The oddness of Isaac Newton

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/isaac-newton-oddness/

by well_i_never • 8 years ago

73 51 8 years ago

the-tls.co.uk

gerbilly2• 8 years ago

This makes me think that approaching scripture intellectually must be a waste of time.

If Newton couldn't distill any worthy insights after a lifetime of study, then there mustn't be anything to find.

I mean reading the scriptures allegorically, or as poetry or with the 'right brain' can be a valuable thing to do, but to parse them too finely seems like the wrong way to go about it.

j0e1• 8 years ago

.. worthy insights ..

I'm curious how you would define that. As far as I understand, Newton's life was definitely colored and shaped by his theological pursuits-questioning their 'worthy'ness is raising the more fundamental argument of faith.

gerbilly2• 8 years ago

I mean that if Newton had found some groundbreaking insights through his lifetime of studying scripture, that we would likely have heard about them: the way we heard about calculus or gravitational theory or optics.

Retra3• 8 years ago

Newton wrote far more on his religion than he did on physics and optics. But it turns out that the value of that writing was virtually insignificant next to what little he wrote on physics and optics.

jdtang134• 8 years ago

You may be interested in authors like Pseudo-Dionysius the Areophagite and Origen, who were extremely, extremely intellectual in their approach to reading Christian scriptures.

antiquark• 8 years ago

approaching scripture intellectually

Jordan Peterson is making a go of it these days.

miobrien• 8 years ago

To me, the only odd thing here is that people think Isaac Newton is/was odd because he was interested in religion, alchemy, etc. Being a scientific "genius," isn't mutually exclusive with being interested in other things that weren't scientific.

truculation• 8 years ago

Yes. Also the assessment of parts of his non-scientific work as being 'almost entirely fruitless' might be mistaken. We don't and can't understand how his great mind worked. Could it be that an apparently strange obsession was vital to its functioning?

gameswithgo• 8 years ago

And, to an extent we only know that alchemy is "non scientific " because a lot of people like him worked hard on it and figured that out. Until then it was scientific. So too can religious research be scientific even if it turns out there isn't really a supernatural being.

A negative result is still a result.

unimpressive• 8 years ago

As Lawrence Principe points out in his Secrets Of Alchemy, Alchemy was in fact the precursor to our modern notion of 'Chemistry'. The alchemists had theoretical foundations for their work which were inspired by and often incorporated 'unscientific' notions of divinity. At the same time however it's very important to remember that in contemporary terms this wasn't unusual, it's only in hindsight that we can say Newton's mathematical work was more scientific than his theological or alchemical work. (Having read this scholarly book on the subject which spares the bullshit, I quite recommend it.)

To people with the 'Magicians Mindset' as Keynes might put it, the world has a rational soul underlying it which can be teased out by careful study of all things. If you're a Christian and start with this prior belief, then it makes perfect sense that you should expect your theological studies to inform your understanding of the natural world and your understanding of the natural world to inform theological studies. This is a mindset where metaphors and abstract connections are not of the human mind. Rather, they represent features of the territory showing us God's divine authorship of the world.

Another good book that outlines some of this is Hall's The Secret Teachings Of All Ages, which discusses the essentially Aryan (Indo-Iranian) thesis that all theological traditions discuss the same underlying esoteric doctrine which itself descends from one civilization. Having been written in 1928, Hall speculates Atlantis. (Naturally, you should take this text with perhaps more than just a grain of salt.) As far as I know the modern version of this thesis usually places the ultimate originating civilization in India.

https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M-Principe/d...

https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages...

jdtang134• 8 years ago

These alchemical principles you mention are probably derived from the Neoplatonic philosophy of Plotinus and Proclus, which is a pretty fascinating school of metaphysics with a significant mystical component. These Platonic influences are highly visible in Catholic and Orthodox churches today, having been transmitted through Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Origen. Hundreds of years ago, it made perfect sense for one person to be both a scientist and a theologian.

Also, "The Secret Teachings Of All Ages" sounds quite similar to the perennial philosophy.

IntronExon• 8 years ago

I think he was odd because of what he did to his eyeball, and his treatment of other poeple. I’d go so far as to suggest that “odd” doesn’t even begin to cover it. His interest in religion and alchemy don’t even register, given the period.

saas_co_de2• 8 years ago

It is more than just a passing interest. There would be no Newtonian physics without religion.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is just the golden rule restated as a physical law. Newton starts from the assumption that the physical world follows a moral law because it was created and is animated by god and everything else follows from and is in accordance with that belief.

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is just the golden rule restated as a physical law.

No, it's closer to lex talionis stated as a physical law.

Which I guess is also religious.

s_m_t• 8 years ago

Without some sort of equality or law of conservation it seems to me that nothing would be very easy to figure out. Maybe that is where the golden rule comes from, try and hold one social variable in place so that everyone can more easily understand everything else.

racl101• 8 years ago

Agreed.

The guy was a Renaissance Man through and through. It would be weirder if a guy with his level of genius and accomplishments wasn't interested in such a wide range of subjects and only was interested in a few subjects.

