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.
As far as I know Newtons theology had absolutely no impact on anybody except himself.
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.
^ 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
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."
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.
What does this even mean? Jesus never mentioned Paul, and Jesus and Paul never even met.
According to Luke, in Acts 9:15 he did:
"But the Lord said to him [Ananias], “Go, for he [Paul] is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel."
Apart from that, Peter also understood that Paul had been authenticated by Jesus as his apostle, see 2 Peter 3:
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Being an apostle meant that Paul was expressly authorized and enabled to represent the Lord. Hence the saying, "you can't slip a piece of paper..." meaning that one can't try and play one off against the other, as if they hold opposing views. Paul represents Jesus, nothing more, nothing less. Paul is merely a servant, the words are those of Jesus.
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.
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
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
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]
In a very strict sense of the word, atheism is an assertion that there is no god/supernatural being. It is clear that this assertion is impossible to prove, only possible to prove wrong. For any god you prove does not exist it is trivial to imagine one that does and which can't be disproved in the same way.
This means that simply stating there is no god is not very useful or meaningful. Much more meaningful is to state that even if there is a god, they take no part in our world. This is the interventionist god that Nick Cave does not believe in.
You are correct in pointing out that the word faith can be used to collect beliefs together and give them a name. That is a reasonable interpretation of the parent's use of the term as well. Too often, however, the phrases "faith of atheism" or "faith in science" are used to draw parallels with other faiths, specifically faiths that require "blind faith" as part of their belief system. Take the whole line in context:
> To me such ideas as the naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge go hand in hand with the faith of atheism.
The thrust of this statement, as I read it, is identical to the one Asimov discusses in that essay:
"If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing."
That is, it is impossible to know what you don't know and believing you do is foolish. He continues:
The implication was that I was very foolish because I knew a great deal.
The argument in the parent is that people who believe in atheism are foolish for believing they know the limits of knowledge. My counter argument is that atheists - like most people - don't tend to claim they know the limits of knowledge. Their distinguishing characteristic is that at no point does an explanation come to rest on blind faith. That is why saying "Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god" is a meaningful one.
There are probably other words that could be used instead of atheism to label this belief system that arises when you discard blind faith. No one needs a label for their belief that there isn't a teapot circling the sun in the exact same orbit as the earth, but 6 months the other side. Atheism is a useful word precisely because there is a long seated assumption in the consciousness of mankind that there must be a god.
An atheist disbelieves assertions of the existence of a deity or deities and believes the burden of proof is on those who say there is a god.
An agnostic disbelieves assertions that the existence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated, but also disbelieves assertions that the nonexistence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated.
Specifically, an atheist is not saying that there is no god, just that we don't have proof for any god. A 'Strong Atheist' may go on to affirm that there are no gods at all, but that is not required for atheism.
Based on this, I think I was talking about atheism in the most part, but with a bit of agnosticism thrown in.
The meaning of words depends on their context. "faith" has specific connotations when used in the context of religion, and the phrase "faith of atheism" attempts to apply these same connotations to atheism, implicitly placing it in the same category as religions and neatly sidestepping the question of whether such a categorization is appropriate.
Whether atheism should be categorized along with religions is a question which should be addressed on its own merits by looking at the characteristics of atheism and religions themselves, rather than looking up a dictionary definition and seeing if the words match.
In that context, I think it is quite appropriate to claim:
> 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.
Regardless of whether or not that is what is written down in the dictionary.
For further reference, see 'Arguing "By Definition" (LessWrong)': http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/
Insofar, I think that introducing the definition has brought a net positive value to this discussion here.
This is just a disagreement over definitions.
If you define alchemy as e.g. 'the search for the ability to transmute elements', then sure, nuclear reactions are alchemy. But that's not how the word is generally used. It's used to describe a practice bound up with a bundle of concepts, beliefs, and connotations[0], which mostly disappeared after the 18th century. (That's a useful thing to have a word for -- under a definition of alchemy for which nuclear physics is alchemy, you'd probably want to invent a different word to describe that practice, and then that just introduces unnecessary confusion when talking to people who use the more common set of definitions).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians#...
Don't you mean religious studies, more than theology? I think these are pretty different.
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.
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.
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.
Note I am talking about original theological discoveries made by Newton, not just his beliefs in general, since we are discussing the influence of Newtons theological research. If a viewpoint was also held by Copernicus we can be pretty sure it didn't originate with Newton!