Alexander Pope‘s couplet: “Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in Night. God said, ‘Let Newton be!’ and all was light!”
Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times
I have seen on several occasions, the Trinitarian Christian apologists taking credit for Newton’s work, rather than giving it to the Unitarians where it belongs. The credit of his scientific achievements belongs to pure Monotheism, be it Judaism, Unitarian Christianity or Islam, as he categorically rejected Trinity. However, it should be noted that the scripture of Islam of all the scriptures makes the best case for Unitarianism and many a Christian apologists have acknowledged that as well.
Rev. Elwood Morris Wherry (1843- 1927) was an American Presbyterian missionary to India, who wrote a number of books and was a famous Christian apologist and Orientalist in his time. He wrote acknowledging the beauty of Unity of God in Islam:
A few passages, like the oases in the deserts of Arabia, stand out as truly beautiful both in their setting and in their thought. Take the first chapter, the Fatihat:
‘In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful. Praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds! The compassionate, the merciful! King on the Day of Judgment! Thee do we worship, and to thee do we cry for help! Guide then us in the right way! The path of those to whom thou art gracious! Not of those with whom thou art angered, nor of those who go astray.’
The celebrated throne verse in Chap. II., 255, is as follows: ‘God! there is no God but he; the living, the self-subsisting: neither slumber nor sleep seizeth him; to him belongeth whatsoever is in heaven and on earth. Who is he that can intercede with him, but through his good pleasure? He knoweth that which is past, and that which is to come unto them, and they shall not comprehend anything of his knowledge, but so far as he pleaseth. His throne is extended over heaven and earth, and the preservation of both is no burden unto him. He is high, the Mighty.’
The question is often asked why a book of such singular composition should hold such sway over the millions of the Moslem world. In reply two reasons may be given: first, the beautiful rhythm, and often sweet cadences of the original language, which like some enchanting song hold multitudes with rapt attention who understand scarcely a word they hear; secondly, there is a vast amount of truth contained in the book, especially the truth of the divine unity and of man’s dependence upon God, as seen in the throne verse just now quoted.
Read more about Unity of God in Islam: God of Islam: God of Nature and the Creator of our Universe
Encyclopedia Britannica says about Newton and Trinity:
Newton found time now to explore other interests, such as religion and theology. In the early 1690s he had sent Locke a copy of a manuscript attempting to prove that Trinitarian passages in the Bible were latter-day corruptions of the original text. When Locke made moves to publish it, Newton withdrew in fear that his anti-Trinitarian views would become known. Reference.
— The Muslim Times (@The_MuslimTimes) September 25, 2014
The article below from Wikipedia sheds more light on Newton’s religious beliefs against Trinity and his pragmatic approach, to hide them to some degree, given an oppressive church.
The Holy Quran states:
If there had been in the heavens and the earth other gods besides Allah, then surely both would have gone to ruin. Glorified then be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, far above what they attribute to Him. (Al Quran 21:23)
Much of this early thinking was based on the assumption that the properties of physical things were intrinsic qualities belonging to those things. The great diversity of forms and substances found in the physical world thus reflected the limitless variety of intrinsic properties. Set against this way of looking at the world were the monotheistic religions. The Jews conceived of God as the Lawgiver. This God, being independent of and separate from his creation, imposed laws upon the physical universe from without. Nature was supposed to be subject to laws by divine decree. One could still assign causes to phenomena, but the connection between cause and effect was now constrained by the laws. John Barrow has studied the historical origins of the concept of physical laws. He contrasts the Greek pantheon with the One monarchical God of Judaism: ‘When we look at the relatively sophisticated society of Greek gods, we do not find the notion of an all, powerful cosmic lawgiver very evident. Events are decided by negotiation, deception, or argument rather than by omnipotent decree. Creation proceeds by committee rather than fiat.’
The view that laws are imposed upon, rather than inherent in, nature was eventually adopted by Christianity and Islam too, though not without a struggle. Barrow relates how Saint Thomas Aquinas ‘viewed the innate Aristotelian tendencies as aspects of the natural world which were providentially employed by God. However, in this cooperative enterprise their basic character was inviolate. According to this view, God’s relationship with Nature is that of a partner rather than that of a sovereign.’ But such Aristotelian ideas were condemned by the Bishop of Paris in 1277, to be replaced in later doctrine by the notion of God the Lawmaker.
