apt to admire what this World calls great, shall nobly despise those Trifles the generality of Men set their Affections on, when we know that there are a multitude of such Earths inhabited and adorned as well as our own. And we shall worship and reverence that God the Maker of all these things; we shall admire and adore his Providence and wonderful Wisdom which is displayed and manifested all over the Universe.
As with Newton, Huygens sees God everywhere, not in scientific ignorance. Tyson’s claim that “Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention” is simply false. There are 5 mentions of God by Huygens (out of 18 in Book I), and 2 of the “Almighty” or “Supreme Creator”, before Tyson’s quoted section.
Within this context, Huygens notes that in living things God is “more clearly manifested”. This is not about where God acts, but where God’s action is most obvious. He has already stated that God’s wisdom is “displayed and manifested all over the Universe”; for Huygens, life is an exceptional example of this.
Conclusion
Tyson thesis fails. Huygens states exactly the opposite opinion: it is in greater and deeper study of the natural world that he contemplates its Creator. He finds God in knowledge, not ignorance, praising
… the contemplation of the Works of God, and the study of Nature, and the improving those Sciences which may bring us to some knowlege in their Beauty and Variety. For without Knowlege what would be Contemplation? And what difference is there between a Man, who with a careless supine negligence views the Beauty and Use of the Sun, and the fine golden Furniture of the Heaven, and one who with a learned Niceness searches into their Courses; who understands wherein the Fixt Stars, as they are call’d, differ from the Planets, and what is the reason of the regular Vicissitude of the Seasons; who by sound reasoning can measure the magnitude and distance of the Sun and Planets? Or between such a one as admires perhaps the nimble Activity and strange Motions of some Animals, and one that knows their whole Structure, understands the whole Fabrick and Architecture of their Composition? [emphasis added].
What I find somewhat mind-boggling is that you would expend so much energy trying to refute Tyson’s take on this? And for all intents and purpose you seem to have succeeded.
However, as god-belief was pretty much de rigeur at this period of time it is probably inevitable it would form at least part of the foundation of most people’s worldview – especially in Europe. In fact, it would seem odd if it didn’t
To the Church of the day, anything even slightly atheist/agnostic would likely be considered highly suspicious.
For the cautious scientist, too much open rebellion to the Church might invite closer scrutiny.
Considering the horrors the church perpetrated during the 17th century, if I were a scientist of any description during this time i would be Rattling My Rosary every frakking minute of the day, for the gods’ sake!
Even a god-believer like you, Luke would quite likely attract the attention of the church.
But again, re:Tyson. So what?
To what possible end would one wish to try to comprehensively dismantle Tyson’s view on Newton and his god-leaning unless one were defending a god?
So really. Luke, why bother?
I don’t need an excuse to learn more about the history of astronomy, especially when it is being pressed in the service of an ideology to which I don’t subscribe.
Do you have any comments about the history? Or are we going for another 50 comments of psychoanalysis?
I have already mentioned that, by all accounts you appear you have dismantled Tyson’s argument.
I merely asked as you mentioned before you are a deist, why on earth you would want to expend so much energy apparently defending Newton’s god?
And even then, as I mentioned, so what?
Unless of course, you are defending Yahweh?
Are you?
You are one of the strangest characters I’ve seen in a combox, Ark. If I, or anyone, claim that a mathematical proof is valid, then you, or anyone, is free to investigate this. Whether they are true, however, does not depend on the worldview of the writer. That’s how we can even learn knowledge, even from unknown writers.
In the same manner, everything Barnes writes here is publicly available for us to investigate as well.
If one were restricted only to accept any knowledge from people sharing one’s worldview, mankind would be in a miserable place indeed.
And you also may want to Google the “genetic fallacy”.
So, to summarize (and this is the important part of this comment – sorry for the prior): Great work on yet another educative text, Barnes. I enjoy following this blog! 🙂
I agree that everything Luke writes is publicly available.
And as this is a public blog that invites comments, I commented.
As did you, I notice.
So what the heck was your point?
Not only is everything he writes publicly available (as was obviously not the point I was making), but we can also investigate whether it is true, regardless of the worldview of Barnes himself.
I admire Luke for his patience in letting you keep on trolling his blog, so I’ll show my respect by not derailing another lengthy discussion with no relevance to the topic, which is NdT’s accuracy on actual history.
