Sir Isaac




Introduction

Sir Isaac Newton is remembered as one of history’s greatest scientists and mathematicians, but less known is the profound influence of his religious beliefs on his work. Newton was a deeply spiritual thinker who wrote extensively on theology – in fact, his private theological writings (largely unpublished in his lifetime) likely exceeded his scientific output in volume. He believed in a universe created and ordered by God, and this faith fundamentally shaped how he approached the study of nature. In particular, Newton’s magnum opus Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” 1687) contains subtle yet significant theological themes. This report explores how Newton’s views on God, creation, and scripture intertwined with his mathematics and physics. It examines Newton’s theology (such as his unorthodox Arian beliefs), his idea of mathematics as a divine language, the religious motifs in the Principia, differences between his public and private writings on religion, his later reflections on what he felt Principia left unresolved, and modern scholarly perspectives on the unity of Newton’s faith and science.

Newton’s Theology: God, Creation, Prophecy, and Arianism

Newton’s personal theology was intense, unorthodox, and kept mostly secret during his life. He was a devout monotheist who saw God as the “masterful creator” whose existence is evident in the grandeur and order of creation (Link) (Link). Newton rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, adopting a position akin to Arianism – the belief that Jesus Christ was filios ubordinatio (the Son subordinate to the Father) rather than co-equal with God (Link) (Link). Around 1672, after deep study of Scripture in its original languages, Newton became convinced that Trinitarian doctrine was a later corruption: he even discovered that a key biblical proof-text for the Trinity (1 John 5:7’s phrase “and these three are one”) was absent in the earliest Greek manuscripts (Link). He boldly penned a list of twelve reasons for rejecting the Trinity, arguing for example that in the Bible “whenever it is said... that there is but one God, it is meant the Father” (Link). Such views were heretical in the Anglican England of his day – openly avowing them could have ended his university career (Link) – so Newton kept them private.

Despite his outward discretion, Newton felt that pursuing true theology was as important as his scientific work. He once hinted that his mission was “more to study religion than [to study] science” (Link). His private manuscripts (over a million words) reveal deep investigations into prophecy and biblical chronology. Newton pored over the books of Daniel and Revelation, seeking to decode divine predictions. He believed the Bible’s true “essence” lay in prophecy rather than in church dogma, and he treated scriptural study with the same rigor he applied to nature. For example, Newton calculated timetables for historical and future events mentioned in the Bible – famously, he estimated that the symbolic 1,260 years of prophecy might end around the year 2060 (not to proclaim an exact end of the world, but to assert it would not occur before then) (Link) (Link). Newton’s faith also had an apocalyptic and anti-Catholic dimension: he saw the apostasy of the early Church in the rise of Roman Catholicism and expected a future restoration of true Christianity (Link).

In Newton’s worldview, God was not an abstract distant deity but an actively involved ruler of the universe. Newton conceived of God as omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and omnipresent – in his words, “a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect… alive, intelligent, and powerful”. He described God in relational terms: “Lord God” (a term denoting dominion) rather than just “Eternal” or “Infinite,” since for Newton God’s defining feature was His rule over creation. Newton argued it is “the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God”. This emphasis on God’s kingship over nature dovetailed with Newton’s scientific quest to understand the laws by which the Divine Ruler governs all things. Newton also had a strong aversion to idolatry or any worship of Christ as God; he viewed worship due only to the Father, and saw the post-Nicene Trinitarian theology as a lapse into polytheism or “idolatry” (Link). His private papers are filled with sharp critiques of what he called corruptions introduced into Christianity in the 4th century (Link). Yet outwardly Newton conformed to church practices enough to avoid arousing suspicion, attending services regularly in Cambridge in the 1680s.

In summary, Newton’s theology was dominated by a strict monotheism, a belief in divine providence, a conviction that Scripture (especially prophecy) could be rationally analyzed, and a sense that true Christianity had been distorted by Trinitarian dogma. These beliefs formed the backdrop for Newton’s approach to science. He assumed the natural world was the orderly creation of the Biblical God, and therefore that studying nature was a way to worship God and restore true knowledge. His faith provided motivation and guiding principles for his scientific investigations, as the next sections will explore.

Mathematics as Divine Order: Newton’s View of Math as God’s Language

For Newton, mathematics was not merely a human invention but a divine language – the code in which God had written the universe. Like other great scientific minds of the 17th century, Newton believed that the natural world was designed by God in a rational, lawful manner, and that these laws could be expressed in mathematical form. His Christian worldview directly fostered his expectation that nature’s behavior would be governed by consistent principles. Historian Stephen Snobelen observes that Newton’s “expectations of discovering simplicity and order in creation were based on a belief in a God of order Who made things that way” (Link). In other words, Newton assumed that because God is a wise creator, nature should exhibit unity, harmony, and mathematical regularity. This theological conviction gave Newton confidence to seek universal laws. For example, his belief “in the unity of God ensured for him unity within creation,” leading him to assert in the Principia that all stars and systems “must be subject to the dominion of One” God (Link). The implication was that one Creator had established one set of laws throughout the cosmos – a premise underlying Newton’s unification of celestial and terrestrial mechanics via the law of gravity.