In Renaissance Europe, the justification for what we today call the scientific approach to inquiry was the belief in a rational God whose created order could be discerned from a careful study of nature. And, Newton notwithstanding, part of this belief came to be that God’s laws were immutable. ‘The scientific culture that arose in Western Europe,’ writes Barrow, ‘of which we are the inheritors, was dominated by adherence to the absolute invariance of laws of Nature, which thereby underwrote the meaningfulness of the scientific enterprise and assured its success.’
For the modern scientist, it is sufficient only that nature simply have the observed regularities we still call laws. The question of their origin does not usually arise. Yet it is interesting to ponder whether science would have flourished in medieval and Renaissance Europe were it not for Western theology. China, for example, had a complex and highly developed culture at that time, which produced some technological innovations that were in advance of Europe’s. The Japanese scholar Kowa Seki, who lived at the time of Newton, is credited with the independent invention of the differential calculus and a procedure for computing pi, but he chose to keep these formulations secret. In his study of early Chinese thought, Joseph Needham writes: ‘There was no confidence that the code of Nature’s laws could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.’ Barrow argues that, in the absence of ‘the concept of a divine being who acted to legislate what went on in the natural world, whose decrees formed inviolate ‘laws’ of Nature, and who underwrote scientific enterprise,’ Chinese science was condemned to a ‘curious stillbirth.’
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
|The life of
Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian. He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic.
Newton was born into an Anglican family three months after the death of his father, a prosperous farmer also named Isaac Newton. When Newton was three, his mother married the rector of the neighbouring civil parish of North Witham and went to live with her new husband, the Reverend Barnabus Smith, leaving her son in the care of his maternal grandmother, Margery Ayscough. Isaac apparently hated Reverend Smith and had no relations with him during his childhood. His maternal uncle, the rector serving the parish of Burton Coggles, was involved in some part in the care of Isaac. Reverend Ayscough had studied previously at Trinity College.
During 1667 Newton was a Fellow at Cambridge, making necessary the commitment to taking Holy Orders within seven years of completion of his studies. Prior to commencing studies he was required to take a vow of celibacy and recognize the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Newton considered ceasing his studies prior to completion in order to avoid the ordination made necessary by law of King Charles II for all graduates. He later capitulated to his desire for exemption from the binding of the statute, in some way assisted in this by the efforts of Isaac Barrow, when in 1676 the then State Secretary Joseph Williamson changed the relevant statute of Trinity College to provide dispensation from this duty. Having foregone these duties, he embarked on an investigative study of the early history of the Church, during 1680s succeeding into inquiries of the origins of religion instead, at about the same time as having developed a scientific view on motion and matter. Of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica he stated:
When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose.
Newton’s religious views developed as a result of participation in an investigative discourse with Nature (the nature of the world) and developed from the apparent dichotomy of biblical reality from the increasing revealing of the structure of reality from investigation, and the subsequent challenges these truths of nature posed toward established religion for Newton, especially in light of Christian scriptural belief. Unorthodoxy was made necessary for Newton, and those affiliated with him, by the need for rediscovery of a prisca truth that had been hidden somewhere in the time of classical history. By this they might have the capacity to engage in open dialogue with an investigation into Nature. In this conflict of ecclesiastical order and the liberating effects of scientific enquiry, he and others turned to the prisca in all the security of a classical civilization having been supposedly founded on bona fide insights. So, for them, the truth lay within the perception of reality attained by Pythagoras and communicated, supposedly in a secret way, to a specific circle of people.
As is found among some of the established intellectuals of the Renaissance age, Newton believed that ancient philosophers and religious persons had gained insight into the truth of the nature of the world and universe, but this truth having become hidden within the language of the recording of the truth at the time and by later medieval scholars (Albertus Magnus, Arnold of Villanova and Roger Bacon) that required deciphering in order to be understood. The belief in the wisdom of the ancients, that thinking was intelligent and knowing in the civilization of classical religious figures (Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet Isiah and Solomon) and writers (Plato and Democritus) is known as prisca sapientia.
Like many contemporaries (e.g., Thomas Aikenhead) he lived with the threat of severe punishment if he had been open about his religious beliefs. Heresy was a crime that could have been punishable by the loss of all property and status or even death (see, e.g., the Blasphemy Act 1697). Because of his secrecy over his religious beliefs, Newton has been described as a Nicodemite.
According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. ‘In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin’. As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul, a personal devil and literal demons. Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them. A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published. In a minority view, T.C. Pfizenmaier argued Newton was neither “orthodox” nor an Arian, but that, rather, Newton believed both of these groups had wandered into metaphysical speculation. Pfizenmaier also argued that Newton held closer to the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics and Protestants. However, S. D. Snobelen has argued against this from manuscripts produced late in Newton’s life which demonstrate Newton rejected the Eastern view of the Trinity.
