All of that is true of Newton's scientific work (as far as I can tell with my limited knowledge), but Newton was also concerned with other aspects of reality beyond science. In his GENERAL SCHOLIUM, a short essay he placed at the end of his PRINCIPIA, Newton wrote that:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these being form’d by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed Stars is of the same nature with the light of the Sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems . . . This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκράτωρ, or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect . . . "
This is followed by an in-depth description of the attributes of God, which includes the following remarks: “He is Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from Eternity to Eternity; his presence from Infinity to Infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not Eternity and Infinity, but Eternal and Infinite . . . .”
Newton makes some more comments about God and creation in the General Scholium . . . For example, he wrote “As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things.” Also, he refers to the orbits of the planets around the sun; of the moons around their planets; and then the eccentric but very regular orbits of the comets, and concludes “it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions.” He makes the same point later on where he says “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.”
Thanks for sharing. Newton's theological beliefs were... interesting. As I understand it, he was an Arian who thought the Bishops at Nicea were misguided. Historically, that was a stepping stone on the path to deism and atheism. Some colleagues have argued Newton was influenced by occult thinking through his fascination with alchemy. I haven't read enough of the details of his life to have a confident opinion.
I have read at least one biography of Newton, and also about him here and there in serious works on the development of Western thought, and accept that Newton was not an orthodox Christian (John Milton also denied the deity of Christ). Such departures from orthodox Christianity are indeed stepping stones to deism and even atheism as you say, though that shift may take place over generations.
About the bishops of Nicea, I know nothing about them, except for they came up with a very effective brief yet comprehensive summary of Christian belief. They certainly were not infallible in all areas.
As to Newton's having been influenced by the occult, that is a distinct possibility due to his interest in alchemy, but in those days the lines between the occult and science were not always so clearly drawn.
Moreover, it could be argued that his religious beliefs are irrelevant to his scientific work, which can of course be understood with no reference to religion. However, his religious beliefs are not irrelevant to the larger question of the relationship between science and religious belief. For example, the material by Newton I quoted completely destroys the belief that there is an inherent conflict between belief in God and science, and that true science can only proceed within a naturalistic framework.
In fact, all of the founding giants of modern science, as far as I know, believed in God, even if they were not orthodox Christians. Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, and many others believed there was a God. This does not prove that God exists - it can be argued they didn't know any better - but in their cases belief in God did not stifle the scientific impulse, it stimulated it. They did not say "God created the world, so that explains everything and now we can devote our lives to prayer and Bible study." On the contrary, they reasoned "God created the world - now let's see how it works."
It has been argued - credibly I think - that the reason modern science began in Western Europe as it did nowhere else was because of the concept of a rational universe created by God in a generally Christian framework.
So, Newton's specific theological doctrines are not significant to me, but he poses a significant challenge to the assertion that belief in God is inimical to science. Even Einstein believed in some sort of a God, though it was a philosophical rather than a biblical one.
All of that is true of Newton's scientific work (as far as I can tell with my limited knowledge), but Newton was also concerned with other aspects of reality beyond science. In his GENERAL SCHOLIUM, a short essay he placed at the end of his PRINCIPIA, Newton wrote that:
"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these being form’d by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed Stars is of the same nature with the light of the Sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems . . . This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκράτωρ, or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect . . . "
This is followed by an in-depth description of the attributes of God, which includes the following remarks: “He is Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from Eternity to Eternity; his presence from Infinity to Infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not Eternity and Infinity, but Eternal and Infinite . . . .”
Newton makes some more comments about God and creation in the General Scholium . . . For example, he wrote “As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things.” Also, he refers to the orbits of the planets around the sun; of the moons around their planets; and then the eccentric but very regular orbits of the comets, and concludes “it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions.” He makes the same point later on where he says “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.”
https://isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/
Thanks for sharing. Newton's theological beliefs were... interesting. As I understand it, he was an Arian who thought the Bishops at Nicea were misguided. Historically, that was a stepping stone on the path to deism and atheism. Some colleagues have argued Newton was influenced by occult thinking through his fascination with alchemy. I haven't read enough of the details of his life to have a confident opinion.
I have read at least one biography of Newton, and also about him here and there in serious works on the development of Western thought, and accept that Newton was not an orthodox Christian (John Milton also denied the deity of Christ). Such departures from orthodox Christianity are indeed stepping stones to deism and even atheism as you say, though that shift may take place over generations.
About the bishops of Nicea, I know nothing about them, except for they came up with a very effective brief yet comprehensive summary of Christian belief. They certainly were not infallible in all areas.
As to Newton's having been influenced by the occult, that is a distinct possibility due to his interest in alchemy, but in those days the lines between the occult and science were not always so clearly drawn.
Moreover, it could be argued that his religious beliefs are irrelevant to his scientific work, which can of course be understood with no reference to religion. However, his religious beliefs are not irrelevant to the larger question of the relationship between science and religious belief. For example, the material by Newton I quoted completely destroys the belief that there is an inherent conflict between belief in God and science, and that true science can only proceed within a naturalistic framework.
In fact, all of the founding giants of modern science, as far as I know, believed in God, even if they were not orthodox Christians. Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, and many others believed there was a God. This does not prove that God exists - it can be argued they didn't know any better - but in their cases belief in God did not stifle the scientific impulse, it stimulated it. They did not say "God created the world, so that explains everything and now we can devote our lives to prayer and Bible study." On the contrary, they reasoned "God created the world - now let's see how it works."
It has been argued - credibly I think - that the reason modern science began in Western Europe as it did nowhere else was because of the concept of a rational universe created by God in a generally Christian framework.
So, Newton's specific theological doctrines are not significant to me, but he poses a significant challenge to the assertion that belief in God is inimical to science. Even Einstein believed in some sort of a God, though it was a philosophical rather than a biblical one.
"[Newton] poses a significant challenge to the assertion that belief in God is inimical to science."
I agree.
"... rather he went to great effort to painstakingly ensure that his conclusions corresponded with the real world."
So 20th Century.