Newton saw the study of mathematics and nature as a pious endeavor. He famously wrote that the laws of motion and gravitation he discovered revealed the genius of their divine Legislator. In a later reflection, Newton argued that while gravity could describe the observed motions of planets, it could “not explain who set the planets in motion” – only a supreme being could do that (Link). Thus, Newton saw God as the lawgiver behind the mathematical laws. The very term “laws of nature,” coming into use in Newton’s time, carried a theological connotation: it implied ordinances ordained by God. By conceiving the universe as “governed by God’s laws,” Newton and his contemporaries viewed themselves as discovering the mathematical decrees the Creator had chosen. Mathematics, in Newton’s view, was a key to understanding God’s creation – a rational structure reflecting the mind of God.

This perspective resonated with a broader notion (shared by Kepler, Galileo, etc.) that nature is written in the language of mathematics. Newton held that geometric and mathematical truths were in a sense eternal and rooted in God’s own nature or intellect. One biographer notes that “Newton, for example, believed that mathematics exemplified thoughts in the mind of God.”. Each time Newton solved a problem or formulated an equation describing nature (such as the inverse-square law of gravity), he felt he was uncovering another fragment of the divine design. This quasi-religious reverence for mathematics as God’s “code” gave Newton’s scientific work a larger purpose. As Newton wrote in the General Scholium (a concluding essay added to the 2nd edition of Principia), we “know [God] only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things” in nature. The logical, mathematical structure of the cosmos was, for Newton, a direct reflection of God’s wisdom. Studying mathematics was thus a way to know the mind of God and to understand the divine order underlying all phenomena.

It is important to note that Newton did not see a conflict between science and faith; rather, his faith fueled his science. He wrote more about theology than physics not because he valued science less, but because he saw all knowledge as part of a unified truth emanating from God. Newton’s scientific method – careful observation, mathematical analysis, and empirical testing – was compatible with his belief that God is a God of truth and order, not of chaos or deception. Even Newton’s method of approaching scripture had a rational, quasi-scientific bent: he tried to “test and investigate the words of God with the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, and testing”, treating “scientific and religious experiments” as “one and the same, observing and understanding how the world functioned.” (Link) (Link). In sum, Newton viewed mathematics as a divine instrument: God created the world with mathematical harmony, so by using mathematics, scientists could uncover God’s handiwork and confirm the divinely instituted order in nature.

Religious Themes in the Principia Mathematica

Newton’s Principia (1687) is often seen as a purely scientific work, laying out the laws of motion and universal gravitation. However, Newton subtly wove theological ideas into this treatise – especially in its later editions and supporting essays. The most explicit integration of theology comes in the General Scholium added to the 2nd edition (1713) of Principia, where Newton expands on the implications of his scientific findings for natural theology. Here and elsewhere in Principia, we can identify several religious themes:

Title page of the first edition of Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). Newton’s magnum opus not only defined the laws of motion and gravitation but also included theological commentary on God’s role as creator and sustainer of the cosmos. 

  • Design and Order in Nature: Newton argues in the General Scholium that the very structure of the solar system manifests an intelligent design. After demonstrating the law of gravitation and the orderly motions of planets and comets, Newton writes, “This most beautiful system of the Sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”. He points out that all planets orbit the Sun in the same direction and roughly the same plane, which cannot be attributed to chance or mere mechanical causes. Comets move freely through the planetary orbits in various angles, yet the entire system is stable. Such elegant coordination, Newton insists, “is not to be conceived” as arising from blind nature alone – it betrays the guiding hand of a Creator. This is a classic argument from design: Newton is effectively using the success of his physics to bolster the case that a divine mind set up the initial conditions of the cosmos. In the Scholium, he even counters the idea of a self-sufficient “clockwork” universe by noting that mere gravity could maintain the planets’ orbits but could never have placed them so harmoniously in the first place. Thus, Newton sees God as the initiator of the cosmic order. He famously states, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion” – implying that God is the one who established the orderly initial positions and velocities that gravity alone cannot account for (Link). Far from removing the need for God, Newton’s physics was intended to show how God’s design is manifest in the mathematical harmony of the heavens.