God as masterful creator
Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. Nevertheless he rejected Leibniz‘ thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator. In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:
For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.
This passage prompted an attack by Leibniz in a letter to his friend Caroline of Ansbach:
Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion.
Leibniz’ letter initiated the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, ostensibly with Newton’s friend and disciple Samuel Clarke, although as Caroline wrote, Clarke’s letters “are not written without the advice of the Chev. Newton”. Clarke complained that Leibniz’ concept of God as a “supra-mundane intelligence” who set up a “pre-established harmony” was only a step from atheism: “And as those men, who pretend that in an earthly government things may go on perfectly well without the king himself ordering or disposing of any thing, may reasonably be suspected that they would like very well to set the king aside: so, whosoever contends, that the beings of the world can go on without the continual direction of God…his doctrine does in effect tend to exclude God out of the world”.
In addition to stepping in to re-form the solar system, Newton invoked God’s active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other, and perhaps in preventing the amount of motion in the universe from decaying due to viscosity and friction. In private correspondence Newton sometimes hinted that the force of Gravity was due to an immaterial influence:
Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact.
Leibniz jibed that such an immaterial influence would be a continual miracle; this was another strand of his debate with Clarke.
Newton’s view has been considered to be close to deism and several biographers and scholars labeled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity. However, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits. He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. […] 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” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or “Universal Ruler”. […] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.
Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.}}
On the other hand, latitudinarian and Newtonian ideas taken too far resulted in the millenarians, a religious faction dedicated to the concept of a mechanical universe, but finding in it the same enthusiasm and mysticism that the Enlightenment had fought so hard to extinguish. Newton himself may have had some interest in millenarianism as he wrote about both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation in his Observations Upon the Prophecies. In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world could end on 2060. In predicting this he said, “This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail.”
Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world.
Newton spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In a manuscript Newton wrote in 1704 he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible. He estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said “This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail.”
Newton relied upon the existing Scripture for prophecy, believing his interpretations would set the record straight in the face of what he considered to be, “so little understood”. Though he would never write a cohesive body of work on Prophecy, Newton’s beliefs would lead him to write several treatises on the subject, including an unpublished guide for prophetic interpretation entitled Rules for interpreting the words & language in Scripture. In this manuscript he details the necessary requirements for what he considered to be the proper interpretation of the Bible.
The End of the World
In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood “until the time of the end”, and that even then “none of the wicked shall understand”. Referring to that as a future time (“the last age, the age of opening these things, be now approaching”), Newton also anticipated “the general preaching of the Gospel be approaching” and “the Gospel must first be preached in all nations before the great tribulation, and end of the world”.
Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060 AD. (Newton also had many other possible dates e.g. 2034) The juxtaposition of Newton, popularly seen by some as the embodiment of scientific rationality, with a seemingly irrational prediction of the “end of the world” would invariably lend itself to cultural sensationalism.
To understand the reasoning behind the 2060 prediction, an understanding of Newton’s theological beliefs should be taken into account, particularly his nontrinitarian beliefs and those negative views he held about the Papacy. Both of these lay essential to his calculations, which are themselves based upon specific chronological dates which he believed had already transpired and had been prophesied within Revelation and Daniel, books within the Christian Bible.
Despite the dramatic nature of a prediction of the end of the world, Newton may not have been referring to the 2060 date as a destructive act resulting in the annihilation of the earth and its inhabitants, but rather one in which he believed the world was to be replaced with a new one based upon a transition to an era of divinely inspired peace. In Christian theology, this concept is often referred to as The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of Paradise by The Kingdom of God on Earth. In Judaism it is often referred to as the Messianic era or the “Yamei Moshiach” (Days of the Messiah).
Henry More‘s belief in the universe and rejection of Cartesian dualism may have influenced Newton’s religious ideas. Later works — The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728) and Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733) — were published after his death.
Newton and Boyle’s mechanical philosophy was promoted by rationalist pamphleteers as a viable alternative to the pantheists and enthusiasts, and was accepted hesitantly by orthodox clergy as well as dissident preachers like the latitudinarians. The clarity and simplicity of science was seen as a way in which to combat the emotional and mystical superlatives of superstitious enthusiasm, as well as the threat of atheism.
The attacks made against pre-Enlightenment magical thinking, and the mystical elements of Christianity, were given their foundation with Boyle’s mechanical conception of the universe. Newton gave Boyle’s ideas their completion through mathematical proofs, and more importantly was very successful in popularizing them. Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles. These principles were available for all people to discover, allowed man to pursue his own aims fruitfully in this life, not the next, and to perfect himself with his own rational powers.
