Welcome to this week’s Friday Philosophy post. Today, we’ll be looking at the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton, whose approach to natural philosophy created a revolution, the effects of which are still being felt today. I will offer a brief snapshot of Newton’s life and thought, followed by some personal reflections on his contribution to the history of thought.
Who Was He?
Isaac Newton was born in 1642 in the county of Lincolnshire in the East Midlands of England. Newton learned Latin and Greek at the age of about twelve, and went on to study at Cambridge University, where teachings at the time leant heavily on the work of Aristotle. Newton, however, became particularly interested in the more recent work of the philosopher Descartes, and astronomers such as Thomas Street and Galileo.
After completing his studies at Cambridge, Newton studied privately for two years, and during this time developed his theories on calculus, optics, and the law of gravitation. Newton’s most famous book, published in 1687, is known as the ‘Principia’ (an abbreviation of a much longer Latin title which when translated is Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).
What’s the Big Idea?
Newton’s work lent great weight to the idea that the universe could be understood as having a mathematical basis, an insight first developed by Pythagoras in the 6th century BC in Ancient Greece. The mathematical laws developed by Newton birthed the idea that events are predictable. Given a complete description of the present state of a physical system at any one time, one would be able to accurately predict the state of that system at a future time.
The name given to explorations of the natural world, such as those undertaken by Newton, was ‘natural philosophy’. It wasn’t until the 18th century, that the term ‘science’ was used to describe this revolution in thinking.
My Reflections
The confidence that the new type of philosophy birthed by Newton gave to scientists is still evident today, in the new atheism movement, for instance, where we see scientific philosophers such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins, speaking with great confidence (some would say arrogance) about the superiority of science as a way of understanding reality, when compared to religion.
There is no denying that the scientific laws developed by Newton and others have impacted the world in a substantial and wonderful way. We only have to look at the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, which leant heavily on the work of Newton, to see that. But I would argue that while scientific laws are very useful in answering the how questions of existence, they do little to answer the why questions (such as: Why are we here? Why does the universe exist? Why do mathematical laws seem to work?).
I have a rather radical understanding of the way the physical universe operates, which is somewhat in conflict with the scientific understanding. I believe that events will only happen on a particular occasion if God wills them to happen, rather than those events being caused by preceding events. My understanding is that God can alter the so-called ‘laws of nature’ at any time, as God’s role in existence is that He is sustainer and animator of the cosmos, a belief that naturally follows from a literal understanding of God’s attribute of omnipresence.
The fact that many people witness miraculous events is evidence that God is above the laws of nature. I believe that the reason why not everyone experiences miracles all the time is because God enjoys creating regularity, but this doesn’t mean such regularity is absolute. God could mix-up the laws of nature at any time, a truth which is evident, for instance, in the dreams we sometimes experience, where the laws of nature can be completely different and yet still feel just as ‘real’ as our experience in the waking world.
In next week’s philosophy post I’ll present a snapshot of the life and work Niccolo Machiavelli, who was the first philosopher to study politics and government with a scientific attitude. If you’d like to follow this series, please considering subscribing to this blog. What are your thoughts on this week’s post? Feel free to leave a comment below.
Perfect Chaos 
9 responses to “The Clockwork Universe”
I would contend that “why” questions are loaded questions. What is it exactly that distinguishes “why” questions from “how” questions? “How” and “why” are synonymous in a lot of contexts, for example “why is the sky blue” and “how come the sky is blue” are exactly the same question. The only cases where “how” and “why” are different are when purpose, design or intent are involved. For example “why did he make dinner” and “how did he make dinner” are completely different questions. Questions you mention like “why are we here?” are synonymous with “how” questions “how did we get here?” unless you presuppose that there is design in the universe. So science is good at answering why questions such as the ones you mentioned, but only if the question doesn’t presuppose design or intent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Matthew!
Thanks so much for reading my post and taking the time to leave a comment.
I don’t think your example of the blue sky works very well, because ‘how’ is not the same as ‘how come’ (‘how come’ actually means ‘why’).
I think that as you suggest, ‘why’ questions might look at purpose, design or intent, but I would say that more broadly they are about the reason why we can say ‘X’ is true. This distinguishes them from ‘how’ questions. Perhaps there can at times be overlap between how and why questions, I’ll grant you that, but in other instances the distinction is very apparent, for instance a scientist may say 2+2=4, but they cannot say why 2+2=4.
I don’t think my argument that God exists is a ‘presupposition’, I think it logically follows from a careful examination of the nature of reality.
Best wishes,
Steven
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicely done, Steven!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, David, and Happy Thanksgiving to you! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much thanks, Steven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you think of this combination of science and spiritualism: A superior power generates the universe and every materials in it, creates the rules of how things flow, and then leaves the world be; in this case, what happens later in chronological sequentiality might be the reason of prior events, e.g., physically human exists because Big Bang happens, but indeed Big Bang happens because human needs to exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daisy Dream, thank you for reading and for your comment.
The God that I believe in is living and active within existence. He is deeply involved. The universe, to me, doesn’t seem mechanical at all, although I know many materialists believe it is.
What would be the nature of a Creator who exists outside of the universe? He certainly couldn’t be omnipresent, which to me is one of the definitional attributes of God. How would you describe this distant God? Where and what is He?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. The omnipresence is really a good point…Your blog intersects religion and philosophy so well. I agree that the universe is not mechanical, or at least the spiritual part is what constitutes the mechanical.
Maybe God is sun and concepts, mankind, other living things, and pure materials are rays, but within various distances, from that same single source?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daisy!
If I’m understanding your analogy correctly, I think I would agree, because I believe everything in existence is an expression of God (much like rays are an expression of the sun in your analogy).
Thank you for your kind comments about the blog, you are always welcome here!
Peace and blessings,
Steven
LikeLike