Does The Book Of Abraham Teach A Discredited View Of Newtonian Physics?

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.

CES Letter says the “Book of Abraham teaches a Newtonian view” which has been “discredited” by modern “Einsteinian physics.” This is very weird. I see nothing in the Book of Abraham that relates to Newton’s laws of physics. What are they talking about? Newtonian physics rests on three laws:

Inertia, Acceleration, Action/Reaction

Where does the Book of Abraham talk about any of this? CES Letter quotes the anti-Mormon Sunstone Magaznie:

“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.”
(Keith Norman)

The only thing I could see that could possibly relate to Abraham in all of this is “how the universe began.” Isaac Newton believed in a static and infinite universe. But I don’t know of where he ever addressed how the universe began. Again, what are they talking about? Well, if you read the rest of Keith Norma’s article, you find out that he is really talking about the Big Bang theory.

“The universe, therefore, was created ‘out of literally nothing.’ (Davies, Superforce, p. 8.) It is remarkable how much this sounds like the orthodox doctrine of creation ex nihilo.”
(Keith Norman))

Creation From ‘Nothing’ Is Fake Science

Anti-Mormons hold on to this old, outdated belief that the universe was created out of nothing. They believe matter was created, or appeared, out of nothing. This is pretty much the same Medieval superstition that religious quacks used in the Dark Ages to push their flat-earth theory, and this theory was long ago dispelled by scientific reason. No, the Big Bang theory does not suggest creation from nothing.

Big Bang Backs Up Abraham – The Book of Abraham speaks of 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. So actually, no, the creation of the universe does not even relate to the Book of Abraham.

Oh, but “what about the infinite regression of gods alluded to by Joseph Smith,” Keith argues? Wasn’t there a start to everything in the universe at some point? Whether matter existed before the Big Bang, or even 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.”(Stephen Hawking)

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.”

Anti-Mormons incorrectly argue that the Big Bang theory is creation ex nihilo. But 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.”

Newtonian Physics Is Not ‘Discredited’

“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)

As well as being wrong about the Big Bang theory, CES Letter is wrong about Newtonian physics being dicredited. Newtonian mechanics was used to go to the moon. Still today, “Newtonian mechanics and Galileo’s motionless Sun are completely adequate for the foreseeable needs of space travel.” One model of science works for large scale applications and another model works for small scale applications. Quantum mechanics by itself would be inappropriate because quantum mechanics is all about small atoms, not large galaxies. That’s why it’s called quantum mechanics. Scientists have developed different theories for different uses. No, Newtonian mechanics has not be discredited.

Furthermore, religion is the appropriate study appropriate of spiritual truth, not science. It is illogical and inappropriate to use Newtonian mechanics to attack spiritual faith or to use Quantum mechanics to prove or disprove faith. The goal of science is to efficiently serve a utility, not to find final “truth.” The Anti-Mormon effort to prove religion with science takes us back to the Dark Ages.

No ‘Science’ In Book of Abraham – Where in LDS scripture is there outdated science? Abraham’s references to astronomy do not conflict with quantum theory, because he is talking on a macroscopic level. Quantum is about a small scale. As for Einstein’s relativity theory, the only difference with Newton, when it comes down to it, is when you approach the speed of light. There is no noticeable difference at normal speeds, with what you can see with the naked eye. Where does Abraham talk about fast speeds? He doesn’t. Where does Abraham talk about mechanical physics at all?

So CES Letter is all over the place with their fake science. A sophistic argument beloved by snotty teenage atheists who pretend to be physics professors, this claim that the Book of Abraham contradicts modern science is hilariously wrong to anyone who paid attention in high school physics. It is so wrong.

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. So why are CES Letter and Keith talking about Einstein?

Quantum Theory Supports Abraham

“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.'”
(Keith Norman)

Keith Norman is incorrectly claiming quantum mechanics backs up creation from nothing, using an out-of-context quote by Paul Davies. He obviously doesn’t understand what Paul Davies is saying. Quantum mechanics is all about probability, while Newtonian mechanics is deterministic. Now, most physics students can tell right away that probability allows for free will. We are able to decide our actions and our not beholden to fate because of quantum spiritual properties . I’m not sure what this has to do with Augustine’s theory of “contingent being,” however. How does probably mean stuff was created out of nothing? Keith is 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, Abraham presents a geocentric model of the universe, “as understood by the Egyptians,” 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. It was just another perspective of viewing the universe.

Abraham was an astronomer (a claim that Joseph Smith makes and doesn’t appear in the bible, but is corroborated by many ancient sources which Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about), 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? Why would God tell him about micro-particles? The only reason for Geocentrism in the Book of Abraham was to give Abraham a perspective point to teach a spiritual message, not to teach anything about science.

Only What Egyptians Believed – 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,”

Scripture is consistent with science’s assumption that there are universal laws governing the universe. The nature of God is order and laws, and religion is the pursuit of consistent laws governing morality and existence, which do not change. Stop trying to prove or disprove religion with science. They are different things. Anti-Mormons end up 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.

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. Catholics tried to canonize science into theology, and that turned out bad. People were tortured for discovering new science. Churches should not adhere to any science because it is a different utility for truth and should not change.

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 aware 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.
Poisoning The Well	I wish I could explain at length how the Book of Abraham aligns with modern science, but this is a no-win discussion for Mormons because it would involve highly complex ideas that most people do not spend their time studying. People tend to dismiss new scientific explanations that they don’t understand as just another crazy internet theory, which I frankly can’t blame them for. This is why you see Hollywood keep complex scientific discussions on a second grade level. So, CES Letter can throw out some smart-sounding buzzwords that they heard on the History Channel and subvert any kind of rational discussion.
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?

his argument sounds like clown college to anyone who has studied physics. But it appeals to anti-Mormons who want to sound like smart scientists and bash religion smugly, like they see Bill Maher do on TV. The entire argument is goofy. The author of that Sunstone article, Keith Norman, doesn’t know what he is talking about. CES Letter also doesn’t know what they are talking about.

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.

Use Opponent As Authority Tactic – This is a popular Marxist tactic that anti-Mormons use. They use Mormonism’s own authorities to discredit the faith, such as an alleged Mormon scholar who is just another Anti-Mormons. What makes this argument powerful is:

Deceptively discredits the vast libraries of study on Book of Mormon theology by LDS professionals.
Gives more focus to a phony frame that attacks the Mormon church.
Divides the ranks of the church.
Establishes a frame that demands a clear, modern explanation in the Book of Mormon for every religious issue in existence, and that it be exactly corroborated by every other Mormon source.

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. So much for progress! Anti-Mormons are taking us back to the Dark Ages with this creation ex nibilo, a superstition that monks chanted as they whipped themselves on the back and locked away anyone in chains who disagreed.

CES Letter uses the 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.