His first writing on the subject of religion was Introductio. Continens Apocalypseos rationem generalem [ Innovation / Introduction. Continuous Revelations – general account –] having an unnumbered leaf between folio 1 and 2 with the subheading De prophetia prima, written in Latin some time prior to 1670. Written subsequently in English, Notes on early Church history and the moral superiority of the ‘barbarians’ to the Romans. His last writing was in 1737 entitled A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews and the Cubits of the several Nations. Newton did not publish any of his works of Biblical study during the time he was alive. All of Newton’s writings on corruption within biblical scripture and the church took place after the late 1670’s and prior to the mid part of 1690.
|Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.|
- ^ a b c Gale E. Christianson Isaac Newton and the scientific revolution. – 155 pages Oxford portraits in science Oxford University Press, 19 Sep 1996. Retrieved 2012-01-28. ISBN 0-19-509224-4
- ^ Isaac Newton on Science and Religion – William H. Austin – Journal of the History of Ideas Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct. – Dec., 1970), pp. 521-542 (article consists of 22 pages) University of Pennsylvania Press Retrieved 2012-01-28
- ^ a b c [ENGLISH & LATIN] “The Newton Project Newton’s Views on the Corruptions of Scripture and the Church“. Retrieved 2012-01-28.
- ^ a b Professor Rob Iliffe (AHRC Newton Papers Project) THE NEWTON PROJECT – Newton’s Religious Writings [ENGLISH & LATIN] prism.php44. University of Sussex. Retrieved 2012-01-28.
- ^ “Newton’s Views on Prophecy”. The Newton Project. 2007-04-05. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
- ^ a b Principia, Book III; cited in; Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42, ed. H.S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, NY, 1953.
- ^ A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton by Sir David Brewster, Edinburgh, 1850; cited in; ibid, p. 65.
- ^ a b c Richard S. Westfall – Indiana University The Galileo Project. (Rice University). Retrieved 2008-07-05 , 2012-02-07.
- ^ a b c d e f g Snobelen, Stephen D. (1999). “Isaac Newton, heretic : the strategies of a Nicodemite” (PDF). British Journal for the History of Science 32 (4): 381–419. doi:10.1017/S0007087499003751.
- ^ Nichols, John Bowyer (1822). Illustrations of the literary history of the eighteenth century: Consisting of authentic memoirs and original letters of eminent persons; and intended as a sequel to the Literary anecdotes, Volume 4. Nichols, Son, and Bentley. p. 32., Extract of page 32 Retrieved 2012-02-21
- ^ C. D. Broad 1952 – Ethics and the history of philosophy: selected essays, Volume 1 Routledge, 30 Nov 2000 ISBN 0-415-22530-2Retrieved 2012-02-08
- ^ Gresham Collegelectures-and-events Retrieved 2012-02-08
- ^ Cambridge University Alumni Database Retrieved 2012-01-29
- ^ a b Professor Rob Iliffe (AHRC Newton Papers Project) THE NEWTON PROJECT prism.php15. University of Sussex. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
- ^ a b Cambridge University Library .ac. Retrieved 2012-01-29.
- ^ S.D.Snobelen (University of King’s College) – To Discourse of God : Isaac Newton’s Heterdox Theology and Natural Philosophy Nova Scotia Retrieved 2012-01-29
- ^ Matt Goldish 1998 – Judaism in the theology of Sir Isaac Newton – 239 pages Volume 157 of Archives internationales d’histoire des idées Springer, 1998 Retrieved 2012-01-28 ISBN 0-7923-4996-2
- ^ Christianity Today International – archives Retrieved 2012-01-28
- ^ David Boyd Haycock 2004 – ‘The long lost truth’ Sir Isaac Newton and the Newtonian pursuit of long lost knowledge Elsevier 2004 Retrieved 2012-01-29
- ^ Alfred Rupert Hall – Isaac Newton Centre for Mathematical Sciences Retrieved 2012-01-29
- ^ Hilary Gatti – Giordano Bruno and Renaissance science – 257 pages Cornell University Press, 2002 (Google ebook) & Niccolò Guicciardini Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton’s Mathematical Methods for Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736 – 292 pages Cambridge University Press, 30 Oct 2003 (Google ebook) Retrieved 2012-01-29
- ^ a b Avery Cardinal Dulles. The Deist Minimum. 2005.
- ^ Richard Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, (1980) pp. 103, 25.
- ^ Westfall, Richard S. (1994). The Life of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-47737-9.