I’m fairly certain that all readers here, maybe except for you, understand the point I’m making about the requirement for a minimum of relevance. I guess that’ll have to be sufficient for now. 🙂
I have already mentioned this point, several times. Perhaps as English is not your first language you missed it or are unable to understand?
My initial point was whether Luke wrote this very lengthy post because of any religious motivation, which seems to have been borne out, in part, by drawing attention to Tyson’s agnosticism.
I did not derail the thread, I made two direct comments to Luke. However, other commenters, such as you, seem to want to continually draw to my attention that Luke’s religious inclinations have nothing to do with his choice to take Tyson to task.
I agree, in part, but also it is fair to point out the possibility of religious bias, and once more, the comments seem to bear this bias out.
And judging from you own obstreperous tone I am guessing you are a god believer and your nose is currently out of joint, yes?
Oh, and your condescension and Trollish comment (s) are noted. Well done!
So, once more, what exactly was your point, please?
I believe the main reason Luke bothers at all with refuting Tyson’s claims about Newton is because Tyson is convinced Newton’s religious conviction was based on ‘the god of the gaps’, and he’s convinced thousands of people of this. With that being the case, why would anyone stand on the sidelines just watching this be said when it’s clearly false?
You bring up an interesting point about how most people just a couple centuries ago were religious, and it’s true that it was the norm. Newton, however, did not seem to have come to his conclusion about God out of fear of the early Church or because it was the norm. He was very secretive person, and I believe that if he had been an atheist or agnostic he would have written about it. Instead, we find that he wrote extensively on Daniel’s prophecies, was obsessed with the Temple of Solomon and its ‘hidden wisdom’, and he went as far as to criticize the early Church; he can almost be considered a Bible scholar. All of these texts were written as if without the intention to ever publish them, clearly he had an issue with making his beliefs public as he would be considered a heretic but feared not the slightest documenting them since he would keep it to himself anyway and would only be discovered after he were deceased (you can argue here that this would concern him in life since he could possibly be discredited, but that’s totally wrong as his scientific discoveries were widely accepted and the man was practically a celebrity in his day – no Church would have ever been able to erase that from history).
So?
Again this is just a point of view.
As neither are historians, does it make that much difference?
Not to Tyson, not really. But to the god believer …. ah, well having a scientist like Newton in your camp is a big deal.
Anyway, we can pretty much write off the Christian god, can’t we?
Now as for the other scientists, I can’t say anything. To this day I continue to read biographies about Newton because he’s been my favorite scientist since I first learned about him in middle school, so I can confidently speak on his behalf. I’m no historian but I’ve been a fan of Newton throughout all of the phases in my life – from religious upbringing to atheist to agnostic (my beliefs fluctuate a lot so I don’t know what I am anymore, but that’s hardly relevant).
It \ is relevant if you are approaching science with a theistic bent, a point Luke has refused to be drawn on.
Most scientist are fairly open about where they stand so it is rather irksome when one is being cagey as it makes it difficult to know haw to engage.
Whether or not Luke’s ulterior motives are to ‘claim Isaac Newton’ because their beliefs are parallel is totally besides the main point – I was merely commenting on your idea that revolutionary scientists were only religious because it was norm or due to fear of the early Church does not apply to Isaac Newton. Personally, I do have an issue with Tyson making those bold claims because they’re ideological, just as you’re accusing Luke of being.
If you have followed the entire thread then you will have seen that I have stated Luke seems to have shown that Tyson is likely wrong in is assertion.
If this was the only object of the exercise then , Job Done.
However, if this is a case of ideologies then I will side with Tyson any day of the week, as I have no truck with religion and certainly not theism, and absolutely nothing but utter contempt for Christianity.
As should everybody.
What I said about Newton was mostly what I intended to contribute to the conversation, which is why I didn’t build any further on what I said about Luke. You, however, dismissed it with a single ‘So?’, so I’m not sure why you responded at all since you neither agreed with nor refuted that.
I still stand by what I first said, though: Luke objects what Tyson claims about Newton because it’s false, just as he’s objected other arguments for God when the people behind it have a poor understanding of science (see the following: https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/comment-on-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god/ ). When someone makes the claim that a scientist only believes in a deity/deities to fill in the gaps, of course it has to analyzed, that’s basically calling the person intellectually lazy and asserting that for other scientists as well. Luke to me does not come across as a person with the objective of validating his theistic beliefs by reminding people that Isaac Newton shared his views.
