It seems that Isaac Newtons whose views are the foundation of modern science was devoted to the Kabbalah and devised his ideas about nature and existence from the ideas he learned from the Kabbalah. There is an article about this here:

If this is the case then why isnt this taught? There seems to be a hidden history and we are taught only what some other group or people want us to know.

8 Responses to “Is science based on Kabbalah?”

  • Fitz:

    The Kabbalah is an esoteric method, discipline and school of thought. Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an unchanging, eternal and mysterious Ein Sof (no end) and the mortal and finite universe (his creation).

    Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

    One may have preceded the other, and some may have dabbled in both, but they are distinctly different.

  • Eclipse-girl:

    Sir Francis Bacon , one of the eminent scientists of his day, and a developer or refiner of the scientific method predates Newton

  • I Am Messing With Your Mind:

    Science is not based on newton’s findings and newton’s finding is neither on that funny word and by the way duh…

  • .:

    fortune teller’s window says: kabalah.
    so, kabalah = witchcraft.

  • Sensei:

    I have found what little I’ve read, quite intriguing, some plausible.

  • The Desolate One:

    Lots of interesting things can be found by someone who peeps outside the box.

  • Paul:


    First, Newton’s “views” are not the “foundation of science.” The scientific method is.
    Second, Newton also believed in alchemy, astrology, and a number of other proven-false “magical” concepts.
    While he wasn’t a “typical” christian (he was an Arian, denying that jesus was “god”), he also wasn’t a Jew, and didn’t base anything on “kabbalah.” And his religious views are irrelevant to the science and math work he did.

    Post-hoc attempts to “claim” Newton as your own are as ridiculous as post-hoc attempts to claim that because he was “christian,” his science work was based on christianity. Neither is correct.

  • Lukas Xavier:

    “It seems that Isaac Newtons whose views are the foundation of modern science…”

    Faulty premise. Newton was, in many ways, a complete wackaloon. Much of what he wrote was complete trash. His various religious ideas form no part of scientific thinking and are generally viewed as a bit of an embarrassment.

    None of this is “hidden”. It’s not talked about in science classes because it isn’t relevant for science. The fact that he was personally motivated by religious ideas has no impact on the actually evidence, which is what matters in science.

Leave a Reply


Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Get Adobe Flash player