  • Divine Governance and Intervention: Newton portrays God not only as the designer but also as the ruler and sustainer of the universe. In the General Scholium, he emphasizes that God “governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all”. By this he rejects the pantheistic notion (held by some philosophers) that God is essentially the soul or animating principle of nature itself. Instead, Newton’s God is separate from creation yet omnipresent and actively in command. Newton uses the term “Lord God Pantokrator” (Lord God Almighty) to underline God’s dominion. He argues that calling God “Lord” makes sense only if God has servants (the created order) under His authority. This idea has scientific resonance in Principia: Newton was concerned with what keeps the universe stable over time. He noted that the mutual gravitational attractions of planets could cause perturbations in their orbits. Although Principia proved that these perturbations are bounded (the solar system is stable at least for very long periods), Newton hinted that divine intervention might occasionally be needed to maintain perfect order. In an earlier correspondence (the 1690s letters to Richard Bentley, written after the first edition of Principia), Newton admitted that “gravity may put the planets into motion, but without divine power it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the sun” (Link). He also speculated that God’s ongoing providence might be required to prevent the system from decaying – for instance, God could subtly adjust motions or use comets to replenish planetary life (an idea Newton floated in Principia Book III). In Principia itself, Newton stops short of stating outright that God periodically “tunes up” the creation; but his opponents (like Leibniz) later accused him of that view, and Newton (through his supporter Samuel Clarke) defended the notion that God’s active governance is not a flaw but a virtue of his system (Link) (Link). Newton saw no problem in God’s direct involvement in nature; on the contrary, Principia’s conclusion asserts that discussing God from observed phenomena “certainly belongs to Natural Philosophy [science]”. For Newton, science and faith converge in understanding how God, as the omnipotent King of the universe, executes dominion through the laws of physics – and intervenes as needed to accomplish divine purposes.

  • Absolute Space, Absolute Time, and God’s Omnipresence: One of Newton’s signature ideas in Principia is the existence of absolute space and absolute time – an infinite, unchanging framework within which objects move and events unfold. Newton’s rationale for absolute space and time had a theological dimension. He identified space with God’s omnipresence and time with God’s eternal duration. In the General Scholium, Newton writes of God: “He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space”. In other words, all moments of time and all regions of space are, in Newton’s view, essentially the sensorium Dei, the “sensory presence” of God. (Newton uses the phrase “sensorium of God” elsewhere, for instance in his later work Opticks, Query 31.) In Principia, Newton stops short of explicitly saying “space is God’s sensorium” in the text, but he implies it by asserting that true space remains always alike and immovable, just as God is unchanging. He rejects the Cartesian idea that space might be simply a relation between objects or that God is literally space; instead Newton suggests space is an emanation of God’s being – “not an organ of God” but the arena of His presence. Because God is omnipresent, every point in space is immediately under God’s awareness and control. Likewise, absolute time flows equably because it is rooted in God’s eternal uniformity. These concepts, while metaphysical, played a role in Newton’s physics by providing an unchanging reference frame (absolute space/time) that underpins true motion. For Newton, the existence of a single, uniform time scale and the universal spatial frame was anchored in the unity and universality of God. This view contrasts with later relational notions of space/time, but it shows how Newton’s theological beliefs about God’s attributes influenced core scientific concepts in Principia. Newton explicitly states that “God is not duration and space, but He endures and is present. He constitutes duration and space”, and that “every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of time is everywhere”, reflecting God’s necessary existence. Thus, Principia’s absolute space and time were, for Newton, a way of expressing the idea that the natural world is embedded in the infinite being of God.

  • Providence and “Final Causes” in Nature: Newton was careful to distinguish the proper roles of science and theology, but he did allow a role for discussing final causes (purposes) in a scientific context. In the Scholium, he famously remarks, “to discourse of God from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy”. He contends that from the design and beauty of creation, one can infer the existence and attributes of the Creator. Newton admired how the parts of nature are suited to each other (the “universal harmony”), seeing it as evidence of providence. For example, he notes that the distances between star systems are so great that their mutual gravity does not cause them to collapse together – “lest the systems of the fixed stars should fall on each other, He hath placed those systems at immense distances”. This is essentially attributing a preventative providential action to God in arranging the cosmos. Newton also discusses how God’s providence is active in the here and now: “Every soul that has perception is... the same individual person; God is the same God, always and everywhere... He is utterly void of all body... and can neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched... We know him only by his wise and excellent contrivances of things”. In this passage Newton emphasizes God’s incorporeal nature and the idea that we infer God’s existence from the contrivance (design) and final purposes in nature (often called the teleological argument). He even warns against “blind metaphysical necessity” (a deterministic fate) as an explanation for the variety of things, insisting that only the will of a necessarily existing Being (God) can account for the richness of the world. This is a direct refutation of any notion that the world could exist as it is without God’s choice – a shot at philosophies that removed God from the picture. In Principia, Newton thus weaves a providence-based interpretation: the stability of the planetary system, the provision of comets (which Newton thought might replenish Earth’s nutrients), and the very existence of life all point to God’s ongoing care. Far from excluding God, Newton’s physics is suffused with the conviction that the laws of nature declare the glory of God and that scientific inquiry can reveal God’s methods of governance.

