Sunday, September 5, 2010

Newton and Einstein should not be invoked by Christians!


Even in the wake of the Stephen Hawking kerfuffle we still find dumb -as -a- sack- of -hammers religionists (often fundies) invoking past scientific voices to either support their preconceived notions of a “creator”, or some god more or less on terms of their own: a nasty, self-aggrieved, insecure head case who won’t tolerate any disbelief and moreover has a yen to exact future “wrath” of some type on humankind.

Two of the most often cited past scientists are Sir Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. Why these two are invoked is beyond me, because if one examines their deep-seated beliefs they certainly aren’t compatible or supportive of certain evangelicals' mode of wrathful, judgmental personal tyrant god OR their belief in Jesus as some indispensable “Savior”, or literal belief in "Hell".
Consider Sir Isaac Newton first. While his latter day admirers do observe his use of numerology in the Bible and attempting to make predictions, what they don’t say is that Newton attempted to numerically “decode” parts of the 30 different bibles he owned. This was not done in any religious framework, but rather in an occult manner, in conjunction with his sideline avocation of alchemist.

Most of Newton’s writings, indeed, were actually more in the line of alchemical and occult “mystery” entries (which place then more in line with witchcraft, and counting chicken entrails.) In other words, in any other setting Newton would be regarded as a warlock and certainly just as “demon possessed” as these same nitwits accuse Stephen Hawking of being now.

In the PBS documentary ‘Newton’s Dark Secrets’ – much of Newton’s occultism is made known, including his calculation that the world would end in 2060. This and other discoveries shed light that Newton was not the “rationalist” or conventional god believer so many make him out to be but rather an irrationalist – and as we know this lot gravitate more to superstitious beliefs.

The PBS documentary noted that Newton lived in violent times rife with political turmoil (e.g. the Cromwellian rebellion, beheading of the King, restoration of Charles II and the monarch) and this may have driven him into irrational occultism. At Cambridge, Newton roomed with John Wickens, who may have influenced his later occult obsessions, including Alchemy and the pursuit of the “philosopher’s stone”.

Newton had to conduct his alchemy in private because- if caught- alchemists were hung on gilded scaffolds, since they were regarded as little different from warlocks. So, how are we to square assorted believers’ claims that Newton was a genuine theological personage, when his spare time was spent in alchemy and the occult? History, in fact, refutes this trope in many ways and we encourage people to see the PBS documentary themselves.

The documentary also goes on to note Newton violently rejected becoming a Minister at Trinity College – which had been required of all Fellows. Instead, Newton veered into heresy denying the divinity of Christ, as well as the Trinity. The College relented and excused Newton from Ministerial obligations, though he did run the risk of being branded a heretic and even facing death because of his beliefs.

What we see here is, contrary to certain believer’s fantasies, Newton was NO Christian as they portray him on their blogs nor as historians understand him. Had not Newton been protected in an established academic environment he would almost surely have been hung, drawn and quartered.

Bottom line: Like Hawking, Newton is one of the last scientists that religious believers (particularly CHRISTIANS) should be using to try and bring grist to their religious mills. At the very least, if they DO mention his name, they ought to be compelled to adhere to “truth in advertising” standards and at least concede- though they reference Newton- they would as surely condemn him to Hellish damnation as they already do for Stephen Hawking and atheists. However, they mostly punk out and say we “cannot know” what his judgment is. Cute – but seems they do know what it is for Hawking and atheists!

Now, consider Einstein:

The question is raised whether he believed or accepted any God that is remotely recognizable as a Christian entity. The answer is clearly ‘no’. His clearest statement of what exactly he believes is given in his book, Ideas and Opinions:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called 'religious' then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it".

The above statement was actually originally made in a letter to a fellow scientist, Neils Bohr, after Bohr had read American press accounts of Einstein’s “beliefs” in assorted papers. Recall in my earlier blog I noted how the American press and specifically religious pests ensconced within it had pestered Einstein to disclose his beliefs. While trying to be coy and non-confrontational, they came away with the false impression Einstein believed in a personal God. But in his letter and then in his book, he quashes that once and for all.

