On 6/18/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity
and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it?

I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have
followed theological books.

But I asked what *it* is, the meaning they have expounded with
*unanimity*. No doubt some scientists have been influenced by some
theological and philosophical writing. But did they *believe it* and
 *was it unanimous* or was it selected by the scientist from many
contradictory writings as one agreeable to his ideas.

This would be a goal of historical research to find it out.

But the quote you posted asserted that such a meaning was already known: "I have no fear of being contradicted when I say that the meaning I suppose to be attached by this author to the proposition 'God exists' is a meaning Christian theologians have never attached to it, and does not even remotely resemble the meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length."

For example a couple of quotes from Newton (according to Soul of Science)

Newton, General Scholium "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; ... and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants."

“this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Now the quote from the book Soul of Science itself:

"Roger Cotes, in his preface to the second edition of Newton’s Principia, wrote that the book 'will be the safest protection against the attacks of atheists, and nowhere more surely than from this quiver can one draw forth missiles against the band of godless men.'"

Hard to have been more wrong than that.

No doubt, the historical research can offer different interpretations. Another quote from Soul of Science

"In recent years much scholarly ink has been spilled in attempts to pin down his philosophical orientation. Keynes studied Newton’s manuscripts and concluded that, in contrast to the standard conception, Newton stood within the neo-Platonic tradition with its fascination for symbols and magic. 'Why do I call him a magician?' Keynes

'Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world. ... He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty.'

Is this the "meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at considerable length." It doesn't sound unanimous with with any theologians I've read.

'Newton was not the first of the age of reason,' Keynes concludes. 'He was the last of the magicians.'"

Hence when you think of Newton you indeed have a choice. It might be a good idea to read Newton directly, then you may have a better idea what was his reason to call in God and offer your own interpretation.


P.S. I have finished listening to Hawking's (I hope that I have got his name right this time) Grand Design. What is the difference between

a) I believe in God


b) I believe in the M-theory?

M-theory doesn't care if you believe in it or not. In fact it doesn't care about you or anything else.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to