The Urantia Book

[McCulloch]

Yes, there is the eye witness account [to Jesus' resurrection] given in the Urantia Book.

Bro Dave has put forward the Book as eyewitness testimony to support the allegation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

[Colter]

What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic

Again, I fail to see how any of it has anything to do with the answer to the question for debate, which, if you have forgotten is, "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

I answered the question a ways back. I do not think that the UB proves anything about the resurrection nor am I overly impressed with the "criterion" used by historians, scientists or theologians to prove anything.

[McCulloch]

... the question for debate ... is , "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

I answered the question a ways back. I do not think that the UB proves anything about the resurrection nor am I overly impressed with the "criterion" used by historians, scientists or theologians to prove anything.

Great. We're done here. If you wish to debate other aspects of the Urantia Book, feel free to create a new topic for debate.

[Bro Dave]

If I've learned anything, talking about the UB with people who have not read it is fruitless.

Jesus' teaching flopped in the land of his people and in the age in which he lived but the powerful core of spiritual truth (compromised as it was) went on to turn the Western world upside down.

The UB is not in contention to win a popularity contest for Jesus told us "They hated me and their going to hate you to."

Hi Colter, glad to hear from you again! You are of course correct, but the folks here are not your run-of-the-mill knee jerk haters. And, although most will never make the effort to discover what the UB offers, they will at least begin to understand that those who love it, are not a bunch of run-of-the-mill knee jerk ignoramouses! And, for the 1 in a 100 seekers of Truth amoung them, they may read enough to discover its wisdom. That is why I am here; to expose them to the UB's clearer vision of religion, science, and cosmology. and hopefully, to make some new friends in the bargain!

Bro Dave

[Rob]

[Note: I believe the question of Gardner's review belongs in another thread. Not sure how to do that though.]

I neither acknowledge nor deny that Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book. I have not read or reviewed the Gardner article in question nor compared it with the actual text of the Urantia Book. Perhaps you should ask the one who posted the Gardner evidence.]

I find it interesting my friend, that you do not even take the time to consider the evidence or facts, to actually read the link for yourself, to determine if there are any evidentiary grounds contrary to the claim that Gardner reviewed the Urantia Book "carefully" and "in depth." I suspect, that neither have you read McMenamin citation, one of those respected scientists you have been asking someone to cite, and then repeatedly, even after I provided you with the facts and evidence you requested, claim no one has done. I note for the record of the debate that McCullock has not even acknowledge the evidence supporting the fact that the 750 Ma date cited in the Urantia Book raises an interesting question, which the honest scientist McMenamin noted, yet McCullock ignores. Remember, I don't claim any one fact proves anything, but the beginning of an honest examination can at least take the time to honestly observe the facts and note them, even if you still choose to dismiss them.

I am beginning to see a pattern here with you McCullock. Ask for evidence, and then when it is presented, ignore it. Your reasoning is inconsistent, in that you have said you like to see evidence which might give you reason to consider taking a closer look at the Urantia Book, yet when I present it you ignore it. And mind you, I am not presenting each and every case similar to the 750 Ma date because I want to see if you will even look at it, which to date you evidently have not.

When someone recommends to me that I read a particular book, not for entertainment but for factual information, I can usually assess the reliability of the book in a number of ways. One way is to check out the credentials of the author. Is he or she recognized by his or her peers as a reliable source of information on the subject? Another is to check the sources of information, is the author building on reliable authentic data or is the author going off on some wild tangent? One other way is to read reviews of the work by others whose opinion I trust. Sometimes I seek negative review and try to assess if the reviewer's negative opinions appear to be rational or ranting.

Supporters of the Urantia Book all seem somewhat reluctant to provide me with any reason to invest my time in reading it other than what boils down to, "well I liked it and trust it". Perhaps, if it is not too much trouble, you could provide just one or two examples of the "much proof and evidence of things both scientific and historic".

-- McCullock, Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Christianity, The Urantia Book, 11/17/2005

I note for the record of this debate that I personally have never told you McCullock, to read the Urantia Book just because I "liked it." I also note for the record, I have made every effort to honor your request for "any reason to invest [your] time in reading it" by providing you with the history of science information that places factual statements made in the book within historical context, which you then ignore. I think this tells us a lot.