The other key statement inheres at the end where he clearly says if there’s anything religious in him it is an admiration for the “structure of the universe” as our science reveals it. But this can in no way be conflated with a deity! (Unless one is a pantheist)

To all intents then, Einstein was indeed an implicit atheist – in the sense accepting neither a personal deity nor a “creative deity” or “creator”. While not explicitly stated, it can be inferred from Einstein’s other remarks, comments. Among the most important, from ‘Ideas and Opinions’:

“The man who is thoroughly convinced of universal causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events- provided of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causation really seriously”

Now, this has to be parsed carefully. What Einstein is saying, in effect, is that he accepts NO interference of external (“superior”) beings into the course of Earthly events. Now, if he doesn’t accept such on any ongoing basis – for example as manifest in “miracles” – why on Earth would he accept it in an initial act of creation? If he did, he’d be contradicting himself!

Two more mind boggling reasons why eager-beaver Xtianoids would do well to steer clear of Einstein: 1) He dismissed the notion of reward or punishment in any afterlife, and 2) he dismissed the concept of free will. Both of these positions are self-evident in a single quotation (which continues on directly from the previous one), again from Ideas and Opinions:

He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity – internal and external- so that he cannot be responsible….any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motion it undergoes.”

Note he says: “A God who rewards or punishes is inconceivable” and then “a man’s actions are determined by necessity”- comparing the latter to an “inanimate object” acted on by an outside force.

BOTH of these fly directly in the face of orthodox Christian believers’ most cherished notions: afterlife sanctions and free will! So why invoke Einstein?

The reason is because these people – mainly fundies – are desperate! They obviously recognize their bibles alone are inadequate so have to use the words of famous scientists to back up or lend credence to their supernatural BS. If on the other hand their good Book was sufficient to the task, they’d not have to quote scientists like Newton and Einstein whose full positions are as alien in the Christian context as Stephen Hawking’s!

The tactic is referred to as “Kettle logic”. Run around, frantically search and grab everything you can from any book that looks remotely like it supports your specious case and toss it in the “kettle”. In this case, the spurious “kettle” of scientists who allegedly support your beliefs. Never mind their actual behaviors and writings are the farthest thing from it.

Will Fundies and their flacks ever learn, even in the wake of the Hawking affair? Not as long as they are steeped in stupid myths, and mired in total mental blindness to what their “heroes” actually are about .... not to mention a penchant for Kettle logic!

3 comments:

Caleb Shay said...

These are excellent points but there is more that needs to be said especially concerning Einstein.

A quote often attributed to him is:

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

But the fundies and others who usually offer the quote refuse to give the whole thing, just as they pick and choose Dawkins' quotes as you earlier showed, to try to make him appear half-religious!

The FULL Einstein quote is:

"science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

In other words, Einstein doesn't identify religion as worship of any god or gods but as a fundamental recognition of "the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason"

THIS is what the religionists always leave out! With all included it makes perfect sense and has nothing to with belief in a god. Einstein's simply saying that if science precludes this "religious aspect" - i.e. acknowledging faith in the regulation of the world" - say by natural laws, then it is "lame".

Well of course it would be! Without a basis in natural laws or acceptance of them science degenerates to pseudo-science or magical thinking!

More to come!

Caleb Shay said...

Another comment (breaking 'em up because your comment section cuts off at 3,000 characters)

Another Einstein letter (to philosopher Eric Gutkind) you forgot to mention had to do with Einstein's concepts of God. It was in response to his receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein's personal beliefs regarding God & religion:

"The word 'god' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this",

I mean he is saying the word god is a product of human weakness! So imagine any stupid fundie like your bro using it to make a case Einstein was religious or any kind of believer!

Einstein even added in this letter:

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions"

Get that? CHILDISH superstitions! This is what he really wrote!

If I were any fundie or religious nut I'd definitely steer away from quoting Einstein!

But here's the kicker quote to me which blows all others away and with them any dreams the religious twerps have for making Einstein their pet:

"Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni-beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? "

In other words, if there is any evil or any negative actions, God must also share the blame! It can't be put all on humans! Therefore, no human can ever be condemned to any damnation!

Einstein even adds:

"In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?"

What you've been saying over and over! I guess those like yor brother really are too dumb to get it!

Copernicus said...

Thanks for those terrific additional quotations from Einstein, Caleb.

The last extensive quote truly seals the deal and it would be great to see the fundies eyes pop out of their heads when they read Einstein demands God share the blame for any evil!

But, as I noted in numerous blogs on theodicy this makes sense. If there is evil in the world, then obviously its putative "designer" must share the blame for the defects that gave rise to it!

I also like the quote referring to religion as "childish superstition".

Will all this make the fundies back off from quoting Einstein? Not likely since they know most people, especially their gullible followers, don't know what his actual sentiments -beliefs are.

So they'll exploit the ignorance card to the hilt.

Thanks anyway though!