Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
In Newton's day there was no such thing as "science," there were no "scientists," only "natural philosophers."
It is important to know this because "science" as become atheistic, and it was "philosophers," not "scientists" who invented "evolution."
ChatGPT:
1. “Scientist” didn’t exist yet
The word scientist was not coined until 1833, by the English philosopher William Whewell, more than a century after Newton’s Principia (1687).
In Newton’s 17th century, the usual terms were “natural philosopher,” “mathematician,” or “student of nature.”
Science itself simply meant systematic knowledge (from Latin scientia), not a professional or secular discipline.
So Newton, Boyle, Hooke, and others called their work natural philosophy — a branch of philosophy devoted to understanding God’s creation.
2. “Natural philosophy” was explicitly theistic
The very purpose of studying nature was to glorify the Creator.
The Royal Society’s 1660s motto — “Nullius in verba” (“Take nobody’s word for it”) — didn’t mean rebellion against revelation; it meant independence from scholastic authorities, while still assuming divine order in creation.
Newton himself said that his aim in the Principia was to show the world that
“the most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
So, to be a “natural philosopher” in Newton’s sense was a religious vocation — thinking God’s thoughts after Him.
3. The later split (18th–19th centuries)
Over the next 150 years, “natural philosophy” gradually fragmented: chemistry, physics, geology, biology — each seeking methodological independence from theology and metaphysics.
Whewell’s invention of the word scientist in 1833 signaled that split — it described someone who no longer saw himself as a philosopher of divine order, but as a technical expert investigating natural causes on their own.
✅ In short: In Newton’s day there were no “scientists.” There were natural philosophers, whose task was to study nature as God’s creation, in order to glorify Him and confirm biblical truth.
Let’s look closely at what Newton himself actually wrote and how he used the language of “natural philosophy” and “natural theology.”
1️⃣ “Natural philosophy”: Newton’s preferred label for science
Newton consistently called his experimental and mathematical investigations “natural philosophy.”
ߓ? Examples from his own writings
Title page of the Principia (1687):
“Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” — “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.”
This shows he deliberately avoided the later term “science.” For him, philosophia naturalis meant the rational study of nature — the physical world as God’s orderly creation.In the Opticks (1704):
“The business of Natural Philosophy is to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very First Cause, which certainly is not mechanical.”
➜ He thus defined natural philosophy as the empirical study of secondary causes leading the mind to the First Cause (God).
So yes, “natural philosophy” was Newton’s constant term for what we’d now call science.
2️⃣ “Natural theology”: the term itself was used around Newton, and reflected his aims
Newton did not often use the precise English phrase “natural theology” in print — the expression gained popularity slightly later (e.g., William Derham’s Physico-Theology in 1713, and William Paley’s Natural Theology in 1802).
However, the concept was absolutely Newtonian.
He expressed it repeatedly — especially in the General Scholium to the Principia:“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 is Lord God over all things.”
This is the essence of natural theology: reasoning from the structure of nature to the attributes of God.
And in Query 31 of the Opticks:
“Does it not appear from phenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent… who governs all things according to His will?”
So, even if he didn’t often write the exact phrase, his work was saturated with natural-theological reasoning.
3️⃣ How he distinguished them
Category What it meant to Newton Relation to God Natural philosophy The empirical, mathematical study of creation — how bodies move, light refracts, etc. Reveals how God acts. Natural theology The rational inference from nature to the existence and attributes of the Creator. Reveals who God is. Revealed theology Truth known only by Scripture (Christ, redemption, prophecy, etc.). Reveals why God acts. Newton saw these as continuous, not opposed:
“To discourse of God from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.” (Opticks, Query 31)
That line actually fuses the two terms — effectively saying that natural philosophy becomes natural theology when pursued to its ultimate cause.
4️⃣ In summary
✅ Newton frequently used “natural philosophy” — it was his standard self-description as a scientist.
⚙️ He did not often use the phrase “natural theology,” but he practiced it constantly.
ߓ? Later Newtonians (Derham, Paley, etc.) coined “natural theology” as the formal term for what Newton had modeled.
