7 ms·

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect PG doesn't care what "most people" think about theology. He is probably writing from the perspective from an educated pers

by olavk 10y ago

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect PG doesn't care what "most people" think about theology. He is probably writing from the perspective from an educated person who see the enormous influence of Newtonian physics, and see absolutely no benefit from his theological thinking. Seriously, who today even knows what Newtons theological theories were?

pc2g4d 10y ago
I don't think it matters what his particular theology was. What matters is that theology matters. It affects how people experience and interpret religion, which has a vast impact on the world. So the article's utter dismissal of theology as a waste of time seems misguided to me. Alchemy as well was not so ridiculous as people seem to think. Modern hatred for alchemy seems more like a way of patting ourselves on the back and saying "We're so smart! Good thing we don't believe in that nonsense like those benighted fools hundreds of years ago." But in reality alchemy was a pre-scientific attempt at understanding the world which, if I understand correctly, merged more or less directly into what we no consider science. It seems to me that the two things PG dismissed completely in his article are in fact the foundations upon which our modern world is largely built. There's more to the world than physics...even if physics is, in a sense, all there is.
- olavk 10y ago
  Newton was trying to predict the end of the world by studying the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any privileged information about the end of the world. Therefore his endeavor was a waste of time. As far as I know Newtons theology had absolutely no impact on anybody except himself.
  - nocman 10y ago
    "The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any 'privileged information about the end of the world.'" Well, you might believe they did not, but many people in the world believe they did. If you do not accept the Bible as revelation from God (and I would guess from your response that you do not), then I can see why you would reach that conclusion. If, however, you do accept the Bible as revelation from God, the book of, well, Revelation :-D is a huge chunk of "privileged information about the end of the world". Granted, dates of events are not given, and a lot of the book is prophecy, so there is figurative language, but there is a lot of information there.
    - olavk 10y ago
      Just because someone believes something does not make it true. The bible predicted the end of the world in the first century. It turned out to be wrong, even though people believed it.
      - nocman 10y ago
        "Just because someone believes something does not make it true". ^ That is correct, and I never said that it was true because people believed it. Of course the same could be said of your statement that "The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any privileged information about the end of the world." -- it is not true just because you believe it. Perhaps I should have just said "there are a lot of people in the world that do not agree with that statement", and left it at that. xD
      - jorangreef 10y ago
        "The Bible predicted the end of the world in the first century." The Bible explicitly refuses to give a date for the end of the world, and proactively voids the claims of any who would. If anything the Bible anticipates a long patient delay with a purpose: "They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” ... But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
        olavk 10y ago
        Paul predicted the end the world to arrive in his lifetime. He was wrong. See: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
        jorangreef 10y ago
        No, Paul is addressing the church, then and now. His use of the word "we" in the passage you quote has that sense. It's characteristic of Paul, see Ephesians 2 for another example. To come back to your point, if you read the rest of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, you will find Paul's position (which is in fact Jesus' position) on the matter: "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" You can't slip a piece of paper between Paul and Jesus. Jesus himself authenticates Paul as one of his apostles.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  As you say dismissing alchemy is probably a bad thing too. Alchemy was the search for the ability to transform matter (particularly Pb->Au). I rather think that nuclear fusion/fission are still consider worthy fields and that creation/discovery of an alchemist's stone - a way to convert readily between different forms of matter - would still be considered a worthy development. I agree too with your synopsis. Physics is like the part of reality we've tamed, everything that is yet to be discovered, that's of interest to physicists, likely lies outside our laws, corollaries, and axioms as they now stand. To me such ideas as the naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge go hand in hand with the faith of atheism. But I digress.