There is no other reason.( Besides faith of course)
However, if one wishes to assert a deity, then so be it. There is no evidence which is why the god of gaps statement is raised.
It only becomes a real problem when this turns to theism. Surely you aren’t so stupid to assert that Jesus of Nazareth is this god?
And may I ask why you insist in using a capital ”G”?
If you wish to insist on a deity then the term is a god, NOT God.
Read the link I shared and you’ll know exactly why God fits the context. Other than that, I ‘have’ been using the term deity when the context doesn’t only include YHWH but god(s) in general.
Friendly advice: you should debate from a more theistically impartial standpoint, your feelings seem to get hurt when anyone mentions YHWH.
I read this post when it first appeared.
Get hurt? Oh, dear, are we going to throw our toys when someone scolds you about Yahweh and Jesus?
Friendly advice, Richard, don’t debate from a theistic stand point as you are likely to get laughed at.
At the moment I am merely smiling…
And I hope you know you Yahweh history because to ”claim” him would make you look rather silly.
Perhaps you should have actually addressed your initial comment to Luke rather than me?
Luke wasn’t implying that Isaac Newton believed in God out of fear, it was you who speculated it.
Additionally, I’m not arguing from any side because I’m too confused on the subject of religion to even hold a consistent opinion, so you can stop presuming I’m religious. It’s ironic what you’re implying about Luke, yet you wouldn’t probe with the question if you weren’t an atheist, so it is you who is making the case for your beliefs (or lack of beliefs – however you want to define atheism).
Of course I am an atheist, and have made no bones about it either.
The original post was whether Newton’s scientific development was stymied because of religion.
Luke said no and that Tyson was wrong. I basically agree based on his presentation.
That is all there was. I only asked what was Luke’s position to see whether there may be some underlying bias, which is what Luke accused Tyson of.
And I stand by this point.
The only irony is that you state you do not know your position yet use a capital ”G” for god.
That’s either hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance
Now, remind me again, what was the point of you addressing a comment commenting to me?
Read the link I shared and you’ll know exactly why God fits the context. Other than that, I ‘have’ been using the term deity when the context doesn’t only include YHWH but god(s) in general.
Friendly advice: you should debate from a more theistically impartial standpoint, your feelings seem to get hurt when anyone mentions YHWH.
“However, as god-belief was pretty much de rigeur at this period of time it is probably inevitable it would form at least part of the foundation of most people’s worldview – especially in Europe. In fact, it would seem odd if it didn’t
To the Church of the day, anything even slightly atheist/agnostic would likely be considered highly suspicious.
For the cautious scientist, too much open rebellion to the Church might invite closer scrutiny.”
Re-read my original comment and you’ll see how I’m clearly responding to that.
I only said God once out of all the prior comments, and (again) the only time it was used it was the correct context as it was in reference to Luke’s rebuttal. Afterwards I did specify “YHWH”, but again in the correct context. Not sure how that’s hypocritical or cognitively dissonant.
So, again, what was the point of you addressing your initial comment to me rather than to Luke?
I’ve already answered that question, not repeating myself again. Clearly you’re ignoring a lot of my narrative so there’s no arguing with you anymore.
I didn’t think we were arguing?
You made you point about Newton.
I said so?
Was there any other point you were trying to make?
Arkenaten – your fascination with Luke’s beliefs is beginning to look a little deranged.
Luke – really enjoy the blog, thought it was time I made the point of saying so. Cheers!
@Stephen.
Deranged? Why? Our ”beliefs” underpin our worldview and any worldview that has some aspect of religion as its foundation is suspect.
And its extreme examples are most certainly ”deranged”.
Someone could just as easily say that any worldview that does not have some aspect of religion as its foundation is suspect. You give no reasons.
But ultimately Luke has convinced you of Tyson’s error when interpreting history. I suspect that Tyson misrepresented/misinterpreted history because of his worldview, yet while Luke convinced you of this, it is Luke’s worldview that you seem most worried about. If anything, Luke should have you worrying about how the worldviews of non-deists/non-theists effect what they say and think.
