Yahoo News headline re. eclipses: ‘Solar eclipse pits superstition against science’ H/T: RB
It never ceases to amaze how much in love the media is with the story line that pits all religion (lumped together as ’superstition’) against all that passes for science… as if every bit of the former were false and stupid and everything both true and not that’s been stashed under the heading of latter were perfectly and unassailably true.
Scientific experiment was long ago set up as the absolute and final arbiter of what truth is in its entirety and yet we could not go about our daily lives if this were so. Question: Is it true that you love your spouse (or child, or whomever)? Prove it scientifically. Is it true that Socrates really died by drinking hemlock? Prove it scientifically.
Is it not possible that one revelation-based faith system just might be true and thus in total synch with (but far vaster than) valid and comprehensive scientific knowledge?
That possibility seems to almost never make it past the editor’s desk nowadays at most major media outlets.
(People forget that Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and that he wrote over a million words of Biblical commentary on Daniel and Revelation alone — material he came up with reading directly from the original Greek and Hebrew — languages in which he was fluent.)
He was anti-Trinitarian, yes, but he was also accused by other, more “mechanistic” scientists of the time of having kept too much God in his vision of the universe. Specifically, gravity seemed to others to be an unexplained “occult force.” Had Newton not been inclined toward seeing mysteries in the world, he might not have discovered as much as he did.
Kepler and Copernicus were also religious men and more theologically orthodox.
By: Whom Shall I Fear? on July 21, 2009
at 6:41 am
It is misleading to describe Isaac Newton as a devout Christian. His personal beliefs were most likely antitrinitarian, and he dabbled in magic and the occult as well as attempts to interpret Biblical prophecies.
[Fair enough. I probably overreached.
It's worth keeping in mind though, that anyone who attended the kinds of churches that were around at the time he was alive (1642-1727) would be considered, if set in today's lukewarm, Laodicean context, wildly devout by virtue of their attendance alone and thus it's extremely difficult to calibrate.
I'm also acutely aware (and convicted about) the fact that at any given point in my life, it would have be fair to characterize me as 'dabbling in the occult' and/or (for much longer stretches) both anti-Trinitarian and anti-Christian. Thank God for His Grace!! -ed.]
By: Kate on July 21, 2009
at 12:30 am
Sorry, the above was meant to go with your “anticipation” entry.
By: njartist on July 20, 2009
at 8:24 pm
You’re an environmentalist: you keep the number of Black Swans to a minimum.
By: njartist on July 20, 2009
at 8:23 pm
So Isaac Newton was a believer, eh? Funny how I never learned that in public school…:), a I recently listened to Bill Bryson read his “A Short History of Just About Everything” while on a road trip. While the science is fascinating, and he does a good job of putting things in terms a layman can understand, it was also amusing the way the story kept bumping up against the necessity of an intelligent creator, and he kept dancing away. He spoke at length about Newton’s incredible genius, without ever mentioning his faith. ( Also interesting was the chapter on what would happen if a giant meteor hit the earth — sounded exactly like biblical prophesy. Sudden, without warning, fire beyond imagining, the sun blotted out…all of the above. )
By: erica on July 20, 2009
at 12:32 pm
Several of the “scientists” from the past were actually priests within the Catholic church. But, as they say, never let a few facts get in the way of a good story.
By: archangel on July 20, 2009
at 12:18 pm