In summary, the Principia contains explicit theological references to God’s design (the ordered cosmos requires an intelligent creator), God’s dominion (the universe is governed by God’s laws and perhaps occasional adjustments), God’s omnipresence (absolute space and time as expressions of divine presence), and God’s purposes (nature’s harmony serving as evidence of providential intent). Newton integrated these ideas carefully, often in response to contemporary critics. For instance, the General Scholium was partly an answer to Leibniz’s criticisms that Newton’s system was gravely in danger of promoting deism or atheism – Newton answered by strongly affirming God’s role. The result is that Principia stands not only as a scientific milestone but also as a work of natural theology, using scientific discoveries to support arguments about God. Newton saw no sharp divide between his science and his faith, and Principia is a testament to that unity.

Public vs. Private Writings: Orthodoxy and the ‘Trojan Horse’ Strategy

Newton walked a fine line between his private heterodox beliefs and what he presented publicly. During his lifetime, he published very little directly about his theology. His religious writings – extensive commentaries on Scripture, essays on church history, and tracts against the Trinity – were kept private or shared only with trusted friends. It was only after his death (when his papers were auctioned in 1936) that the full extent of Newton’s theological research became known. This contrast between Newton’s public silence (or guarded speech) on religion and his fervent private devotion raises the question: Did Newton deliberately hide theological ideas within his scientific works as a sort of “Trojan horse”? In other words, did he embed his deeper (potentially controversial) religious concepts in works like Principia in a way that would pass public scrutiny?

There is evidence that Newton was strategic in how he integrated religion into his published writings. Publicly, he remained within acceptable bounds – for example, invoking God as Creator and Designer (which was uncontroversial in his context) – while omitting or only subtly hinting at his unorthodox views (such as anti-Trinitarianism). The General Scholium in Principia is a case in point: it contains what one scholar calls “an oblique argument for a unitarian conception of God and an implicit attack on the doctrine of the Trinity”. Newton never explicitly mentions the Trinity there, but he carefully avoids any Trinitarian language and emphasizes God’s singularity and dominion in a way that reflects his Arian beliefs. By stating that “God is one and the same God always and everywhere” and focusing on God’s role as Universal Ruler, Newton was subtly steering readers toward a view of God compatible with his own (non-Trinitarian) theology, yet he did so under the cover of a mainstream design argument. This can be seen as a kind of Trojan horse: a seemingly conventional religious statement in a scientific work that carries within it Newton’s more radical message (the oneness of God unencumbered by Trinitarian mystery). Only those aware of Newton’s personal beliefs or reading very closely would catch the anti-Trinitarian undertone; to the general audience, Newton just appeared devout. In this way, Newton managed to honor his true beliefs while avoiding overt heresy in print.

Newton’s Opticks (1704) offers another example. In the later editions of Opticks, he added a series of “Queries” at the end, some of which venture into metaphysical and theological speculation. Query 31 famously asks whether space is the “sensorium of God” – implying that God’s presence is what defines space. Newton published this, again a fairly bold idea connecting God and the physical world, but couched as a question for reflection rather than a firm declaration. By presenting such ideas as queries, Newton could introduce theological concepts (like God’s omnipresence relating to space, or the idea that God’s will might be the immediate cause of gravity) in a suggestive way without asserting them as doctrine. This method shielded him from direct criticism and allowed the ideas to circulate. It’s arguable that Newton used these public writings to hint at his deeper convictions, hoping discerning readers might see the larger theological picture behind his science.

In contrast, Newton’s private manuscripts on religion pull no punches. In his unpublished essay “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture,” for instance, Newton methodically dismantles the textual basis for the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 (Link). He writes with the full force of his conviction that Trinitarianism is false and that the Church had fallen into grave error. Similarly, his Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse (published posthumously in 1733) reveal his apocalyptic interpretations and anti-Catholic views quite openly, albeit under the safety of anonymity (since he was no longer alive to face repercussions). These private and posthumous writings show Newton’s religious thought in pure form – unfiltered by caution. They also show the extent of his scholarship: Newton taught himself Hebrew and Greek to read scripture in original languages, studied early Church fathers, and wrote treatises on the history of doctrines (Link) (Link). He even outlined guidelines for interpreting prophecy with quasi-mathematical rigor, treating biblical prophecy as a puzzle with one correct solution set by God.

