Richard Dawkins vs. Issac Newton

C

Cypress

Well-known member
In today's matchup, I pit a premminent biologist against a premminent physicist.


Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila (1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. He explains that one does not need religion to be moral and that the roots of religion and of morality can be explained in non-religious terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion


Isaac Newton’s life was one long search for God. From physics and alchemy to theology and eschatology, Isaac Newton’s research was rooted in a personal pursuit of the Divine. His appetite for learning far transcended what we would nowadays call science. He devoted a larger amount of time to studies in alchemy and theology than physics. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/isaac-newton-search-god/
 
Cypress said:
In today's matchup, I pit a premminent biologist against a premminent physicist.


Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila (1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. He explains that one does not need religion to be moral and that the roots of religion and of morality can be explained in non-religious terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion


Isaac Newton’s life was one long search for God. From physics and alchemy to theology and eschatology, Isaac Newton’s research was rooted in a personal pursuit of the Divine. His appetite for learning far transcended what we would nowadays call science. He devoted a larger amount of time to studies in alchemy and theology than physics. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/isaac-newton-search-god/
Click to expand...


Newton was an authoritarian. Today, he would probably be a Trump supporter.
 
BidenPresident said:
Newton was an authoritarian. Today, he would probably be a Trump supporter.
Click to expand...

Newton, Galileo, Beethoven, and many other scientists and artists had offensive personalities.

I prefer to think of Newton not as the first great modern physicist, but as the last great mystic. The guy was obsessed with alchemy and astrology.
 
Cypress said:
Newton, Galileo, Beethoven, and many other scientists and artists had offensive personalities.

I prefer to think of Newton not as the first great modern physicist, but the last great mystic. The guy was obsessed with alchemy and astrology.
Click to expand...

Newton thought of God as creating the rules, or codes, for the physical universe. The idea that understanding the universe is to understand God is an idea few actually take seriously today.
 
BidenPresident said:
Newton thought of God as creating the rules, or codes, for the physical universe. The idea that understanding the universe is to understand God is an idea few actually take seriously today.
Click to expand...

That kind of natural philosophy came straight out of Medieval Christianity, and probably prevailed in scientific investigation until the 19th century.
 
BidenPresident said:
A nice myth, but vacant of truth. Descartes said God guarantees the truths of geometry.
Click to expand...
Decartes was 17th century.

My post said 19th century.


Natural philosophy extends back into the middle ages, particularly with the reintroduction of Aristotle in the west.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
In today's matchup, I pit a premminent biologist against a premminent physicist.


Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila (1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. He explains that one does not need religion to be moral and that the roots of religion and of morality can be explained in non-religious terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion


Isaac Newton’s life was one long search for God. From physics and alchemy to theology and eschatology, Isaac Newton’s research was rooted in a personal pursuit of the Divine. His appetite for learning far transcended what we would nowadays call science. He devoted a larger amount of time to studies in alchemy and theology than physics. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/isaac-newton-search-god/
Click to expand...

IMO Newton's life was the richer for his explorations. But how did they affect his science, his hypotheses and his conclusions?
 
Dawkins had the advantage of generations of scientific knowledge that Newton didn’t have access to



I would like to think Newton would have accepted that vast tranche of knowledge and settled on the fact that there are no gods or monsters


He did respect the existing knowledge of his time
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
IMO Newton's life was the richer for his explorations. But how did they affect his science, his hypotheses and his conclusions?
Click to expand...

I believe he thought of his physics as a glimpse of the divine, but Newtonian mechanics obviously work regardless of anyone's views on the divine.

The fact that the universe was found to be mathematically ordered, and it obeyed Universal first principles, at the time, was seen as divinely inspired.

Newton was always clear that his physical laws could explain how things worked, not why they worked.

His laws initially received a lot of criticism, because they invoked a mysterious force which seemed to act over vast, cosmic distances, aka "action at a distance". Newton could not explain the nature of that force and it struck people as almost occult. The math was solid, but it did not explain what gravity was, or why it worked.
 
evince said:
Dawkins had the advantage of generations of scientific knowledge that Newton didn’t have access to



I would like to think Newton would have accepted that vast tranche of knowledge and settled on the fact that there are no gods or monsters


He did respect the existing knowledge of his time
Click to expand...

I think they were both thinking both thinking about reality in the wrong way.

Newton's Christianity led him to keep pursuing things that the scientist in him should have written off, aka his obsession with nonsense like alchemy, astrology, eschatology

Dawkins has the arrogance of hubris that all knowledge of reality, in it's entirety, can be derived by analytical reason, and scientific experimentation.
 
In Newton’s time it was not clear those practices were not based in proof


He was seeking proof of their validity


You have to remember the state of known facts at the time




If there is a god or a monster that actually exists it will have a scientific reality that it exists in



Existence has perimeters


If a god exists it will exist in some perimeters


Belief is fine


It’s faith


That means you merely have to have FAITH it exists and it will show you the perimeters later


AFTER DEATH


Then you will see the perimeters in which it exists



That effectively means you can never in your life find the perimeters


That’s a con mans answer
 
evince said:
In Newton’s time it was not clear those practices were not based in proof


He was seeking proof of their validity


You have to remember the state of known facts at the time




If there is a god or a monster that actually exists it will have a scientific reality that it exists in



Existence has perimeters


If a god exists it will exist in some perimeters


Belief is fine


It’s faith


That means you merely have to have FAITH it exists and it will show you the perimeters later


AFTER DEATH


Then you will see the perimeters in which it exists



That effectively means you can never in your life find the perimeters


That’s a con mans answer
Click to expand...

I think you're right about Newton.


I do not agree that everything can and should be proven by scientific experiment.

Here are some things that can never be proven or quantified by reason or scientific experimentation.

Mercy
Charity
Art
Consciousness
Love
Justice
Compassion
Virtue
Courage
Humility
Temperance
Imagination
Creativity
Conscience
Music.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
IMO Newton's life was the richer for his explorations. But how did they affect his science, his hypotheses and his conclusions?
Click to expand...

Newton believed that God literally organized the universe by mathematical laws. Laws of Moses, Laws of physics. Same thing. Where we get a lot of bad idea about the universe being a mechanism.
 
Cypress said:
In today's matchup, I pit a premminent biologist against a premminent physicist.


Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila (1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. He explains that one does not need religion to be moral and that the roots of religion and of morality can be explained in non-religious terms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion


Isaac Newton’s life was one long search for God. From physics and alchemy to theology and eschatology, Isaac Newton’s research was rooted in a personal pursuit of the Divine. His appetite for learning far transcended what we would nowadays call science. He devoted a larger amount of time to studies in alchemy and theology than physics. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/isaac-newton-search-god/
Click to expand...

Had Isaac Newton said what Dawkins said he would have been hanged. That might provide some insight.
 
Cypress said:
I think you're right about Newton.


I do not agree that everything can and should be proven by scientific experiment.

Here are some things that can never be proven or quantified by reason or scientific experimentation.

Mercy
Charity
Art
Consciousness
Love
Justice
Compassion
Virtue
Courage
Humility
Temperance
Imagination
Creativity
Conscience
Music.
Click to expand...



Yes science can explain all of that
 
Mercy
Charity
Love
Justice
Compassion
Virtue
Courage
Humility
Temperance
Conscience



Are all the result of human emotion


The human mind is designed to promote the survival of the group


All these wonderful things are the result of mankind’s struggle to survive


That does not make them LESS BEAUTIFUL
 
Art
Imagination
Creativity
Music


Are all the ability of the brain to destress and bond



As well as freeing the mind to create things that promote the group survival
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top