And by interest I don't necessarily mean that he has to excel at everyone one of them the way he did with physics and mathematics, but rather, to be intrigued enough to study them.

canjobear• 8 years ago

The classic on this topic is Keynes' Newton, the Man.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Keynes_New...

Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago.

mjfl• 8 years ago

This is a really obnoxious quote by Keynes, who wasn’t the perfect rationalist himself - might even consider him a magician as well, therefore Newton was certainly not the “last”

liberte82• 8 years ago

Why can't scientific people be spiritual? If anything, science claims only the realm of that which can be externally observed and verified, and falsified. Spirituality is similar, only that it is the exploration of that which can only be seen an experienced for oneself, internally. And any good spirituality, like any good science, doesn't try to make absolute claims.

theophrastus• 8 years ago

Of course they can be 'spiritual' (i've known several), with one clear philosophical caveat: religion, by definition, is dogma which requires faith. Faith requires, by definition, that one accept as truth universal aspects with no evidence. Being a good scientist requires, among other things, to accept nothing without supporting data - which is the opposite of faith. So, religious scientists who i have known notably split their understanding of the universe in two. Over coffee with one of these chaps i'll never forget his saying "Well, there's my professional system of belief, and there's my personal awareness, and I strive to keep them separate at all times." Just for the record, i couldn't manage to do that.

kbd• 8 years ago

Faith requires, by definition, that one accept as truth universal aspects with no evidence.

FWIW I'd disagree with this definition. To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of origins that explains apparent design by a long sequence of chance occurrences is equally a faith commitment.

Over coffee with one of these chaps i'll never forget his saying "Well, there's my professional system of belief, and there's my personal awareness, and I strive to keep them separate at all times." Just for the record, i couldn't manage to do that.

I agree there. One of the underlying causes of the scientific explosion around the Renaissance is the idea that the universe follows rules and can be understood, and it's because it's created by God that motivated many Christian scientists like Newton, Kepler, Pascal, and others to believe that we can fruitfully explore and understand its workings. It's bizarre to me that someone would try to hold in mind a universe where different aspects are actually at odds with each other.

Edit: for instance, here's an example of Kepler's motivations for scientific discovery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Christianity

mseebach2• 8 years ago

The kind of truth relevant for faith isn't the empirical sort that science concerns itself with, it's the kind of truth that is contained in wisdom. Faith is guidance for all those situations where it's not practical to set up a double-blind study to decide on the course of action, it's the belief that there is good and bad in the world and that you can make meaningful decisions that will increase the good and counteract the bad. The opposite of faith (which doesn't have to be religious), is nihilism, not science.

nbulka• 8 years ago

There's actually a lot science requires a person to accept outside of data. The law of excluded middle comes to mind ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_tradi...

Science also uses induction and so relies on the future being essentially the same as the past, which is not a given. see David Hume.

jdtang134• 8 years ago

Being a good scientist requires, among other things, to accept nothing without supporting data - which is the opposite of faith.

An important caveat is this: a modern scientist accepts nothing without supporting evidence except, of course, the principle that "one should not accept anything without supporting evidence", which is itself taken without question as an axiom, a dogma. If it were possible for someone to live a life entirely free of assumptions, that person would have absolutely no access to objective knowledge, period.

And we must not forget to mention the various metaphysical assumptions that modern day science-philophers will often try to sneak past you while claiming to be objective.

BeetleB• 8 years ago

Of course they can be 'spiritual' (i've known several), with one clear philosophical caveat: religion, by definition, is dogma which requires faith. Faith requires, by definition, that one accept as truth universal aspects with no evidence. Being a good scientist requires, among other things, to accept nothing without supporting data - which is the opposite of faith.

I've yet to meet a scientist who does not take something on faith (need not be tied to religion). And I've not met a devout person who at times required data.

Which is why a religious scientist or a skeptical theologian is nothing worthy of notice (at least if you spend time with the two camps).

nyc111• 8 years ago

"Well, there's my professional system of belief, and there's my personal awareness, and I strive to keep them separate at all times." Just for the record, i couldn't manage to do that.

Neither could Newton. Actually your comment made some things about Newton's work clearer to me. I would say that for Newton his research into orbits (and Principia is mainly a book about orbits) was no different than his work on the Christian origin. All of Newton's work is religious. This is what Newton wrote in his Optics:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles. (Isaac Newton, Optics, 1704, Book III, page: 375)

This quotes reveals two things. 1. Newton considers himself to be a prophet who is privvy to the way God created the world. And this idea was enforced later by Newton’s disciples. The idea being that, god created the world for Newton to discover (god created newton and all was light...) 2. That this is secretely Newton’s zeroeth law. Because Newton’s entire doctrine is based on the dogma of atomic materialism. Without the assumption of the doctrine of atomic materialism Newtonian edifice falls apart.

This quote clearly shows that when Newton was researching orbits he believed he was unraveling the secrets of god’s work. He was doing religious work and not what we would call “physics” today.