One might say that Newton’s public pronouncements on religion were moderate and carefully framed, whereas his private writings were revolutionary for their time. The public Newton appeared as a staunch but conventional believer in God’s creation (appropriate for a President of the Royal Society in an age when science and religion were seen as allied). He did invoke God in the Principia and elsewhere, but only in ways that bolstered the credibility of his physics (e.g. citing God’s design as an explanation for the orderly cosmos). This had the effect of making his scientific work more palatable to a religious audience and authority figures (the Principia even received the imprimatur of the Royal Society’s president, Samuel Pepys, as seen on the title page). Newton thus reassured readers that Principia did not promote atheism – quite the opposite, it reinforced belief in a Designer. In doing so, Newton may have been genuine (he truly believed his science glorified God) but also tactical. By intertwining a bit of theology with physics, Newton inoculated his work against charges of impiety. This was especially important given the sensitivities: only decades earlier, Galileo had faced censure for perceived conflicts with scripture. Newton wanted no such conflict; he sought harmony between his scientific discoveries and Biblical religion.

Some scholars have suggested that Newton’s scientific writings themselves were influenced in structure by his religious thinking. For example, Newton’s method of deducing general laws from phenomena (outlined in the Principia) mirrors his approach to scripture – derive general doctrine from specific verses, carefully and without preconceived hypotheses. There is a kind of cross-pollination where his habits of mind, whether applied to physics or theology, informed each other. In that sense, even when Newton wasn’t explicitly writing about God in a scientific text, his style of reasoning could be seen as carrying his religious mindset (valuing truth, simplicity, consistency – attributes he associated with the divine Author of both Nature and Scripture (Link) (Link)).

To characterize Newton’s religious writings as a “Trojan horse” for mathematical concepts might be a stretch – it was more that Newton’s scientific works served as a Trojan horse for certain religious ideas. He smuggled his unorthodox theology into the scientific discourse of the day under cover of natural philosophy. Conversely, one could say Newton’s faith carried within it the seeds of his scientific ideas: his belief in an orderly God smuggled into his mind the expectation of discoverable natural laws. Either way, the dual front of Newton’s work – outwardly scientific with a discreet religious undercurrent, versus privately religious with a rigorous, almost scientific approach – shows how intertwined the two spheres were for him. Newton exemplified the concept of “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” even if Newton’s idea of God diverged from the church mainstream. His legacy in this regard is a nuanced one: he strengthened the bridge between science and faith publicly, all while privately undermining certain traditional doctrines.

Newton’s Unfinished Work and Later Reflections: Religion in the Gaps

Even after publishing the Principia, Newton continued to ponder the deeper implications and unsolved questions of his system. In his later years, as President of the Royal Society and a venerable figure, he returned to intense study of alchemy and theology, suggesting that he felt there was more to uncover about God’s universe than what Principia had addressed (Link). One significant scientific issue that Newton “couldn’t get right” (by his own admission) in the Principia was the cause of gravity. He had mathematically described how gravity works (an inverse-square law force acting at a distance), but he could not explain why it works – how masses attract each other through empty space. This gap troubled Newton, in part for scientific reasons and in part for theological/philosophical ones.

Newton famously wrote “Hypotheses non fingo” (“I frame no hypotheses”) in the Principia, meaning he would not speculate without evidence about the mechanism behind gravity. Yet privately, he did speculate. His theological thinking strongly influenced his concerns here. The idea of “action at a distance” – objects exerting force across a vacuum – struck Newton as mysterious or even “absurd” if conceived as a property inherent in matter without God (Link) (Link). In a 1692 letter to Richard Bentley (a Cambridge theologian who had asked Newton about using Principia to demonstrate God’s existence), Newton wrote that it is “inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact”. He went on to say, “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man with a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.” (Link). This startling statement shows Newton’s discomfort: he could not accept gravity as an inherent occult quality – something had to mediate it. He concludes, “Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.” (Link). Here “agent” could very well mean God or some spiritual substance. Newton leaned toward the idea that God’s immediate presence or a subtle medium (perhaps the aether or spirit) was the cause of gravity.

Thus, Newton’s religious thinking (his conviction that God actively upholds the universe) directly influenced what he felt was unfinished in Principia. He had given the world a theory of gravity that worked, but it lacked a physical explanation – and Newton’s instincts, shaped by his theology, told him the explanation might lie in God’s invisible influence. Newton did not publish these thoughts in the Principia (to avoid controversy and because he lacked experimental evidence for any particular mechanism). However, the incompleteness of the system gnawed at him. In later editions and addenda, Newton did things like add the General Scholium, where he subtly indicates that perhaps God’s omnipresence is somehow involved (e.g. “in Him all things are contained and moved”). He also pursued countless experiments in alchemy and chemistry in the hope of discovering a fine ether or sprit that might transmit forces – effectively looking for God’s hidden mechanism in nature. This blending of spiritual and natural inquiry was characteristic of Newton’s later years; as John Maynard Keynes famously described, “Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians.” Newton’s alchemical studies (some of which overlapped with theological themes of purification and transmutation) suggest he never gave up trying to unify the material and spiritual explanations of the cosmos (Isaac Newton's life was one long search for God - Big Think) (Link).

