And are you saying that you believe our current state of knowledge is the toe in the water? That's how I am reading this. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please don't discredit my statements because you make assumptions. You seem to be assuming that just because Newton worked in some area that he endorsed conclusions in that area. You also seem to assume that because Newton was smart, that conclusions in these areas must therefore be justified. The fact of the matter is that the alchemical work of Newton seems to have lead nowhere. Similarly the theological work. If you really want to investigate the work, then present one conclusion that Newton came to and his argument.
You are mistaken; I am just open-minded and draw my own conclusions. I read his work because he is a genius, I didn't believe it because he was a genius. I believed it because he is convincing. Alchemy is far more advanced theologically than reading the Bible, I am not going to discuss it if you are unwilling to even entertain the possibility of his book. And I dare not summarize his arguments. I have linked you the book; it is not all that long. If you read Chapters 2-4, this is where he first explains his method of interpretation and then begins to interpret two major apocalypse prophecies in the book of Daniel, which he corresponds to historical events. Each vision relates to the Babylonian Empire-->Persian Empire-->Greek Empire-->Roman Empire. In Chapters 7 and 8 he walks the reader through the dissolution of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms. He provides evidence for prophecy existing within the text of the Bible. I'm not going to convince you, I'm not trying to. My intent is to have Isaac Newton convince you, if you dare take the time to read his works without dismissing them immediately. If you are unwilling to give Newton the respect he is due, then so be it.
I think you mean "uninterested" rather than "disinterested". I'm not sure what you mean by "showing dominance", but of course I am making my point as strongly as I can, since you seem so resistant to acknowledging itPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I post in this thread because I think it is important for readers to understand that famous scientists remain creatures of their time and that not all they say has to be taken as holy writ, just because of who they are and what they are famous for. In other words, historical context and human limitations are always worth keeping in mind, especially when the authority concerned is venturing outside the field for which he or she is renowned. You are right that I certainly have no intention of reading this stuff, any more than I would waste my time reading stuff about the Bermuda Triangle. But it is not mere prejudice, it is a reasoned decision, as I have explained. We all apply filters to decide what we should spend time reading and what we can safely dismiss.
A reasoned decision with absolutely no basis, got it. Just move along, mate. I'm not conversing with close-mindedness.
Explain what a biography has to do with reading the man's writings. You will read a biography but not his work? Listen to yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal God and the afterlife[edit] Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."[8] On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[10] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[11] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
His specific beliefs differ from the Bible, but his belief in a creator is still there. This thread is not about Einstein.
You mentioned Einstein as believing in a creator... :shrug: And that is just plain wrong. And to presume he did, to support whatever agenda you have is misleading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."[17] This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's The World as I See It, stating: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Albert Einstein - The Human Side,Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979. From pp. 42 - 44
You are reading religions into it. Religions are not synonymous with a creator. Again, he is totally irrelevant to the thread. So let us not debunk it, thanks.
Yes they are. Let's not debunk it? You are the one who has raised it. You are the one wanting to give some sort of scientific legitimacy to God, religion and the Bible. In essence, all three are mythical forms of understanding before science came on the scene. Definition of science: Knowledge: And further more, the Catholic Church by agreeing with the BB and Evolution, at the same time, invalidate the bible as a book of silly mythical fairy tales. And yes, this thread should be in the religious forum.
K. Just move on, thanks. I don't care about the church's opinions, nor is Einstein relevant to a conversation about Newton's book. If you have nothing to say about the book, please refrain from continuous hatemongering on my threads, stop wasting your time.
All persons posting threads are open to all comments in regards to the context of those posts. You said Einstein believed in a Creator. You are wrong. And I'm no hatemonger towards religion or God. In fact my wife is a Christian in the truest sense of the word, and tolerates me. What I do hate is closet Creationists, or religion inclined individuals, trying to dicredit science and/or add some form of scientific legitimacy to Intelligent design. Which it isn't of course. With Newton, yes, a brilliant individual as was Galileo, but both were born in an era when the church ruled like some bully or dictator. We, science, has come along wauy since those days, so much so, that God/Intelligent design is continually being pushed further and further back into oblivion. In fact we are near a stage, where it can now be logically shown that any divine omnipotent Creator is not needed.