But Newtonian mythology is so strong that even otherwise enlightened people consider a blasphemy to question Newton and even to mention his name without the qualifier “genius”. A previous commenter who wrote something similar

It is more than just a passing interest. There would be no Newtonian physics without religion.

was heavily downvoted.

I agree with the main idea but it is very misleading to call what Newton was doing “physics” because he was not. There was no such discipline at the time.

lurquer• 8 years ago

Before contrasting religion with science, one should first disentangle 'history' from 'science.' That is, much of the 'conflict' between science and religion stems from differing opinions about past events. That is, history. Whether it be evolution or cosmology generally.

I'm unaware of any conflict between any religion and science in its strictest sense; that is, a reproducible phenomena backed up with expirementsl evidence.

Its a fallacy to think that use of scientific tools to support a historical theory makes the theory scientific.

Retra3• 8 years ago

The scientific method is a reified translation of the meaning of "consistent belief." The only sense in which spirituality is consistent is if you keep it to yourself. The second you try to put it in words and teach it, you are no longer doing something which can only be "experienced for oneself," and you are now open to having to justify your belief rationally to others. And science was designed to do that in the most general possible way.

And this is all ignoring the fact that human emotions and experiences are not immaterial 'spiritual' things that are not open to objective study.

tboyd472• 8 years ago

I don't think it was odd in the context of medieval and early Renaissance Europe for scientists to also delve into theology and Biblical exegesis. What's odd is how today's society elevates certain historical figures to the level of prophets in certain narrow areas of study, yet completely ignores or obscures their contributions in other areas. I never knew Newton was a staunch Arian before today, much like how I never knew that Pythagoras was a strict vegetarian, or that Socrates had a hatred of democracy, before researching them myself. Modern education is very careful to remove any trace of unorthodox viewpoints from its pantheon of scholars.

zombieprocesses• 8 years ago

Modern education is very careful to remove any trace of unorthodox viewpoints from its pantheon of scholars.

It's not just modern education/history. It's said that history is written by people who either love or hate someone or some event. Also, history has innate biases of the writer. It's why we focus primarily on western history while arabs, indians, chinese, etc have their own version of history. All history throughout history is peppered with half truths and embellishments or sometimes outright propaganda.

I never knew Newton was a staunch Arian before today, much like how I never knew that Pythagoras was a strict vegetarian, or that Socrates had a hatred of democracy

Or how columbus was an absolute genocidal butcher along with being a great discoverer. Or how genghis khan and the mongols were extremely cosmopolitan/egalitarian/merciful as well as been brutal conquerors. Or how the soviet union was at the forefront of the workers, lgbt, women's rights movement while being a horrific totalitarian nightmare. Or how Mao united a divided and brutalized china and freed china from european colonization while also starving tens of millions of chinese.

Depending on where you grow up and what history you are taught, you'll only see a particular snapshot. It's only when you make the effort yourself that you get to see the larger picture rather than the one framed by others.

tboyd472• 8 years ago

I was trying to focus more on the quirky ones than the tragic ones, but yeah, you're right too.

vorg• 8 years ago

Newton, Pythagoras, Socrates, columbus, genghis khan, soviet union, Mao

Not sure why you didn't add some example pertaining to the U.S. such as:

"Or how the United States promotes freedom of expression while locking up over 1% of its adult population."

jdtang134• 8 years ago

the soviet union was at the forefront of the lgbt right's movement

No way. Source? I am almost certain this is wrong.

Retra3• 8 years ago

It's not some conspiracy. If you weren't taught that Pythagoras was a vegetarian, it probably has more to do with someone not wanting to inadvertently preach vegetarianism via some vague appeal to authority. And hey, it's irrelevant anyway, so why should it be taught? If you over-teach this stuff you're just as liable to create cults of personality.

zellyn• 8 years ago

I've been looking for an excuse to post this to HN, and here's the perfect thread. If you (like me) are afflicted since childhood with both Science and Religion, and you don't mind chewing through something a bit meaty, this is an excellent discussion of the relation between Science and Religion.

http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/86-FREEZE-FRA...

zbentley• 8 years ago

Good writeup! For a fictionalization (well informed by the same resources cited by this article) of Newton's oddness, Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle books are an excellent pseudo-historical romp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle

tashoecraft• 8 years ago

Finished the cycle last year, can't recommend it enough. The only problem is how well it intertwines the fictional from the non fictional, I'm not actually sure which parts I know about Newton's oddness is true or not.

NotSammyHagar2• 8 years ago

Everyone should read that, and Cryptonomicon.

agumonkey• 8 years ago

A very nice video about the work of Newton and Liebniz (with the actual papers on a table read by the host)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObPg3ki9GOI

natecavanaugh• 8 years ago

One thing I learned here was that Newton was anti-trinitarian. In Christan circles he is often held up as an example of Christian scientist, but I've never heard it mentioned that he was also technically a heretic.

The oddness of Isaac Newton

Related Stories