Another aspect Newton fretted over was the stability of the solar system. Principia showed that, to first approximation, planetary orbits are stable ellipses. But Newton was aware of perturbations (e.g., Jupiter and Saturn tugging on each other). In Principia Book III, he discusses that over long periods, these irregularities could accumulate. Newton did some work on proving stability, but later in life he suspected that God’s providential oversight might be needed to ensure the system doesn’t destabilize. In the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence (1715-16), Clarke (speaking for Newton) argued that it was not beneath God’s dignity to adjust the orbits occasionally to maintain order, comparing God to a skilled clockmaker who can tend His creation as needed (Link) (Link). Leibniz famously retorted that Newton’s God was not truly omnipotent if He needed to fix His creation (“a clockmaker who has to mend his clock”) (Link). Newton, through Clarke, insisted that ongoing divine governance was a feature, not a bug, of his cosmology. This debate highlights how Newton’s religious view – that God is free to act in the world – shaped his acceptance of certain limitations in his scientific model. Newton was content to say, “If my mathematical model doesn’t guarantee eternal stability, that’s fine, God can ensure it.” Later scientists like Pierre-Simon Laplace would remove the need for such interventions by showing the solar system’s stability over immense times, prompting Laplace’s famous (perhaps apocryphal) quip that he had “no need of that hypothesis [God]”. But for Newton, God’s active care was integral, and he welcomed God into the gaps that science had not yet filled (Link) (Link).

Newton’s own reflections on his life’s work, near the end, are famously humble. He likened himself to a boy playing on the seashore, finding a smoother pebble here or a prettier shell there, “whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” This oft-quoted remark (recounted by his friend Conduitt) shows Newton felt he had only scratched the surface of knowledge. One could interpret this “ocean of truth” as including spiritual truths. Newton might have sensed that the ultimate unification of his religious understanding and his scientific system was still out of reach. He “couldn’t get right” the full picture – gravity’s cause, the link between the physical and spiritual, the exact timeline of God’s plan in history – but he had faith that all these truths formed a coherent whole known fully only to God. In his final years, Newton feverishly revised his chronology of ancient kingdoms and biblical events, trying to synchronize historical data with scripture. He never published those revised chronologies; they remained unfinished. Some scholars see this as Newton striving to perfect the big picture: aligning God’s Word (the Bible) with God’s Works (nature). Any discrepancies or unsolved problems were a source of dissatisfaction to him.

In conclusion, Newton’s later-life concerns and unfinished tasks demonstrate the depth of his integration of faith and science. Where Principia left questions, Newton’s thoughts often turned to God for answers. He refused to attribute unexplained phenomena to mere mechanical necessity or inherent properties if he felt those edged God out. As the Big Think essay on Newton puts it, “He knew he couldn’t prove scientifically what he truly believed was going on: God’s influence in the world.” (Link) Newton’s belief in divine action filled the void that his scientific theory could not illuminate. Rather than being content with a purely materialistic physics, Newton’s theistic outlook kept him searching beyond the boundaries of Principia, right up to his death in 1727.

Modern Scholarly Analysis: Faith and Science Intertwined

In the past, some biographers and scientists downplayed Newton’s religion, viewing his theological pursuits as a separate (or even regrettable) side hobby unrelated to his scientific genius. However, contemporary scholarship largely agrees that Newton’s faith was profoundly intertwined with his scientific work. Historian of science Stephen D. Snobelen argues that Newton’s theological beliefs provided essential presuppositions for his science (Link) (Link). For instance, Newton’s belief in a lawful, rational God gave him confidence that nature’s laws are unifyingly simple and discoverable (Link). Snobelen notes that Newton’s conviction in the “unity of God” led him to expect unity in nature, a principle that underlies the universal scope of Principia (such as treating celestial and terrestrial mechanics with one law of gravity) (Link). In Snobelen’s words, “the unity and dominion of God… ensured the unity of His Word and Works, and thus guaranteed that one can infer general principles from specifics – whether scriptural teaching or natural phenomena” (Link) (Link). This means Newton started with a theological axiom (one God = one coherent creation) and that guided how he approached both Bible interpretation and scientific induction. Far from his religion hindering his science, it enabled and inspired it.

Likewise, scholars point out that Newton’s concept of absolute space and time was rooted in his idea of God’s omnipresence and eternity (Link). What once might have been seen as a purely philosophical choice in physics is now understood in light of Newton’s theological context. Many historians now resist the older notion that Newton compartmentalized his “scientific Newton” and “religious Newton.” Instead, they see a single Newton with a unified worldview. James Force and Richard Popkin, for example, have edited works on Newton and Religion that show Newton’s heterodox beliefs (like Arianism) were not a footnote but a driving force in his intellectual life (Link). They, along with Snobelen and others, describe Newton as a “heretic” but a devout one – a “devoted believer” in God even as he rejected mainstream Christianity (Link).

