Talk:Religious views of Isaac Newton/Archive 1

Unsourced Tag?

Why is this article flagged as being unsourced? I don't see the template, nor can I really spot anything out of the ordinary. Nodnarb232001 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apocalyptic interests

Any hard info concerning the following would be much appreciated: When J.M. Keynes bought "Newton's Trunk" at auction on behalf of his College in 1936(?) his remark about Newton's being not only the 'First Modern' but also the 'Last Magician' -(or words to that effet) were prompted by the enormous quantity of papers the Trunk containrd which were dedicated, apart from the running of the Mint,not to the 'public' Newton but to Alchemy and Biblical Studies. Of the 'Biblical' papers at least half, it seems, were concerned with the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, and that means close on HALF A MILLION WORDS (J-F Réziérs,'La Malle de Newton' PUF.1978). It was apparent for this French historian at least that Newton was convinced he, his society, was living in the 'Last Days'.Having laboured through the 'Book of Daniel' myself, I still don't get it. I mean which of the passages therein could suggest themselves so pertinently to the man who solved the riddle of our Solar system - and by extension Gravity itself throughout the Universe - and convince him The End Was Near? (But then I was always "Whiggish,"- seeing History through our present day optic.) Seriously I can use all the help I can get on this. Many thanks in advance: John Ruddy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.34.252.71 (talk • contribs) 14:24, November 26, 2005 (UTC)

For seventeenth and eighteenth century Englishman the Book of Daniel had vaguely the kind of place the Book of Revelation has in today's Christian world. Why this is might seem perplexing today. However I believe non-Quaker Christians were more Old Testament focussed then today's. Although Newton in fact wrote on both books. (Although he called the Book of Revelation, The Apocalypse of St. John which was oddly the common name in Catholicism until modern times) Anyway from Chapter 7 onward Daniel concerns various visions. A certain amount of these visions in least sound vaguely apocalyptic in nature. Many to most modern Christians assume they refer to BC events or the life of Christ. Back then many Christians assumed they could refer to events still in the future. To add one last thing I changed the way your message is displayed, slightly, because as it was it was hard to read. Whether this answer helps the article or not I don't know.--T. Anthony 09:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As to why a scientist would be interested in Christian apocalypticism many reasons come to mind. During Isaac Newton's life many troubling things happened in England and so apocalyptic or millenarian thinking was common in the culture. For example the Fifth Monarchists were a millenial group active from 1649 to 1661. They specifically relied on the Book of Daniel to a large degree. They started around the time Newton was seven and dissipated or ended when he was 19. (I don't think he was connected to them, but I think it was in the culture) In 1666 there was the Great Fire of London. There was also the rule of Oliver Cromwell in his youth. Lastly Newton himself was a Christian of some kind.--T. Anthony 10:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Newton's unitarian views

"Newton is generally thought to have been unitarian and Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. He listed "worshipping Christ as God" in a list of "Idolatria" in his theological notebook.[3] In a minority view, T.C. Pfizenmaier argued that he held closer to the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans and most Protestants.[4]"

This text contains self-contradiction. If Newton argued that worhipping of Christ was a form of idolatry, his thinking has nothing in common with Eastern Orthodox thinking which fully proclaims the divinity of Christ. It's true that there is a difference between the western and eastern way of understanding the trinity. The western Augustine view sees total equality in the Trinity (for example with proceding of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son) and makes it extremly clear that there is nothing but ONE god. The eastern Basilian view of Trinity sees the Son and the Spirit as the "hands of the Father in the world" eaven if they are equal and clearly rejects the western view of doubble "procedding". This makes clear that Newton had [neither] a tradtional eastern nor a western view of the trinity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.67.175.94 (talk • contribs) 15:29, June 23, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are contradictory views. As explained in the text, most historians accept the first one as representative of Newton's position (he was not a Trinitarian), while one scholar holds a differing opinion (he was Trinitarian, but more similar to the eastern rather than western tradition). Both sources are cited, so you may examine them. --Blainster 19:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor-quality footnotes

The quotes that use "Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media." as a reference don't include page numbers in the footnotes. Lack of page numbers makes it extremely difficult to verify the quotes. Omitting page numbers in footnotes is a very poor citation habit because it makes verification difficult. The ability to verify information is the whole purpose of using references in the first place. --JHP 02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First Good article Review

During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 29, 2007 compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Expand the lead per WP:LEAD. Also the structure of the article sounds bad. I think it should be rearranged. 1-Biblical studies 2- God as masterful creator 3- Gravity and God and 4- Other beliefs

Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secisek (talk • contribs) 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: I prefer somebody who is more familiar with Christianity judge about it.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, Of course.

4. Neutral point of view?: I prefer somebody who is more familiar with Christianity judge about it.

5. Article stability?: It's changed a lot since October 27[1]. Do other wikipedians who work on this article agree with it?

6. Images?:No problem.

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion:

• I don't think that this article gives a balanced view of Newton's religious views, ignoring as it does his alchemical beliefs. It takes too narrow a view, focusing on Christian religious beliefs; the Hermetics don't even get a mention.

The title of this article is "religious views". There is already another article that details his occult studies : Isaac Newton's occult studies. They do not merit more then a mention here. -- SECisek 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are too many unsupported statements, such as "... his work on Biblical hermeneutics was the work he most loved." Perhaps it was, but who says so? Others might say that his alchemical work was what he loved most.

This is in the lead and the comment is sourced below. It is from Tiner. -- SECisek 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article structure suffers from apparently having been built around one story, the discovery of Newtons prediction that the world would not end before 2060. There's a bigger story to tell than that.

There is ample coverage of other elements. There are 27 paragraphs and 19 of them have nothing to do with 2060. 2060 takes only about a third of the article.

--SECisek 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• "While Newton's fame is based off his work ..." The prose needs some work to be acceptable.

Fixed. -- 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• The inline referencing needs to be sorted out. There are 16 references given but the very last inline citation is numbered 18.

Fixed -- SECisek 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In summary, I don't think that this article gives a balanced view of its subject, and it requires some significant work before it can be listed as a GA in my view.

--Malleus Fatuarum 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article can be listed as a GA in its current form, and I also believe that the amount of work needing to be done is significant. As a result this nomination has been failed. I hope that the editors will continue to work on this article, and I look forward to seeing it nominated again in the near future once the issues that have been identified are sorted out. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above I am renominating this article. -- SECisek 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)