Very interesting article. Not really surprising though. I think that those who study and contemplate the Universe do share a spiritual appreciation of what they know of Nature and what they still don't know. However, this cosmic spirituality has very little relationship to the worship of any god as mandated by one or another of the religions of man. I just know some Christianist will cite this article as "proof" that the named scientists are "good, Bible-loving devotees" of their particular cult. That Einstein once said that he believed in Spinoza's God was argued to me as proof Albert was a Christian. The Christianist did not understand that Spinoza's God was Nature.
Thanks for reading and commenting Lawrence! I'm not sure about all of them, but at least in the cases of Darwin, Steno, Newton and Godel, there was a specific reverence for the Bible and therefore an explicit association between it and their appreciation of Nature.
Wikipedia "Religious Views of Charles Darwin" - Has this to say about Darwin and how he spent Sundays:
"from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." Meanwhile, Newton was a heretic, he believed in God but was not an orthodox believer, he denied the Trinity, and is best understood as a heretical Arian. "As well as rejecting the Trinity, Newton's studies led him to reject belief in the immortal soul, a personal devil, literal demons (spirits of the dead), and infant baptism." [also Wikipedia] Godel would also be considered heretical, certainly no conventional Christian: "Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not". According to his wife Adele, "Gödel, although he did not go to church, was religious and read the Bible in bed every Sunday morning", while of Islam, he said, "I like Islam: it is a consistent [or consequential] idea of religion and open-minded."
And Wikipedia is never wrong :). I suggest reading sources written by historians of science--such as "Darwin's Sacred Cause" by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. The view of Newton you state has much to do with anti-religious propaganda from Draper and White. He certainly considered the Bible more authoritative than anything else and his views on the Trinity were more complicated and subtle than that. And you are completely off on Godel, who read Scripture every day. The quote you give is completely out of context. Again, I suggest broadening your horizons beyond Wikipedia--a format where anyone can write anything they want. Or perhaps I should just spend more time editing Wikipedia.
For Darwin, check out the scholarly works of Professor John van Wyhe (Cambridge historian of science). Here is a good place to start: "Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?: Leading Darwin expert and founder of Darwin Online, John van Wyhe, challenges the popular assumption that Darwin's theory of evolution corresponded with a loss of religious belief." https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/was-charles-darwin-an-atheist
Very interesting article. Not really surprising though. I think that those who study and contemplate the Universe do share a spiritual appreciation of what they know of Nature and what they still don't know. However, this cosmic spirituality has very little relationship to the worship of any god as mandated by one or another of the religions of man. I just know some Christianist will cite this article as "proof" that the named scientists are "good, Bible-loving devotees" of their particular cult. That Einstein once said that he believed in Spinoza's God was argued to me as proof Albert was a Christian. The Christianist did not understand that Spinoza's God was Nature.
Thanks for reading and commenting Lawrence! I'm not sure about all of them, but at least in the cases of Darwin, Steno, Newton and Godel, there was a specific reverence for the Bible and therefore an explicit association between it and their appreciation of Nature.
Wikipedia "Religious Views of Charles Darwin" - Has this to say about Darwin and how he spent Sundays:
"from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." Meanwhile, Newton was a heretic, he believed in God but was not an orthodox believer, he denied the Trinity, and is best understood as a heretical Arian. "As well as rejecting the Trinity, Newton's studies led him to reject belief in the immortal soul, a personal devil, literal demons (spirits of the dead), and infant baptism." [also Wikipedia] Godel would also be considered heretical, certainly no conventional Christian: "Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not". According to his wife Adele, "Gödel, although he did not go to church, was religious and read the Bible in bed every Sunday morning", while of Islam, he said, "I like Islam: it is a consistent [or consequential] idea of religion and open-minded."
And Wikipedia is never wrong :). I suggest reading sources written by historians of science--such as "Darwin's Sacred Cause" by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. The view of Newton you state has much to do with anti-religious propaganda from Draper and White. He certainly considered the Bible more authoritative than anything else and his views on the Trinity were more complicated and subtle than that. And you are completely off on Godel, who read Scripture every day. The quote you give is completely out of context. Again, I suggest broadening your horizons beyond Wikipedia--a format where anyone can write anything they want. Or perhaps I should just spend more time editing Wikipedia.
For Darwin, check out the scholarly works of Professor John van Wyhe (Cambridge historian of science). Here is a good place to start: "Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?: Leading Darwin expert and founder of Darwin Online, John van Wyhe, challenges the popular assumption that Darwin's theory of evolution corresponded with a loss of religious belief." https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/was-charles-darwin-an-atheist
If you want to learn more from the detailed scholarship in this area, here is a link to an annotated bibliography that I put together for my graduate students a number of years ago: https://www.academia.edu/26448864/SCIENCE_and_RELIGION_BIBLIOGRAPHY_and_RESOURCES