One debate among scholars has been how directly Newton’s theology influenced his scientific theories. Richard Westfall, Newton’s eminent biographer, once argued that “theological influence on Newton’s science” was minimal (Link). Westfall acknowledged Newton’s heterodoxy but felt Newton largely kept it separate from his physics. Stephen Snobelen and others have challenged this, providing detailed analyses of places where Newton’s theology seeps into his science (such as those discussed above: design arguments, absolute space as God’s sensorium, etc.). The consensus now leans towards the view that Newton’s science and faith were integrally connected. The BioLogos Foundation’s Ted Davis writes that Newton’s prior belief in God “helped him arrive at attitudes and ideas that have unquestionably advanced our understanding of nature,” and that Newton was not simply inserting God as a stopgap for ignorance (Link). Rather, Newton’s faith formed the very framework within which he sought natural explanations. For example, Newton didn’t invoke God to explain away gravity’s workings; instead, his belief in God’s orderly nature drove him to find the law of gravity in the first place (Link) (Link). When Newton did invoke God (e.g. to initiate the motion of planets), it was because his worldview allowed both natural law and divine purpose to coexist without contradiction.

Modern scientists have also reflected on Newton’s synthesis. Physicist Marcelo Gleiser, writing in 2020, emphasized that “we would dishonor Newton’s memory if we overlook the crucial role God plays in his Universe” (Link). He calls Newton’s approach “rational mysticism,” a bridge between the human and the divine (Link). Indeed, Newton’s simultaneous immersion in alchemical mysticism and rigorous mathematics exemplifies a mindset very different from the stereotype of a cold rationalist. Newton saw meaning (often divine meaning) behind the numbers. John Polkinghorne, himself a physicist-theologian, noted that for Newton and his contemporaries, science was a way to glorify God by uncovering His works. This was part of the broader 17th-century cultural context often termed the “Scientific Revolution,” which in Newton’s case was also a religious revolution against imposed doctrines he found unbiblical.

Interestingly, Newton’s legacy has been cited on both sides of later debates about science and religion. Some Enlightenment figures painted Newton as validating a purely mechanistic universe (Laplace’s no-need-of-God stance), whereas early 18th-century religious writers saw Newtonian physics as confirming the power and wisdom of the Creator. Newton himself would side with the latter: he believed his work revealed God’s design. In the early 19th century, the “clockwork universe” idea took hold (that Newton’s laws made the universe a self-running machine). But as Davis points out, Newton explicitly “rejected [the clockwork universe] as theologically inappropriate” (Link), since Newton insisted on God’s continuous governance. This nuance was lost on some of Newton’s successors but has been re-emphasized by scholars today.

Another modern viewpoint is to understand Newton as a transitional figure between a religious worldview and a secular scientific one. Keynes’s famous description of Newton as “the last of the magicians” captures how Newton still immersed himself in occult studies (alchemy, biblical prophecy) even as he forged the laws of motion that would lead to the Age of Reason. Newton’s alchemy is now recognized as an important component, not an embarrassment; it likely informed concepts like forces and interactions at a distance. Some historians (e.g. Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs) have examined Newton’s alchemical writings and found theological symbolism there too – seeking the prisca sapientia (ancient wisdom) that Newton believed God had given to the earliest humans and which might be recovered. This again shows Newton’s unification of intellectual pursuits: he believed truth about nature and God had been whole in antiquity (perhaps with figures like Solomon or Noah) and had since fragmented, and he aimed to reunify knowledge (Link).

In summary, modern analysis concurs that Newton’s religious beliefs were not a mere footnote but rather the soil in which his scientific ideas took root. Whether it is the assumption of order, the search for unifying principles, or even the specific content of some scientific concepts, Newton’s faith provided both motive and mold. As one scholar succinctly put it, Newton’s science was “a product of his belief, an expression of his rational mysticism” (Link). This does not diminish his scientific achievements – instead, it gives us a richer understanding of Newton as a thinker who never saw a sharp division between the mathematical cosmos and the divine cosmos. To him, it was all one reality, with God’s presence the sustaining core of it.