I would like to note too, that I agree with your methodologies for evaluating new sources of information:

1) Check out the credentials of the author. Is he or she recognized by his or her peers as a reliable source of information on the subject?

This is one part of the puzzle in my view. In science, this is called peer review, but in and of itself it is not enough. To use only this criterion would be to possibly fall into the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority." Even the experts can at times be wrong, again, as the history of science so clearly shows. On any one factual question, if you do not carefully consider the evidence for yourself, you are likely to fail to discover those cases where the expert may actually be in error for any number of reasons.

2) Another is to check the sources of information, is the author building on reliable authentic data or is the author going off on some wild tangent?

Here McCullock, you are supporting the practice of confirming if the infomation is valid, or if the author is "going off on some wild tangent." I can only assume that by your statement above, that you believe it would be an untrue statement to claim "it matters little" with regards to the assessing "the reliability" of any source of information whether or not the author's facts are true or false, and therefore whether their conclusions are valid, or if they are presenting false and misleading facts, hiding information which argues against their case, and otherwise "going off on some wild tangent."

Yet, I am puzzled by your self-contradictory statement that,

I don't know if Gardner's review of the Urantia Book was either careful or in depth. Truly, it matters little. I did not raise Gartner's expose as evidence against the Urantia Book. I have more respect for Gartner's opinion that I do for the entirely anonymous and seemingly imaginary authors of the Urantia Book. I have read some of his essays, they tend to make sense. But, no, I will not reject the Urantia Book based only on his assessment.

And from what I have already read of the Urantia Book and from its supporters, I have to concur with Gardner's assessment. So please, no more, "You have to read the whole book before you can appreciate it".

If Gardner got his facts wrong and went "off on some wild tangent," which I am going to provide facts and evidence which shows he did, how is it that in this case it "matters little," yet above you set a standard that seems fair for all, but nevertheless choose to ignore it?

The fact that you "did not raise Gardner's expose as evidence" has little to do with the question of whether or not his facts are correct, for I note that even though you admit you "don't know," you nevertheless state "I have more respect for Gartner's opinion that I do for the entirely anonymous and seemingly imaginary authors of the Urantia Book."

Two points my friend, first to reach a conclusion based upon nothing more than an "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, and you most certainly do when you say "my own limited first hand subjective experience with the Urantia Book, so far, matches the quote from Gardner," and "I have to concur with Gardner's assessement" before you even have examined the so-called "facts" his case rests upon with the words, "So please, no more, 'You have to read the whole book before you can appreciate it.'" Second, and I do mean the second time, may I remind you that you are misrepresenting my postion and choosing to put others words in my mouth when you say I have argued "You have to read the whole book before you can appreciate it." Could you cite my words my friend? For I do not believe I have ever told you to read the book and then all your doubts will be solved, for I do not believe that myself. It seesm McCullock, you prefer to create a "Straw Man" argument, which is little more than a stereotype you want to group everyone who reads the Urantia Book into, and then argue against this rather than treat each individual, and their own words and arguments, as individuals one person at a time. In otherwords, so far as I can see, you have reached your conclusions based upon an appeal to authority rather than actual first hand examination of the evidence that I have presented to you, not to prove its claims I remind you, but to answer your request for facts which might lead you to consider a careful look, which you yourself requested.

3) One other way is to read reviews of the work by others whose opinion I trust. Sometimes I seek negative review and try to assess if the reviewer's negative opinions appear to be rational or ranting.

Again, this is fine, but if it is all one does, without examining the facts to see if they are correct (of course a good reveiw will present facts, which hopefully are correct), it is simply a case of relying on experts (which in some cases we must, and can then check multiple experts to see if they agree), which is not in all cases the end all of finding truth. Sometimes, even the experts don't agree, and base their conclusions upon different critical assumptions the truth or falsity of which makes all the difference with regards to which expert is correct. It is called science, and that is what is actually done in the peer review process, i.e., these "critical assumptions" are critically examined, not taken for granted.

So, I have a question for you McCullock. Have you even read McMenamin's paper, or even the quotations from him I posted? I am beginning to doubt it, and that tells me a lot.