  - Cogito 10y ago
    > faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. Perhaps you do. What does not require faith, however, is observation - at least to the limits to which we can test and trust our observations. Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, it's an observation that we don't experience any supernatural forces interacting with this universe. > naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge I think very few people claim to know the limits of knowledge, but that is not the same thing as saying we know nothing. Asimov's essay on the Relativity of Wrong [0] is some of the best reasoning along this line of thought. [He] went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." [0] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    - nocman 10y ago
      "> faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. ..." "Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god" ^ actually it is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. I think perhaps part of the problem is that many people think of "faith" as meaning to "believe in something without any evidence of its viability", or to "believe in something despite evidence to the contrary". Both of those are unnecessarily narrow definitions of faith. Faith simply means believing that some thing or some set of things is true. The belief (regardless of what facts are believed) may be based on evidence, or it may not. Insisting that "faith" is always believing facts without evidence, or contrary to evidence, is inaccurate. That would be "blind faith", and not all instances of "faith" are "blind faith". [edit -- missed a comma]
- amsilprotag 10y ago
  The essay isn't about what matters in the absolute. It's about deciding where to spend a marginal hour, year, or life with imperfect information. And it's obviously true in retrospect that Newton's lifetime was spent in a way which produced more good to society than yet another theological life. Contrast his contributions to the most prominent 17th century theologians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians#17th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians#...
  - Fargren 10y ago
    John Milton is on that list. Newton was exceptionally important, but our world would be poorer without Paradise Lost. I'm glad Milton spent his time as he did.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  >What matters is that theology matters Don't you mean religious studies, more than theology? I think these are pretty different.
micahbright 10y ago
Although theological beliefs are rarely falsifiable, that doesn't mean they don't matter or render no benefit.
- olavk 10y ago
  Yeah, just because they don't say anything about the world does not mean they can not be used. The theology of Luther and Calvin changed the world. Even today you can start your own cult or church and get power over lots of people and get rich. But Newton did none of those things. His theology did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time, except for the personal gratification he gained from it.
  - micahbright 10y ago
    There's plenty of falsifiable evidence that suggests that adhering to religion is good for the individual, So there are positive benefits as well. There are also examples of religions doing good for humanity. To say that Newton's theology "did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time" is absolutely false. I remember my math teacher mentioning several of his statements and beliefs about the nature of God during lecture.
    - olavk 10y ago
      So what are some of the important theological discoveries by Newton?
      - micahbright 10y ago
        Seriously: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=important+theological+discoveries+by+newton http://lmgtfy.com/?q=important+theological+discoveries+by+ne... Despite his intense biblical study and belief in a creating God, Newton observed the distinction between religion and science made by Galileo: “The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” During his presidency of the Royal Society, Newton banned any subject touching religion, even apologetics. He wrote, “We are not to introduce divine revelations into philosophy [science], nor philosophical [scientific] opinions into religion.” Yet for Newton this distinction was not a divorce, much less a conflict. Although the books of God’s Word and his Works were not to provide the content of each other’s teachings, they were bound together. Newton did not consider one to be sacred and the other secular, nor did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, or Pascal—all practicing Christians. Only later Enlightenment philosophy produced a model of “warfare” between science and theology. Newton’s theology profoundly influenced his scientific method, which rejected pure speculation in favor of observations and experiments.