While the notion of an indifferent deity being responsible for the universe and everything in it, including Cheeseburgers and Manchester United might seem a bit odd, it is nonetheless, one that can be taken or left and have no impact on one’s day to day to life whatsoever.
However, any person who embraces a worldview built upon the notion involving belief that one had to ”own up” to being a dirty rotten sinner and a smelly, 1st century itinerant rabbi was the key to eternal life needs their head examined.
Really? So you are perfectly okay with colossal Arse-Hats like William Lane Craig and wonderful humanitarian organisations such as ISIS?
Good on yer, Simon. One can see you have your eyes wide open when it comes to to the wonderful benefits of god belief.
You’re never really interested in discussing the topic at hand are you Ark?
I have been at pains to express my views on the topic at hand several times throughout these two posts.l have cast no doubts or aspersions on Luke’s integrity, or his intellectual ability.
I have stated that on the face of it Luke seems to have undermined Tyson’s claim regarding Newton being stymied by his religious beliefs.
What exactly is it regarding the topic that you feel I have not addressed?
Oh, and for the record, are you a Christian, deist or non believer?
Just s’s I can get a clearer picture where you are coming from.
The Emerson quote will be familiar to Asimov fans. Asimov famously wrote a story with this as the premise (planet in a multiple-star system, so only rarely, when the “suns” which are visible are eclipsed, do the stars come out, and to top it off this is inside a globular cluster. OK, unrealistic we now know, but that is not the point of the story.) His conclusion: when this happens, people go mad. 😐
Ark,
If I may, let me share a few thoughts with you…
You’ve made some very good points here about bias. We all have ours, and we have to be especially careful about religious ones. I think everyone here agrees, and no one is challenging you on that. You’re being challenged because here and in previous threads, people are starting to sense a pattern to your comments that they find disingenuous. Let’s be honest… what you’ve been doing is fishing. You’re trying to bait Luke and others into acknowledging Christian beliefs, or at least sympathy for one or more Christian ideas, as an excuse to field your one bread-and-butter argument;
1) The historicity of the Pentateuch is entirely fictional. –> 2) Therefore Christianity is false. –> 3) So anything Christians have to say on any topic is biased and can be dismissed without consideration.
I’m sorry Ark, but no one is buying it. Even if we were to grant you that 1) was true, 2) simply does not follow from that. And 2) –> 3) is a textbook example of poisoning the well. This is a basic logical fallacy that wouldn’t get past any high school philosophy student, yet you wield it as though it were a Jedi light saber. And BTW, so is cherry picking. Your views on the historicity of the Pentateuch have a lot of merit–if not for the entire thing then certainly for much of it—and no one disputes that there’s a case to be made for them, including me. But as you’ve been repeatedly shown elsewhere, there’s a substantial body of scholarship that says otherwise as well, and you’re not addressing any of it (see the posts and comment threads here and here). I believe it’s in your interest to start doing so.
First, by exposing yourself to that scholarship you’ll learn something about it. Then, when you refer to “the majority of archaeologists” or “Jewish scholars” and the like, that will mean more than just the handful you’ve actually read because they tell you what you want to hear (e.g. Finkelstein). And if your views do turn out to be the “slam dunk” you say they are, you’ll be in a position to actually demonstrate that instead of just asserting it the way you have been, and without the condescending and trollish tone you so often display. You might even learn something about the actual topics being discussed at the posts where you weigh in as well.
Second, you should because it’s consistent. Religious people are biased, you say. But poisoning the well and cherry picking are biases. How far do you think you’re going to get by accusing others of things you openly practice yourself? As one of those Christians you call “biased,” I do study the views of scholars who disagree with my worldview and take them into account when formulating my responses. So do a great many others. Refusing to step up to the plate and do likewise isn’t helping your credibility.
But most importantly, you should because it’s a mark of objectivity, scholarship,and professionalism, and you are more than capable of all three. I see no reason why you shouldn’t start putting them into practice and leading by example.
Honestly Ark, if you think you can keep arguing in this manner with impunity you’re kidding yourself. Poisoning the well and cherry picking are the hallmarks of lazy minds, and everyone knows it. If you keep this up you will only end up marginalizing yourself, and I truly hope you don’t do that. IMHO you are capable of so much more. If you up your game all of us will benefit from your contributions, and you will too.
