This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“The Book of Abraham teaches a Newtonian view of the universe. Its Newtonian astronomy concepts, mechanics, and models of the universe have been discredited by 20th century Einsteinian physics… the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view is challenged by Einstein’s twentieth-century science.” (CES Letter)
The question is puzzling because I don’t see anything at all in the Book of Abraham about Newton’s laws of physics. Where does Abraham mention acceleration due to gravity or reactions being equal and opposite? I don’t see Newtonian physics anywhere. CES Letter says Mormon scripture based itself on “nineteenth-century” science just like the “Catholic Church” based itself on science of flat-earth “Ptolemaic cosmology,” but this simply isn’t true. Science has always been separate from religion in the LDS church.
CES Letter quotes anti-Mormon Keith Norman:
“The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy.”
| What CES Letter says about Einstein is untrue. Einstein introduced an upper limit to velocity–the speed of light–and said mechanical properties were relative depending on an object’s perspective. But Einstein did not disprove Newton’s laws. He also did not develop quantum mechanics. In fact, he opposed quantum mechanics. A sophistic argument beloved by teenage anti-Mormon who pretend to be physics professors, this claim that the Book of Mormon contradicts modern science is hilariously wrong to anyone who paid attention in high school physics. It is so wrong. |
CES Letter‘s vague reference to “how the universe began” and the “nature of matter” come from an article by Keith Norman, who he pretends is an “LDS scholar.” Looking at the article, the only real discrepancy I see him attempt to point out, is the Big Bang theory. He incorrectly argues that the Big Bang theory is creation ex nihilo. “It is remarkable how much this sounds like the orthodox doctrine of creation ex nihilo.” He says the Big Bang doesn’t allow for the ” organization of our world.”
Wait, didn’t CES Letter say we were the ones holding onto old, outdated beliefs? So actually they are the ones clinging to “orthodox doctrines?” They are trying to tell us matter was created, or appeared, out of nothing, a belief that stood proudly in the Catholic books next to the flat-earth theory. A theory that modern science has dispelled.
Big Bang Backs Up Abraham – The Book of Abraham speaks of the Creation in terms of raw matter being organized into worlds and galaxies. “The Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” This does not refer to the creation of the universe as a whole, but of the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. Oh, but “what about the infinite regression of gods alluded to by Joseph Smith,” Keith argues?
Whether matter existed before the Big Bang, or if the Big Bang really happened, scientists do not know. Most say matter did exist before the Big Bang, though there must have been some starting point. Stephen Hawking says we can’t know what existed before the Big Bang because there is no way to observe it:
“Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them.”
Time and space did not exist, which agrees with 2 Nephi: “And the days of the children of men were prolonged… their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened,” But something existed prior to the creation. Scientists talk about a “Big Bounce” and branching multiverses, because the fact that our universe immediately became ordered and did not fall prey to entropy is evidence that it was not just a random explosion. It was directed. On Gizmodo, scientists puzzle about why “our universe immediately arranged into lots of sand castles seemingly for no reason and with no help… The Big Bang could have (and maybe should have) resulted in a high-entropy mass of uniformly distributed, disorganized stuff. Instead, we’ve got star systems, galaxies, and galactic clusters all linked together with dark voids between them. We have order.”
To say everything suddenly appeared out of nothing is not what the Big Bang theory is. Energy is eternal, like Abraham said. Professor West Morriston of University of Colorado wrote a lengthy paper on exactly this subject, in which he concluded, “the Big Bang theory provides no support for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Even if it is granted that the universe had a ‘first cause,’ there is no reason to think that this cause created the universe out of nothing.”
Quantum Theory Backs Up Abraham – As for quantum mechanics, Keith hilariously claims it backs up creation ex nihilo as well:
“Augustine also established…[the belief regarding matter] having only contingent being, since it was created out of nothing. Similarly, quantum physics describes the ‘rational, orderly, commonsense world of experience [as]a sham. Behind it lies a murky and paradoxical world of shadowy existence and shifting perspectives.'”
He obviously doesn’t understand what Paul Davies is saying in that quote. Quantum mechanics is all about unpredictability and probability. Most physics students discern right away that unpredictability allows for free will. We are able to decide our actions and our not beholden to fate because of quantum spiritual properties that allow for any variable to exist–though there is still probability. I’m not sure what this has to do with Augustine’s theory of contigent being. Keith appears to be just blowing hot air.
Geocentric Not Newtonian – But much of this discussion is moot because the Book of Abraham is not Newtonian. Keith claims “the Book of Abraham reflects concepts of Joseph Smith’s time and place,” but this simply isn’t true. Actually, it is geocentric, the belief that the earth stands at the center of the universe and everything rotates around it. That certainly wasn’t the prevalent belief in Joseph Smith’s time. But that is how civilizations understood the universe in Abraham’s time.