Conclusion

Sir Isaac Newton’s life and work exemplify an extraordinary synthesis of scientific genius and devout (if unorthodox) faith. Newton’s theology – his conception of God as the omnipotent Creator and sustainer, his anti-Trinitarian creed, and his almost obsessive quest to decode prophecy – was not a separate pursuit from his mathematics and physics, but rather a deeply connected one. He approached the Bible with the same analytical rigor he applied to a beam of light, and he approached the mysteries of nature with a reverence for God’s handiwork. In the Principia Mathematica, Newton revealed the mathematical underpinnings of the universe, yet he deliberately framed these discoveries within a theistic context: a universe ordered by a wise God, governed by divine laws, and dependent on God’s ongoing will. The Principia’s pages hint at a God who is both the clockmaker and the active guide of the cosmic clockwork, whose “sensorium” is space itself and whose design is reflected in every planetary orbit. Newton’s public writings on science thus contained kernels of his private faith, carefully planted to avoid controversy but present nonetheless.

Conversely, Newton’s private religious writings bear the imprint of a scientific mind – systematic, detailed, and seeking evidence (textual or historical). If we think of his public science as a Trojan horse for his theology, we might also think of his private theology as a laboratory for ideas that informed his science. Newton never compartmentalized these endeavors in his own mind. To him, truth was unified: God’s truth in Scripture and God’s truth in nature would agree, and it was humanity’s task to piece them together. In areas where he struggled scientifically (such as the mechanism of gravity), Newton was content to attribute the unknown to God’s agency, not as a lazy “God of the gaps” but as a genuine recognition of dependence on divine action pending a fuller understanding (Link) (Link). He believed that revelation and reason are complementary, not opposed.

Modern scholars largely affirm that we must view Newton as a whole, rather than splitting him into “scientist” and “theologian.” By doing so, we gain insight into how his faith provided the philosophical foundation for his scientific breakthroughs. Newton saw mathematics as God’s language – and he became one of its greatest poets, describing the cosmos in equations that, to him, sung the praises of the Creator. His Principia can thus be read on two levels: as a landmark of mathematical physics and as a subtle work of natural theology testifying to God’s glory. Newton’s story reminds us that the history of science is intertwined with religious thought. In Newton’s own words, we “adore [God] for his perfections; but we reverence and adore Him on account of His dominion”, for “a God without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.” In Newton’s dominion over physics, he continually pointed to God’s dominion over all.

Sources:


See Also 


----
Also the Religious Views of Sir Isaac Newton

Popular posts from this blog

The Lewis Ratchet: Forward Asymmetric Momentum Transfer

Image
  The Lewis Ratchet: Forward Asymmetric Momentum Transfer I figured out how to make a model of this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5x0Yd7kjSc Imagine you’re floating on a small raft in a calm lake—a bit like Huck Finn’s raft, but with a twist. Instead of a motor or engine, your raft relies on an ingenious idea: by moving an internal mass back and forth in an asymmetric way, you can slowly “scooch” the raft forward. This is the essence of the Lewis Ratchet. The Basic Idea In an ideal, frictionless world, any internal motion—like shaking a heavy bar or throwing a medicine ball—cancels out. When you push one way, you push the other equally. But if you can arrange for the forward push to be strong and quick, and the return motion to be gentle and slow, the momentum transferred during the fast “kick” isn’t completely undone by the slow “reset.” In a real-world setting, friction (or water drag) then “locks in” that net gain, causing the raft to move forward incrementally with ea...
Read more

The Lewis Ratchet Redeux: The Lewis Ratchet in Space

Image
  The Lewis Ratchet Revisited: Two Perspectives, One Principle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxHIMhTpFYU When we first imagine the Lewis Ratchet —the idea that you can move a platform by throwing and retrieving a mass inside it—it’s often easiest to picture a raft on water. You throw a medicine ball forward (the “kick”), then gently walk it back (the “reset”), and thanks to friction or drag, the raft creeps ahead a little more each cycle. That initial, Huck Finn–style image might suggest that friction is absolutely essential. After all, friction is what lets you walk without slipping and prevents the raft from drifting back during the slow reset. But in a more general, frictionless environment—say, a sealed box floating in the vacuum of space—the same fundamental process happens via normal forces , collisions , and hooks or latches that allow internal masses to push off the box’s walls. This is an example of the idea.  The Vpython Script launches 4 masses and then the Spac...
Read more

Exploring momentum redirection - Understanding Inertial Displacement

Image
 Foundations, NASA’s Helical Engine, and Newton’s Legacy 1. Introduction: The Quest for Reactionless Propulsion  Today we embark on an in‐depth exploration of advanced propulsion systems that—at first glance—seem to defy conventional intuition. According to Sir Isaac Newton, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica , Newton established that the momentum of an isolated system must be conserved. Later, Emmy Noether elegantly formalized this idea: every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. For example, spatial translation symmetry guarantees conservation of linear momentum. Yet here we stand, contemplating systems that propose to generate thrust by only rearranging internal momentum—without expelling mass. How can a vehicle “move” if, by Newton’s and Noether’s words, its center of mass must remain unchanged in the absence of an external force? Today, we analyz...
Read more