You continue to mangle what I actually said. I said I don't give a damn about colonial era theology. Let me explain further: I don't give a rat's ass about the grievances of Luther or Calvin and certainly not Henry VIII and his minions, nor the premise of the King James committee in adopting all but the Apocrypha from their nemesis, the custodians of Christian lore for some 1500 years-- the Roman Catholic Church. It's all fallacy. The first was a nutty adoption of a legend more likely rooted in the story of Socrates--and this because the storytellers had little or no connection to Judaic culture (Paul of Tarsus probably adapted all of his accounts from the stories his Hebrew mother--taken for a bride to Tarsus by his legionnaire father--told him at bedtime. That at least explains why there is no genetic memory of the Roman atrocities in the New Testament.) I don't care about the way the Protestants repackaged the fallacy during the Reformation. More to the point, I don't care about Newton's speculations on the religion that was indoctrinated into him as a child, since he obviously was wracked by it, and went to considerable lengths to both justify and renounce certain of its tenets. But most of all, I stridently oppose any attempt to use Newton as a poster boy for legitimizing the fallacies of the most egregiously irrational version of Christianity--fundamentalism. And as I explained before, I wouldn't even attack from this position if the fundies were not at war with science and academia, meddling in science policy, in the classrooms, at the abortion clinics and at the churches and courts where gays and lesbians are seeking to legitimize their relationships are receive equal treatment, some 40 years or so after coming out of the closet. So to hell with all of that. That's not religion, it homophobia, egocentricism, some mixture of perverse sexual taboos, and power tripping, all of which boils down to a despicable kind of narcissism. You have no idea what I am going to do, unless of course you are a sock puppet of a former adversary. I have stated my position on Newton's maniacal struggle with superstition. I will advance any additional facts attesting to that as I deem appropriate. For example, I will add here that Newton's analysis of the early church history is manic but probably drawn exclusively from the holdings at Cambridge. It's almost entirely predicated on a desire to legitimize the system that indoctrinated him (Anglicanism). But is provides no insightful ontology unto itself. That is, he's doing reviews and inserting his own biases, which, as I said, were programmed into him through indoctrination. But nothing Newton wrote supports agnosticism, which makes your stance appear so disingenuous. You are of course free to ignore me, but I will continue to express my views freely and to enjoy the posts from the many insightful people posting here. Let's be clear: I am denouncing those elements of religious cults that interfere in public policymaking. I have enumerated them for you. Continue to ignore those of us who abhor this abusive misuse of religion to infringe upon the rights of others. And let's be clear that what I hate is deliberate ignorance, esp as used to dominate others. You are already mangling what I actually said to misrepresent me as a hater of religion. I clearly told you I hate the ways fundamentalists exploit religiosity to shore up the egregious fallacy that myth must be interpreted as historical accounts. You have ignored this salient point, which leads me to the conclusion that you are not capable of responding with even a modicum of honesty. The only logical conclusion is that you are operating as an undercover fundie. (Fraggle doesn't see this for some reason.) Bullshit. You know nothing of me and can't even speak on the same level to me that I am addressing you. So evidently you know very little of which I speak. I don't care about hearing your confession. I am not a priest. And if I were, I would excommunicate you. Only fools interpret myth as historical accounting. :shrug: As I suspected you have no intention of speaking about the Newton's work in Theology from a philosophical standpoint, which is an absurdity (notwithstanding Fraggle's disagreement on this). And obviously you can not intelligently articulate that atheism is a disavowal of God and all related claims perpetually foisted upon the world by zealots and fundies. So that leaves it for you to bone up on about a GED level of "introspection" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your purpose is to inject an egregiously fallacious perversion (fundamentalism) of a principally fallacious religion (Catholicism) onto a pure and unadulterated product of natural philosophy (math and science). That just sucks, dude. I am not propounding any belief. You are. You are (as Fraggle explained to you) without a shred of evidence to support even the mildest interpretation of Christianity, much less this aggravated, felonious version we call fundamentalism. Nothing could be more moronic than to insist that myth, legend and fable are to be read literally, as historical accounts. The fact that Newton did so in his own mind does not legitimize the egregious fallacy, nor does it detract from his brilliant technical achievements. You just are playing it that way, which is hopelessly fatal to intelligent dialogue. But there are mountains of evidence that fundamentalism is egregiously fallacious, if once we set aside the preposterous use of myth as historicity. Exhibit A, debunking fundamentalism: The Code of Hammurabi, attesting to the Golden Rule, claimed by your buddies as God's word. This was delivered by "divine inspiration" of Ba'al worshipper himself, Hammurabi, not Jesus or any of the other legendary characters of the Bible. And it was from Marduk, who slew the dragon-mother of creation. No relation to the Yahweh or the Elohim (pantheon of gods) taken from Phoenicia (Ugarit). In any case the Hebrews admit to originating in Ur (Iraq) which explains how they absorbed Sumerian/Babylonian traditions before they claimed the sands inside of Phoenicia. That's just a tidbit. The evidence is overwhelming, for the simple minds that have never seen the world outside of the Sunday School playground. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But yes, your religion is rooted in the worship of Ba'al and other gods of ill repute in Judeo-Christian tradition. Just as the flood myth Newton bought into was taken from beliefs recorded at Ba'als seminary -- Nineveh. Thousands of tablets in the British Museum are Exhibit B. Don't patronize me. And stop preaching, that's a violation of site rule. Agnosticism is not open mindedness, it's denial of the evidence that all religions are based on gods invented to explain phenomena for which there was no science. It's denial of the history of mythology attesting to the syncretism between what were originally various forms of animism and pantheism, and only later incorporated into religions like Christianity, which evolved out of oral tradition, not a "Holy Bible". Agnosticism is a cop out. But stop insisting that you are an agnostic, while preaching your fundamentalist platform. That gets back to the point that intelligent discussion demands reasonable honesty. Checking your ass, as the saying goes. What are you doing here? Preaching that the Bible is the undisputed word of God, as vindicated by the religious rants of Newton? How's that working for you so far? So far I've laid copious facts on the table which you've ignored. Therefore by default they are admitted as true and every plank you've tried to erect falls in on itself, vanishing into nothingness. I don't care what you think. I am responding to manipulation and subterfuge as I see it. So get off the gas and stop pretending you're my big brother. I already told you multiple times I don't give a shit about colonial era theology. I have plenty to say about the facts of Newton's diversions into religion and will post here freely subject to whatever the mods tell me to do or not do. So since you're not a mod, it matters not to me that you wish me to move along. Rest assured that if I read bullshit here I will label it as such. BTW you are increasingly sounding like a sock puppet of someone else.
Aqueous, your facts are relevant to the reading of Newton's book how?????????????????????? At the end of the day, you are making assumptions on Newton's work based on your knowledge through techniques that do not include actually reading Newton's work. And then you are proceeding to tell me your opinion which has absolutely no basis in the reading of his book. I'm not sure what more to say. If you want to have meaningful input against this thread, it is going to be as a result of arguments against the book, not arguments in general which are ultimately completely unrelated to the actual act of reading his work and considering it.
Newton and the "Trinity Hypothesis": http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/isaac-newton-on-the-trinity-hypothesis.html