All I ask here is that you honor your own search for knowledge, and yourself, by giving these things some thought. And on that note, I’ll stop bothering you. 🙂 Best.
No secular scholar or genuine historian consider the Pentateuch anything other than Historical Fiction.
How dare you suggest I have a lazy mind. Do you honestly think I have not researched this from top to bottom?
Should I also read extensively from Ken Ham and Ron Wyatt?
No evidence has ever been produced to effectively refute the current overwhelming scientific and scholarly position on the Pentateuch.
So, primarily for your benefit, and the lurkers, let me reiterate.
1. The Torah was written by Jews for Jews and was never intended for Christians. ( such as you.)
2. If the majority of Jewish scholars, archaeologists, Rabbis and Jews in general consider the Pentateuch to be historical fiction then I do not give a shit what Christians think because their’s is a presuppositional approach and is risible.
3. There are no fulfilled prophecies concerning a messiah – ask the Jews.
4. The Egyptian Captivity, Exodus and conquest of Canaan, did not happen and the evidence of the Settlement Pattern shows this. To suggest otherwise means one must now accept the crap that is written in Exodus and Joshua. And please, for the gods’ sake, do not come back and ‘cite’ Kitchen’.
5. If the evidence eventually pans out for fine tuning then we can all reconsider our views regarding a creator or some sort of intelligence.
However,to get from this point to stating it was the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth, born of a virgin, who was responsible and we must now all declare we are sinners and genuflect to him otherwise we shall be going to be burning in hell for eternity is about the most imbecilic, moronic idea imaginable, and if you are even vaguely suggesting this is the case then you sir, can kiss my a***.
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] Speaking In Sydney, Thursday 5th November Neil deGrasse Tyson on Newton (Part 2) […]
“However, as god-belief was pretty much de rigeur at this period of time it is probably inevitable it would form at least part of the foundation of most people’s worldview – especially in Europe. In fact, it would seem odd if it didn’t
To the Church of the day, anything even slightly atheist/agnostic would likely be considered highly suspicious.
For the cautious scientist, too much open rebellion to the Church might invite closer scrutiny.”
Re-read my original comment and you’ll see how I’m clearly responding to that.
I only said God once out of all the prior comments, and (again) the only time it was used it was the correct context as it was in reference to Luke’s rebuttal. Afterwards I did specify “YHWH”, but again in the correct context. Not sure how that’s hypocritical or cognitively dissonant.
Whoops! Sorry, Luke! That wasn’t directed at you. Not sure how that happened. Disregard it from your response, please.
good work Lukebarnes. Liars must be exposed. Congratulations.
[…] Barnes examines the writings of each of these men, and shows fairly conclusively that their belief in a God was not a “god of the gaps”. Rather, for each of them God was at the very centre of their universe; they believed in God because of what they knew about the universe, not because of what they didn’t know. […]
Late to the party, but I’ll leave comment anyway.
First of all, Tyson said that Newton “invokes” God when his understanding ends. Not that Newton doesn’t see God everywhere, but rather that he mentions God when he finds unknown. Unknown is a trigger that fires the God-talk. “Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention.” (http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimeter-of-ignorance).
I think the Tyson’s statements are not about where Newton sees God. It’s not relevant. The main point is why Newton sees God. It looks like unknown, unexplained is the reason, a “proof” for God. “This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” (https://newtonprojectca.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-general-scholium-1729-english-text-by-motte-a4.pdf). Seriously? Only? How could he know that? Newton’s laws describe a lot about planets movement etc., but they don’t answer why it is like that. Here the knowledge ends, so he sees need and/or opportunity to introduce divinity (doesn’t matter if in a way of establishment or miraculous intervention).
Once again, the claim is not that Newton (or others) sees God only at the edge of scientific knowledge, but rather that reason to see God is at the edge of scientific knowledge (see everywhere, who cares).
From everything I have heard from Tyson he seems to be a first class Fool spewing out nonsense at an unimaginable pace. Wisdom is nowhere to be found in his incoherent rambling about history, theology, or religion.
It is pathological bias in front of a microphone. He’s an arrogant babbler who I’ve never heard anything other than the world’s most embarrassing straw men, and outright lies to back his pointless shtick. He makes the other new atheists look like Aristotle
[…] In everything. God governs all things. More on Newton here and here. […]