Newton's 17th-century vocation of “natural philosopher” is different from the modern profession of “scientist” — in terms of goals, worldview, and assumed authority. ChatGPT:
Category 17th-Century Natural Philosopher (Newton’s era) Modern Scientist (19th–21st c.) Identity A branch of philosophy seeking wisdom about God’s creation. Often clerics, theologians, or devout lay scholars. A specialized professional researcher, usually secular; trained within technical disciplines. Ultimate Goal Sapientia (wisdom): to understand and admire God’s order; to glorify the Creator. Utility: to predict, control, and innovate; to advance knowledge or technology. View of Nature God’s handiwork — rational, orderly, and sustained by divine providence. Self-contained system — governed by impersonal laws; divine action methodologically excluded. View of Law “Laws of Nature” = God’s ordinary manner of acting (divine customs). “Laws of Nature” = autonomous, mathematical regularities; no lawgiver required. View of Scripture Authoritative revelation about creation and history; natural study must harmonize with it. Treated as religious literature; outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Epistemology Faith and reason cooperate; Scripture gives certainty, experiment gives illustration. Empiricism alone yields knowledge; revelation excluded from public methodology. Language of Work “Natural philosophy,” “mathematical philosophy,” “experimental philosophy.” “Science,” “research,” “STEM disciplines.” Ethos / Virtue Intellectual humility before God; pursuit of truth as worship. Technical competence; pursuit of funding, innovation, or social impact. Representative Figures Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Hooke — all spoke of God’s glory in creation. Darwin, Lyell, Dawkins, Hawking — nature treated as self-explanatory.
✅ Summary Insight
Natural Philosopher: sought wisdom within the unity of divine truth.
Modern Scientist: seeks knowledge within the autonomy of natural law.
Or in a single line:
For Newton, science was a form of worship. For the modern world, it is a form of power.
Newton the Creationist was replaced by the myth of Newton the deist. Theology was once "the Queen of the Sciences," and “philosophy as theology’s handmaid” to “science as theology’s replacement.” Chat GPT:
- Here is the full sketch of the shift from “handmaid” to “replacement,” that is, from philosophy serving theology to science supplanting theology as the self-proclaimed “queen of the sciences.”
ߑ? I. Medieval Order: Theology as Queen, Philosophy as Handmaid
(c. 1100–1350)
1. Foundational vision
Theologia regina scientiarum — theology, grounded in divine revelation, ruled all the sciences.
Philosophia ancilla theologiae — philosophy was the “handmaid,” a rational tool serving revelation.
This hierarchy had two axioms:
All truth is God’s truth.
Reason and experience could never contradict revelation, since both came from the same Author.Final causes matter.
Every field of study pointed toward God as the ultimate cause and purpose of creation.2. Structure of the medieval university
The Arts faculty (logic, grammar, astronomy, mathematics, natural philosophy) prepared the mind.
The Theology faculty was the capstone — integrating every science into the knowledge of God.
“Science” (scientia) meant ordered, certain knowledge—including theology.
Aquinas wrote:
“Sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences because it proceeds from divine revelation.” (Summa Theologiae I, q.1, a.5)
So in Aquinas’s world, astronomy studied God’s handiwork, but theology told you why the heavens declared His glory.
⚙️ II. Renaissance & Early Modern Reordering: Handmaid’s Autonomy
(c. 1350–1650)
1. Theological exhaustion and nominalism
William of Ockham (c.1287–1347) weakened the integration by denying real universals: only individual facts exist.
Nature and grace began to drift apart; theology spoke of faith, philosophy of facts.
The “two books” model—Scripture and Nature—started to sound like two separate authorities.
2. Humanism and the birth of independent inquiry
Renaissance humanists (e.g. Petrarch, Erasmus) emphasized textual study and empirical observation over scholastic disputation.
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) systematized this: theology reveals salvation, but science reveals dominion over nature.
“The empire of man over things depends wholly on the arts and sciences.” (Novum Organum, 1620)
Here, the handmaid asked for her own household.
3. The Reformation’s unintended consequence
By rejecting papal authority, Protestants exalted the individual conscience before Scripture — but this also habituated the intellect to test all authorities, even Scripture itself.
“Sola Scriptura” eroded into “Sola Ratio” (reason alone) for many Enlightenment heirs.