by olavk 10y ago

pc2g4d 10y ago

I don't think it matters what his particular theology was. What matters is that theology matters. It affects how people experience and interpret religion, which has a vast impact on the world. So the article's utter dismissal of theology as a waste of time seems misguided to me. Alchemy as well was not so ridiculous as people seem to think. Modern hatred for alchemy seems more like a way of patting ourselves on the back and saying "We're so smart! Good thing we don't believe in that nonsense like those benighted fools hundreds of years ago." But in reality alchemy was a pre-scientific attempt at understanding the world which, if I understand correctly, merged more or less directly into what we no consider science. It seems to me that the two things PG dismissed completely in his article are in fact the foundations upon which our modern world is largely built. There's more to the world than physics...even if physics is, in a sense, all there is.

olavk 10y ago
Newton was trying to predict the end of the world by studying the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any privileged information about the end of the world. Therefore his endeavor was a waste of time. As far as I know Newtons theology had absolutely no impact on anybody except himself.
- nocman 10y ago
  "The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any 'privileged information about the end of the world.'" Well, you might believe they did not, but many people in the world believe they did. If you do not accept the Bible as revelation from God (and I would guess from your response that you do not), then I can see why you would reach that conclusion. If, however, you do accept the Bible as revelation from God, the book of, well, Revelation :-D is a huge chunk of "privileged information about the end of the world". Granted, dates of events are not given, and a lot of the book is prophecy, so there is figurative language, but there is a lot of information there.
  - olavk 10y ago
    Just because someone believes something does not make it true. The bible predicted the end of the world in the first century. It turned out to be wrong, even though people believed it.
    - nocman 10y ago
      "Just because someone believes something does not make it true". ^ That is correct, and I never said that it was true because people believed it. Of course the same could be said of your statement that "The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any privileged information about the end of the world." -- it is not true just because you believe it. Perhaps I should have just said "there are a lot of people in the world that do not agree with that statement", and left it at that. xD
    - jorangreef 10y ago
      "The Bible predicted the end of the world in the first century." The Bible explicitly refuses to give a date for the end of the world, and proactively voids the claims of any who would. If anything the Bible anticipates a long patient delay with a purpose: "They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” ... But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
      - olavk 10y ago
        Paul predicted the end the world to arrive in his lifetime. He was wrong. See: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
        jorangreef 10y ago
        No, Paul is addressing the church, then and now. His use of the word "we" in the passage you quote has that sense. It's characteristic of Paul, see Ephesians 2 for another example. To come back to your point, if you read the rest of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, you will find Paul's position (which is in fact Jesus' position) on the matter: "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" You can't slip a piece of paper between Paul and Jesus. Jesus himself authenticates Paul as one of his apostles.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
As you say dismissing alchemy is probably a bad thing too. Alchemy was the search for the ability to transform matter (particularly Pb->Au). I rather think that nuclear fusion/fission are still consider worthy fields and that creation/discovery of an alchemist's stone - a way to convert readily between different forms of matter - would still be considered a worthy development. I agree too with your synopsis. Physics is like the part of reality we've tamed, everything that is yet to be discovered, that's of interest to physicists, likely lies outside our laws, corollaries, and axioms as they now stand. To me such ideas as the naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge go hand in hand with the faith of atheism. But I digress.
- Cogito 10y ago
  > faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. Perhaps you do. What does not require faith, however, is observation - at least to the limits to which we can test and trust our observations. Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, it's an observation that we don't experience any supernatural forces interacting with this universe. > naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge I think very few people claim to know the limits of knowledge, but that is not the same thing as saying we know nothing. Asimov's essay on the Relativity of Wrong [0] is some of the best reasoning along this line of thought. [He] went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." [0] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  - nocman 10y ago
    "> faith of atheism I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. ..." "Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god" ^ actually it is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. I think perhaps part of the problem is that many people think of "faith" as meaning to "believe in something without any evidence of its viability", or to "believe in something despite evidence to the contrary". Both of those are unnecessarily narrow definitions of faith. Faith simply means believing that some thing or some set of things is true. The belief (regardless of what facts are believed) may be based on evidence, or it may not. Insisting that "faith" is always believing facts without evidence, or contrary to evidence, is inaccurate. That would be "blind faith", and not all instances of "faith" are "blind faith". [edit -- missed a comma]
amsilprotag 10y ago
The essay isn't about what matters in the absolute. It's about deciding where to spend a marginal hour, year, or life with imperfect information. And it's obviously true in retrospect that Newton's lifetime was spent in a way which produced more good to society than yet another theological life. Contrast his contributions to the most prominent 17th century theologians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians#17th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians#...
- Fargren 10y ago
  John Milton is on that list. Newton was exceptionally important, but our world would be poorer without Paradise Lost. I'm glad Milton spent his time as he did.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
>What matters is that theology matters Don't you mean religious studies, more than theology? I think these are pretty different.

micahbright 10y ago

Although theological beliefs are rarely falsifiable, that doesn't mean they don't matter or render no benefit.

olavk 10y ago
Yeah, just because they don't say anything about the world does not mean they can not be used. The theology of Luther and Calvin changed the world. Even today you can start your own cult or church and get power over lots of people and get rich. But Newton did none of those things. His theology did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time, except for the personal gratification he gained from it.
- micahbright 10y ago
  There's plenty of falsifiable evidence that suggests that adhering to religion is good for the individual, So there are positive benefits as well. There are also examples of religions doing good for humanity. To say that Newton's theology "did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time" is absolutely false. I remember my math teacher mentioning several of his statements and beliefs about the nature of God during lecture.
  - olavk 10y ago
    So what are some of the important theological discoveries by Newton?
    - micahbright 10y ago
      Seriously: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=important+theological+discoveries+by+newton http://lmgtfy.com/?q=important+theological+discoveries+by+ne... Despite his intense biblical study and belief in a creating God, Newton observed the distinction between religion and science made by Galileo: “The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” During his presidency of the Royal Society, Newton banned any subject touching religion, even apologetics. He wrote, “We are not to introduce divine revelations into philosophy [science], nor philosophical [scientific] opinions into religion.” Yet for Newton this distinction was not a divorce, much less a conflict. Although the books of God’s Word and his Works were not to provide the content of each other’s teachings, they were bound together. Newton did not consider one to be sacred and the other secular, nor did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, or Pascal—all practicing Christians. Only later Enlightenment philosophy produced a model of “warfare” between science and theology. Newton’s theology profoundly influenced his scientific method, which rejected pure speculation in favor of observations and experiments.