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!