You said,

Jesus seems to have changed his vocabulary since the time of his official biographers. However, the principles expressed in the quote are indeed noble.

With good humor, I must concede your point that "Jesus seems to have changed his vocabulary since the time of his official biographers," and note that you tag line is indeed noble too: "Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good."

Shall we both together strive to embody them in ourselves and this debate? Would that not be a worthy goal, irregardless of the questions at hand, and who is right or wrong?

[Bro Dave]

... the question for debate ... is , "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

I answered the question a ways back. I do not think that the UB proves anything about the resurrection nor am I overly impressed with the "criterion" used by historians, scientists or theologians to prove anything.

Great. We're done here. If you wish to debate other aspects of the Urantia Book, feel free to create a new topic for debate.

Wait just a darned minute! Implicit in your question about criterion, is that those used by historian, scientists and theologians pass a "truth test" of some kind! Really??? You have criteria based on some kind of root, unchallangeable truths??? I know of none. All of our "truths" are relative, and are indeed challangeable.

There are no provalbe absolute truths.

So, unless you can offer criteria that are themselves unchallangeable, rejecting the UB for not meeting your arbitrary ones seem intellectually dishonest.

Bro Dave

[McCulloch]

... the question for debate ... is , "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

So, unless you can offer criteria that are themselves unchallangeable, rejecting the UB for not meeting your arbitrary ones seem intellectually dishonest.

Bro Dave

Not so. Firstly, I have a hard time believing that the criteria used by historians and scientists are arbitrary. I will not offer an opinion regarding theologians. So I believe that the question for debate has been answered.

However, you make a very good point. What criteria should be used? How should they be weighed and evaluated? For those questions, I thought that the Philosophy would be a better venue, so I have created The Urantia Book as a source of Truth just to debate those questions.

[Arrow]

I had hoped we were done with calcium, but apparently not. Let me get this straight.

UB is quoted as saying that the sun has a layer of gaseous calcium 6000 miles thick at its surface.

Rob cites some authoritative scientific thought about the depth thickness of the layer.

Eddington wrote:
"The layer of calcium suspended on the sunlight is at least 5000 miles thick." (Stars and Atoms, Sir Arthur Eddington, 1927)
A little old for my taste, but right on point.

Here are some current conventional sources:

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/S ... cture.html

http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/sun.html,

These "respectable" sources estimate the thickness of the chromosphere layer to be from 1243 miles to 6214 miles. The UB figure of 6000 miles fits neatly in that range. Any difference between the figures is not orders of magnitude, as Mc suggests, but at the most, tens of percent, perhaps zero, at the least. So far, UB and conventional authorities seem to be in fairly close agreement. This seemed to me to settle the question. No calculations necessary. Regarding this point, UB is not in error. In fact, it is surprisingly accurate.

Mc is not satisfied. He writes:

However, the authors of the Urantia Book explicitly make the claim that "there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick. " By my rough calculation, a calcium layer six thousand miles thick on the surface of the sun would make the sun about 2 per cent calcium. Current estimates put calcium at about 0.00019% of the sun. Somebody is off by more than a few orders of magnitude.

I have addressed Mc's rough calculations. They are a little too rough to be of any use. More on that later.

For the sake of argument, let's assume, just for the moment, that Mc's reasoning and calculations are valid. We will also accept, for the moment, that he is correct in his assertion that the figure of 6000 miles is many orders of magnitude off target.
Here's the catch. If Mc's reasoning is valid, we must also apply it to the numbers provided by accepted scientists, say 6214 miles (source cited above). This number is nearly identical to the number 6000 stated in UB, and so would yield a nearly identical result. So the figure 6214 miles, supplied by modern solar physicists, is also many orders of magnitude off target. Ergo, if Mc's reasoning is correct, and does in fact debunk UB in this small matter, it at the same time debunks a fair portion of modern solar physics (which is no small matter).

If we accept that modern astronomers are pretty close to correct when they cite a range of 1243 miles to 6214 miles for the thickness of the calcium layer, then UB must also be pretty close to correct when it gives a figure of 6000 miles.

The assertion that UB in incorrect on this point is not supported. Again.

Mc: I'm sure there are many areas where UB is vulnerable. This doesn't seem to be one of them.

