People who are religious often say, "Newton, a great scientist, became religious in his later years!" " "A sentence with a high probability of occurrence is:" Newton was addicted to alchemy in his later years, and he was in danger in the end. "I don't want to dwell on whether these two things are true or not. I just want to discuss what these two things mean from the living environment at that time. When Newton lived, chemistry was still in its infancy, and the concept of elements had not yet appeared. People don't know that matter can only be subdivided into elements, and different elements can't be transformed into each other by conventional methods. In this case, it is a very reasonable idea for Newton to try to turn ordinary matter into gold by some means, even an idea that any smart person should have. If you don't think so, you are pedantic. Similarly, religion was the most powerful ideological system in Newton's era, and the concept of God was more deeply rooted in people's hearts than the present democracy and freedom. In fact, Newton devoted himself to the study of the orbit of stars, precisely to interpret God's thoughts, not to understand the mysteries of the universe. In other words, atheists in that era were probably rebels with anti-bones behind their heads, which had little to do with IQ or anything. This incident shows that when we look at a historical event, we must start with the environment at that time and make a judgment of right and wrong according to the logic of that era. There are many similar cases, which can be found by looking through our history textbooks for primary and secondary schools. Think about the famous historical figures in the history of China. Almost all of them are judged according to the standards of right and wrong in modern society. Have you ever wondered why Yue Fei, Wen Tianxiang, Qu Yuan and Zhuge Liang are all good people, while Zhao Gao, Wei Zhongxian and Li are all bad people? Have you considered the social situation at that time? If you still can't figure it out, look at those figures in modern history, whether they are Sun Yat-sen, Zhang Xueliang, Chiang Kai-shek or Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. What will people say about them in the future If historians classify them easily after 500 years, will you agree? The above viewpoint comes from a history book I read recently, the title of which is Columbus Exchange. The first edition of this book was published in 1972. The author Alfred crosby is a biology lover, and it is this hobby that makes him realize that he should study the changes of the earth's ecosystem after 1492 and find the logic of historical development from it. In his view, man is a biological entity first, and then a Roman Catholic, capitalist, or any other identity. Only by putting a person in an appropriate space-time context can we safely examine his social behavior. So he paid attention to the species exchange between continents after Columbus. It is this kind of communication that has brought about a fundamental change in lifestyle, broadened human horizons and directly led to many fundamental changes. One of the best examples of this way of thinking is the discussion about religious belief. In crosby's view, Europeans came out of the Middle Ages with two sets of knowledge systems, one is Christianity and the other is Aristotle. But as soon as the new world appeared, the two systems went their own way. The discovery of navigators easily destroyed the theories of classical scholars such as Hippocrates, Galen and Tom Miller about the world. As the source of most knowledge at that time, the Bible was completely the product of the old world, and it was very difficult to explain Asia and Africa, and it was completely unable to cope with the new world. Therefore, Columbus's greatest contribution lies in "forcing many learned people in Christianity to rethink the whole thing." "As a result of this kind of thinking, those really smart people finally saw the absurdity of the Bible, and Darwin was one of the best. I don't study history, and I don't know the real source of this way of thinking. After a brief textual research, I found that similar views were put forward as early as14th century. An Arab historian named Ibn Khaldun suggested that historical events should be discussed from the perspective of living environment and mode of production, which was many years earlier than European scholars. There is a reason for this. Ibn Khaldun's ancestors came from Arabia, then moved to Spain, and finally arrived in Tunisia, where he was born. It can be seen from this migration route that Arabs attach importance to business, travel frequently and are well informed. Arab scholars are strong, not because they are smarter than others, but because they are good at learning from other people's research results. Later, aldo leopold, the "father of modern environmentalism", published the Yearbook of Shaxiang in 1949, calling on historians to rewrite history from an ecological perspective. Crosby independently put forward the same idea, and The Columbus Exchange became a classic of that era. And jared diamond, whom I have recommended many times. His book Guns, Germs and Steel is undoubtedly a masterpiece of this kind of history books, which obliterates previous research. Finally, back to the topic of Newton. Did Newton believe in religion or not? It has nothing to do with it. The important thing is, do you still believe it? the motorcycle diaries