
The oddness of Isaac Newton - well_i_never
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/isaac-newton-oddness/
======
miobrien
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.

~~~
unimpressive
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://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M-
Principe/dp/022610379X)

[https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages...](https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages_-
_Manly_P_Hall)

~~~
jdtang13
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.

------
tboyd47
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
> 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.

~~~
jdtang13
> the soviet union was at the forefront of the lgbt right's movement

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

~~~
rystsov
Roaring 20s were pretty liberal in USSR too -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_Hi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_History_after_the_October_Revolution:_1917%E2%80%931933)

------
zbentley
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle)

~~~
tashoecraft
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.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Everyone should read that, and Cryptonomicon.

------
gerbilly
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
> .. 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.

~~~
gerbilly
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.

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

[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Keynes_New...](http://www-
groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Keynes_Newton.html)

> 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
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
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
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
> 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Christianity)

~~~
longerthoughts
>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.

I agree that modern science still requires faith as much of what we believe is
inherently difficult to definitively prove. What I'm struggling to understand
is how you can say that these competing theories require an _equal_ faith
commitment. By what measurement? How are the competing theories equally
plausible? I actually agree when you say that the complexity of nature is "not
'no evidence'" and would add that the notion of an intelligent creator was
probably the most plausible explanation available when the notion was
conceived. However, plausibility has to be reevaluated and compared in the
face of contrary evidence supporting other plausible theories, and I simply
can't see how the competing evidence can be judged as supporting equally
plausible theories.

~~~
tareqak
I can give you an example/analogy that I personally believe in: I think that
science and religion (the part that comes directly from scripture without
intermediaries) are two ends of a really tangled morass long rope/thread. They
might be different colours, thicknesses, and different textures, but they
ultimately converge to being the one same thing. I think of religion as being
a sort of mission statement (the why) with a some general guidelines of how to
behave and what to expect (e.g. a interface in object-oriented programming),
and science being a sort of detailed, meticulous set of steps (the how) to
extract information from the environment and observable objects (e.g a
concrete class that is supposed implementing the interface).
Unfortunately/fortunately, the compiler doesn’t yell at you if you aren’t
implementing the interface correctly, so you have to figure it out for
yourself.

~~~
lomnakkus
> directly from scripture without intermediaries

Either scripture itself was written down by intermediaries or you're already
presupposing the existence of deities. (Those deities also require an
explanation or you really are just talking about faith without evidence.)

------
zellyn
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...](http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/86-FREEZE-FRAME-
IMAGES.pdf)

------
agumonkey
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObPg3ki9GOI)

------
natecavanaugh
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.