I will address Mc's calculations in a separate post.

Rob: Thanks for the data. Will send you a PM as soon as I'm "old" enough.

Peace,
Arrow

[ENIGMA]

There are no provalbe absolute truths.

A self-evidently unproven assertion.

[McCulloch]

UB is quoted as saying that the sun has a layer of gaseous calcium 6000 miles thick at its surface.
Rob cites some authoritative scientific thought about the depth thickness of the layer.

Eddington wrote:
"The layer of calcium suspended on the sunlight is at least 5000 miles thick." (Stars and Atoms, Sir Arthur Eddington, 1927)
A little old for my taste, but right on point.

A bit ancient, yes. But just about the right time for the authors of the UB to use as source material.

Here are some current conventional sources:

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/S ... cture.html

http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/sun.html,

These "respectable" sources estimate the thickness of the chromosphere layer to be from 1243 miles to 6214 miles. The UB figure of 6000 miles fits neatly in that range. Any difference between the figures is not orders of magnitude, as Mc suggests, but at the most, tens of percent, perhaps zero, at the least. So far, UB and conventional authorities seem to be in fairly close agreement. This seemed to me to settle the question. No calculations necessary. Regarding this point, UB is not in error. In fact, it is surprisingly accurate.

The problem is that neither of the "respectable sources describe the chromosphere as "a layer of gaseous calcium 6000 miles thick". Encarta describes the chromosphere as

The chromosphere is a thin layer about 2,000 to 3,000 km (about 1,200 to 1,900 mi) thick, just above the visible photosphere. The chromospheres temperature rises from 5510C (9950F) near the photosphere to about 9700C (17,500F) near the corona. At temperatures such as those in the chromosphere, hydrogen emits a distinctive deep red color. Scientists often study the chromosphere by filtering out all sunlight except the light that has the wavelength produced by hydrogen in the chromosphere. Calcium ions (calcium atoms with one electron missing) also produce distinctive radiation in the chromosphere. Calcium ions emit ultraviolet light, or radiation with a wavelength just shorter than visible light. The radiation released by calcium ions is also useful for examining details in the chromosphere.

Hydrogen and calcium emissions reveal huge regions of cool, dense gas suspended above the photosphere by powerful magnetic fields. The cool gas looks dark against the brightness of the Sun beneath it. At the edge of the disk of the Sun, where the chromosphere extends beyond the lower layers of the Sun, the gas of the chromosphere creates bright loops called prominences against the dark sky. Against the surface of the Sun, however, the prominences look dark. Prominences are often called filaments when they appear against the background of the hot Sun. Sunspots extend from the photosphere into the chromosphere, creating even darker spots on the chromosphere. Hot gas from the photosphere penetrates the chromosphere around the sunspots, creating bright regions called plages.

So you can see that the chromosphere, made up of Hydrogen and calcium cannot be properly described as "a layer of gaseous calcium 6000 miles thick". I think that when you examine my admittedly rough calculations, you will see that they do not go against the modern view of the structure of our star with its mixture of gasses in the chromosphere but they do seem to contradict the UB with its claim of a "a layer of gaseous calcium 6000 miles thick."

[Bro Dave]

... the question for debate ... is , "Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?"

So, unless you can offer criteria that are themselves unchallangeable, rejecting the UB for not meeting your arbitrary ones seem intellectually dishonest.

Bro Dave

Not so. Firstly, I have a hard time believing that the criteria used by historians and scientists are arbitrary.

They are "arbitrary" to the degree that they have no absolute footings. They are apparently true, and are indeed probably true. That still leaves significant uncertainty to say the are arbitrarily based on relative, human observations.

I will not offer an opinion regarding theologians. So I believe that the question for debate has been answered.

Sounds more like cutting and running! Of course this is all irresolvable in any final sense. But, I would like to come to the point were the views expressed by the UB, have the same standing as any other views. Now one has shown any reasons yet why it should not have that standing.

However, you make a very good point. What criteria should be used? How should they be weighed and evaluated? For those questions, I thought that the Philosophy would be a better venue, so I have created The Urantia Book as a source of Truth just to debate those questions.

See you there!

Bro Dave