Thus by Newton’s time, natural philosophy still served God, but no longer took orders directly from theology.
⚖️ III. Enlightenment Ascendancy: The Handmaid Becomes Queen
(c. 1650–1800)
1. The new motto: Sapere aude — “Dare to know”
Descartes, Locke, and Kant grounded knowledge in human reason, not revelation.
The “two books” became two domains: faith and fact — with “fact” crowned as arbiter of truth.
2. Newton’s generation: the last bridge
Newton, Boyle, and Ray still wrote science as pious natural theology.
But their successors (Clarke, Voltaire, Laplace) kept the mechanics and dropped the metaphysics.
“Law of Nature” changed from divine ordinance to self-operating mechanism.
3. Theology loses her chair
Universities across Europe secularized their curricula; theology moved from queen to one department among many.
“Metaphysics” was replaced by “physics.”
“Natural philosophy” rebranded itself as “science,” claiming self-sufficiency.
ߌ? IV. Nineteenth Century: Science Enthroned, Theology Marginalized
(c. 1800–1900)
1. The cult of progress
Comte’s positivism (1830s): humanity’s “theological stage” → “metaphysical stage” → “scientific stage.”
Lyell and Darwin supplied the cosmology and biology of a self-made world.
Huxley and Tyndall proclaimed “science delivers the only real knowledge.”
2. The new inversion
Medieval Modern Theology judges science Science judges theology Nature reveals God’s constancy Nature is closed to God’s agency Faith perfects reason Faith is private, irrational 3. The new queen’s coronation
By the late 1800s, journals and universities spoke of “the triumph of science.”
Where Aquinas saw science as a sacrament of God’s wisdom, Huxley saw it as a replacement for revelation.
ߔ? V. Consequence: Knowledge Fragmented, Meaning Evaporated
When theology ceased to integrate all disciplines:
The unity of truth collapsed into specialization.
The moral ends of knowledge disappeared; only utility remained.
“The Book of Nature” was read as self-authored — a cosmos without its King.
✅ In summary:
Medieval world: Theology rules; philosophy serves.
Renaissance: Philosophy seeks freedom.
Enlightenment: Reason dethrones revelation.
Modern era: Science reigns alone.
Or, as one historian of ideas put it:
“What had been the handmaid of theology became the mistress of all knowledge.”
"Natural philosophers" would also speak in terms of "sapientia" (wisdom) in addition to "scientia" (knowledge).
The two words carried subtly different but complementary meanings in Newton’s intellectual world. Let’s unpack how “natural philosophers” used both:
1. The older hierarchy: sapientia vs. scientia
In medieval and early modern Latin, the terms had distinct philosophical weight:
Term Meaning Source & Connotation Sapientia (wisdom) Knowledge of ultimate causes, purposes, and moral order; understanding things in relation to God. From classical and biblical usage (e.g., Proverbs 9:10, “Initium sapientiae timor Domini” — “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”). Rooted in theology. Scientia (knowledge, systematized understanding) Precise, demonstrable understanding of secondary causes; analytical mastery of a domain. From Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics: a body of reasoned, demonstrable truths. Rooted in logic and method. So for Newton’s contemporaries, scientia was a subset of sapientia — instrumental, not ultimate. True wisdom (sapientia) required that scientia serve theology.
2. How natural philosophers used both
Yes — they freely used scientia, but always within a theistic and moral frame:
Robert Boyle (Newton’s senior): wrote The Christian Virtuoso (1690) explaining that the true natural philosopher “studies the works of God” and that “Natural Philosophy is scientia subservient to piety.”
Johannes Kepler spoke of “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” — scientia of celestial mechanics leading to sapientia of divine order.
Isaac Newton himself titled his masterpiece Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica — “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.” Principia = principles of scientia, but philosophia naturalis = the pursuit of sapientia in creation.
For Newton, then, scientia (mathematical description) was the means; sapientia (worshipful understanding of God’s dominion) was the end.
3. The Enlightenment inversion
By the 18th century, the order inverted:
Bacon had already hinted that “knowledge is power.”
Enlightenment thinkers recast scientia as the highest human achievement, and sapientia (wisdom rooted in revelation) as obsolete.