Abraham may have been an astronomer (a claim by Joseph Smith that doesn’t appear in the bible but does appear in many other ancient source, unbeknownst to Joseph), but he did not have access to a Hubble Telescope. He did not have an atom splitter. So why would he know about things like the Big Bang and the expanding universe? The cosmology in the Book of Abraham, including Kolob and eternal matter, is given to teach a spiritual message, not to be a science lesson. Furthermore, much of what Abraham gives, such as Facsimile 2, is what the Egyptians believed and what we can glean from them, not what is necessarily true.
“Fig. 5 is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key,”
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehoods | CES Letter‘s source, Keith Norman, incorrectly calls the Big Bang “creation ex nihilo.” No real scientist would agree. Something existed prior. CES Letter falsely claims the Book of Abraham follows a scientific model that was invented after Ptolomy. Actually, Abraham describes the universe geocentrically, and I’m not away of any 19th century doctrine that follows Abraham’s teachings. The entire premise of CES Letter‘s argument is false. The Book of Abraham is not Newtonian, nor is it contemporary 19th century. |
| Repetition | CES Letter repeats the premise of this argument several times within the argument. |
| Appeal To Novelty | CES Letter and Keith Norman argue science is always evolving and Joseph Smith’s Abraham character is stuck in an old discredited model which is “out of vogue.” At the same time, CES Letter complains that the Catholic Church, and now the LDS Church, is not updating to modern science doctrines. So what do you want? Should the church make science part of its doctrine or not? Actually, “cosmology” is hard to prove because it can’t be tested. Has anyone seen the Big Bang through a telescope? This is why the modern church and ancient prophets did not pretend to be science professors. |
| Strawman Argument | CES Letter characterizes cosmology in the Book of Abraham totally wrong. Keith Norman mischaracterizes the Big Bang theory and quantum theory. |
| Appeal To Novelty | Their logic goes like this: We know the Book of Abraham reflects Joseph Smith’s modern thinking because it is Newtonian. We know it is Newtonian because Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham after Ptolomy. |
| Appeal To Ignorance | The truth is, scientists don’t know how to reconcile the Big Bang with Newton. Gravity doesn’t end up behaving in astronomy like it does in everyday life, so they come up with something called dark matter to explain it. How do we reconcile expanding, less entropy, more organization in the universe over time? These modern theories do not invalidate Newton, they just don’t know. A good scientist will tell you they “don’t know” what existed prior to the Big Bang. |
| Non-Sequiter | CES Letter speaks in broad terms with no specific arguments, because they know how goofy their position is. No part of the argument supports the conclusion. The universe came from nothing because there is uncertainty in quantum particles? Makes no sense. Or maybe logic is “out of vogue” too? |
But the entire question is moot, because there is no logical reason why Abraham’s cosmology should follow Newton, Ptolomy, Einstein, or anyone else. There is no reason why he should magically know about the Big Bang or the expanding universe. CES Letter is basically saying, ‘Modern science exists. Modern Abraham does not exist. Therefore, it is not an ancient theory.’ Makes no sense.
The reason CES Letter threw in this goofy argument is because just the frame of the argument helps immensely push their “science is superior” frame.
Fake Science – CES Letter constrains the physical evidence into a false dilemna–either Abraham teaches contemporary science or Abraham is wrong. This false argument appeals to science as the higher source for truth yet is itself highly unscientific. CES Letter thus puts the burden of proof on Mormons in bad faith.
They make a sweeping generalization with zero evidence. This is science? Actual science should be investigated and celebrated by Mormons and non-Mormons alike, but this is just generalizing. The Book of Abraham was never intended to be a science textbook or an authority about the mechanics of galaxy-generation. Abraham was writing a volume about theology.
The hilarious thing is that CES Letter has to position themselves as defending a debunked theory from the Dark Ages, creation ex nibilo, that was spread by superstitious monks who whipped themselves on the back and locked anyone in chains who disagreed. So much for progress!
CES Letter uses the Marxist contradiction strategy by narrowing a physical issue down to this binary context: either Abraham conforms to modern science or it is made up. No other choices. They then appeal to “science” and deconstruct the outdated Mormon belief.
Anti-Mormons typically present evidence for their binary context as self-evident and irrefutable, with no need for further explanation, and then they rapidly move on to other attacks that bolster the constrained definition. The purpose is not really to discuss Book of Abraham ideas, which would actually be an interesting discussion, but to shift the narrative from faith to binary science, and quickly move on to more effective attacks to strengthen this narrative.
Marxists love this argument because they love social evolution, and their version of science is part of that. They prefer a wold where is science is updating to the new and greatest truth of the current year. Old science is “relics,” it is “out of vogue,” you see, and to Marxists this includes religion. This is why Keith says in his article, “Mormons should recognize the need to update their theology.”
To Marxists, truth is never static, but is a frame that teaches whatever it needs to in order to propagate the ideology in current circumstances. Apparently, right now it needs to be the Dark Age myth of creation ex nihilo!