- ^ Pfizenmaier, T.C, “The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke” (1675-1729)
- ^ a b Pfizenmaier, T.C., “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?” Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997.
- ^ Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. “The emergence of Rational Dissent.” Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19.
- ^ Newton, 1706 Opticks (2nd Edition), quoted in H. G. Alexander 1956 (ed): The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, University of Manchester Press.
- ^ Leibniz, first letter, in Alexander 1956, p. 11
- ^ Caroline to Leibniz, 10th Jan 1716, quoted in Alexander 1956, p. 193. (Chev. = Chevalier i.e. Knight.)
- ^ Clarke, first reply, in Alexander 1956 p. 14.
- ^ H.W. Alexander 1956, p. xvii
- ^ Newton to Bentley, 25 Feb 1693
- ^ James E. Force, Richard Henry Popkin, ed. (1990). Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology. Springer. p. 53. ISBN 9780792305835. “Newton has often been identified as a deist. …In the 19th century, William Blake seems to have put Newton into the deistic camp. Scholars in the 20th-century have often continued to view Newton as a deist. Gerald R. Cragg views Newton as a kind of proto-deist and, as evidence, points to Newton’s belief in a true, original, monotheistic religion first discovered in ancient times by natural reason. This position, in Cragg’s view, leads to the elimination of the Christian revelation as neither necessary nor sufficient for human knowledge of God. This agenda is indeed the key point, as Leland describes above, of the deistic program which seeks to “set aside” revelatory religious texts. Cragg writes that, “In effect, Newton ignored the claims of revelation and pointed in a direction which many eighteenth-century thinkers would willingly follow.” John Redwood has also recently linked anti-Trinitarian theology with both “Newtonianism” and “deism.””
- ^ Suzanne Gieser. The Innermost Kernel: Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics. Wolfgang Pauli’s Dialogue with C.G. Jung. Springer. pp. 181–182. ISBN 9783540208563. “Newton seems to have been closer to the deists in his conception of God and had no time for the doctrine of the Trinity. The deists did not recognize the divine nature of Christ. According to Fierz, Newton’s conception of God permeated his entire scientific work: God’s universality and eternity express themselves in the dominion of the laws of nature. Time and space are regarded as the ‘organs’ of God. All is contained and moves in God but without having any effect on God himself. Thus space and time become metaphysical entities, superordinate existences that are not associated with any interaction, activity or observation on man’s part.”
- ^ Joseph L. McCauley (1997). Classical Mechanics: Transformations, Flows, Integrable and Chaotic Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780521578820. “Newton (1642-1727), as a seventeenth century nonChristian Deist, would have been susceptible to an accusation of heresy by either the Anglican Church or the Puritans.”
- ^ Hans S. Plendl, ed. (1982). Philosophical problems of modern physics. Reidel. p. 361. “Newton expressed the same conception of the nature of atoms in his deistic view of the Universe.”
- ^ Brewster, Sir David. A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton Edinburgh, 1850.
- ^ a b c d Jacob, Margaret C. The Newtonians and the English Revolution: 1689-1720.
- ^ a b “Papers Show Isaac Newton’s Religious Side, Predict Date of Apocalypse”. Associated Press. 19 June 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
- ^ Newton, Isaac (2007-04-05). “The First Book Concerning the Language of the Prophets”. The Newton Project. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
- ^ Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John by Sir Isaac Newton, 1733, J. DARBY and T. BROWNE, Online
- ^ a b Snobelen, Stephen D. “A time and times and the dividing of time: Isaac Newton, the Apocalypse and 2060 A.D.”. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
- ^ a b Westfall, Richard S. (1973) . Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England. U of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-06190-7.
- ^ Fitzpatrick, Martin. ed. Knud Haakonssen. “The Enlightenment, politics and providence: some Scottish and English comparisons.” Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p64.
- ^ Frankel, Charles. The Faith of Reason: The Idea of Progress in the French Enlightenment. King’s Crown Press, New York: 1948. p1.
- ^ University of Notre Dame + William Whitaker’s Words : rationem – continens – apocalypseo – Retrieved 2012-01-29
- ^ THE NEWTON PROJECT THEM00046 Retrieved 2012-01-29
- ^ James E. Force, Richard Henry Popkin – Essays on the context, nature, and influence of Isaac Newton’s theology – 226 pages(Google eBook) Springer, 1990 Retrieved 2012-01-29 ISBN 0-7923-0583-3
- Isaac Newton Theology, Prophecy, Science and Religion – writings on Newton by Stephen Snobelen
- The Newton Manuscripts at the National Library of Israel – the collection of all his religious writings