So by the time the word scientist was coined (1833), it carried the modern sense of technical expertise divorced from theological wisdom — the very reversal of the older hierarchy.
✅ In short:
Newton and his peers absolutely spoke of scientia — but always as a servant of sapientia.
Scientia without sapientia would have seemed to them barren, even dangerous: knowledge without reverence.
Would you like me to quote a few period sentences (Boyle, Kepler, Newton) that explicitly pair the two — showing that scientia was meant to lead the mind upward to sapientia?
yes please
Excellent — here are several authentic period quotations from major figures in the 16th–17th-century “natural philosophy” tradition that explicitly link scientia (knowledge) with sapientia (wisdom). These show clearly that for Newton’s generation, scientia was never meant to stand alone, but to culminate in reverent sapientia.
1. Robert Boyle (1627–1691) — The Christian Virtuoso (1690)
“The study of the book of Nature is a fit employment for a Christian, for it leads him to admire and adore the Author of Nature. The right use of Natural Philosophy is to gain the knowledge [scientia] of the works of God, and thereby to be led to the wisdom [sapientia] of God Himself.” (Boyle, The Christian Virtuoso, Part I, §6)
✅ Boyle frames scientia as instrumental — its proper end is pious sapientia.
2. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) — Harmonices Mundi (1619)
“I was merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of Nature, it befits us to consider not the glory of our minds, but rather the glory of God.”
✅ Kepler uses the language of scientia (mathematical astronomy) as a priestly vocation leading to sapientia (worship).
3. Isaac Newton (1642–1727) — General Scholium to the Principia (1713)
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. … We know Him only by His most wise and excellent contrivances of things.”
Here Newton’s empirical scientia (the mathematical description of motion) reveals divine sapientia — God’s “most wise contrivances.” He doesn’t separate them; he moves seamlessly from mathematics to theology.
4. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) — Advancement of Learning (1605)
“To conclude, the scope or end of knowledge [scientia] is not for the pleasure of the mind, nor for contention, nor for superiority, but for the benefit and use of life; which, if it be not referred to the glory of God and the relief of man’s estate, it is but a wandring vanity.”
✅ Bacon’s reform of learning still assumes the same order: knowledge must culminate in divine and moral wisdom.
5. Henry More (1614–1687) — Cambridge Platonist, Divine Dialogues (1668)
“Philosophy is then true and sound when it endeth in Theology; for the perfection of knowledge [scientia] is to be united with wisdom [sapientia].”
✅ A succinct expression of the older hierarchy: science is the servant; wisdom, the queen.
✦ Summary
Concept Meaning in 17th century Modern distortion Scientia Systematic understanding of God’s works — the means. Technical mastery of impersonal processes — the end. Sapientia Grateful comprehension of God’s purposes — the end. Marginalized as “subjective” or “religious.”
✅ In one sentence: For Newton and his peers, scientia was the handmaid of sapientia — and to pursue the former without the latter was, in Bacon’s words, “a wandering vanity.”
This medieval-Christian pairing of scientia + sapientia was broken apart during the Enlightenment (roughly 1680–1780), setting the stage for Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin?
The term "scientist" was invented in 1834.
The word "scientist" was first used by the British philosopher and historian of science William Whewell, who coined the term in 1833 or 1834.
Whewell proposed the term in an anonymous review of the book On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences by the Scottish polymath Mary Somerville. Before this time, individuals who studied nature and the physical world were generally known as "natural philosophers" or "men of science".
Key details about the term's origin:
who was the first person to call himself a "scientist" or use the word "scientist" to describe someone else? - Google Search
- Purpose: Whewell created the word to provide a single, unifying term for people who cultivated science in general, across various fragmented fields like chemistry, physics, and astronomy.
- Inspiration: The term was formed by analogy with the word "artist".
- Context for Somerville: As the existing term "man of science" was clearly unsuitable for Mary Somerville, her interdisciplinary work helped necessitate the new, more inclusive term. Some sources, therefore, refer to Mary Somerville as the "world's first scientist" in a very real sense, as the person the word was invented for.
- Initial Reception: The word was initially used somewhat playfully or satirically and did not gain wide acceptance in Britain until after the Second World War. It was, however, embraced more quickly in the United States.