Martin Gardner's Review of The Urantia Book

[Rob]

What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

-- In a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle--these constitute falseness. (The Urantia Book, p. 555.1)

When we rely upon a so-called opinions of experts based upon their claim that they "carefully" evaluated a subject, such as the Urantia Book, and that they examined it "in depth," we run the risk of committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" if we neglect to do our own due dilligence and confirm that they got their facts straight, and that the facts actually are valid enough to support their conclusions.

The question is, did Gardner "carefully [and] in depth" evaluate the Urantia Book, did he get his "facts" correct, the very facts he uses to reach his conclusions? In other words, did he build upon "reliable authentic data or is the author going off on some wild tangent? "

I believe the evidence will reveal, with regards to numerous individual claims of fact, that Gardner actually never even did his homework, that he got many of his facts wrong, even ignored some which he was well aware of, and contradicted his own previous statements on certain facts that he then turned around and played in the exact opposite way just so he could justify his own a prioria conclusions. In otherwords, don't confuse me with the facts, I already know the truth and have reached (prejudged) my conclusions.

And I will present both the facts and evidence that backs up these assertions conclusively.

The Urantia Book, according to Mr Martin Gardner, who investigated the issue in depth ...

I must admit that when I read these words a smile came across my face. This is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, and anyone who likes debating cannot help but feel a little smile when one's opponent opens mouth and inserts foot. And that is just what Dilittante has done claiming that Gardner "investigated the issue [The Urantia Book] in depth." That is patently false, and I am going to prove it beyond a doubt, and have fun doing so.

Now don't get me wrong, I have a respect for Gardner, and was truly saddened to see him get his hackles up when he ran into some readers who were frankly ignoramuses, and in their enthusiasm, which some can't distinguish from fanaticism, made complete fools of themselves. I tend to believe him when he says the following, because I have seen some pretty foolish behavior from readers too:

The foregoing chapter is a much revised version of the column as it first appeared. I had many mistakes in that column. Irate believers in the Urantia Book were quick to point them out in angry letters. It was the passion in these letters that aroused my further interest in the Urantia movement and started me on a research project that has led to my preparing a book about the cult. (On The Wild Side, The Great Urantia Book Mystery, p. 71)

Irate ad hominem practicing readers of the Urantia Book? Well, we have all seen them, have we not? But then, there are some pretty fanatical fundamentalists who read the Bible, but most people are wise enough to not throw the baby out with the bath water and to make the mistake of evaluating the Bible based upon the fanatical ravings of lunatics. Sadly, Gardner did just that. He transferred his anger and desire to get even to his efforts to evaluate the Urantia Book, and in so doing lost his intellectual objectivity and ability to evaluate the facts honestly, without extreme bias (we all have bias), even to the point that he sacrificed integrity and truthfulness, and I am going to present overwhelming evidence that this is the case.

The following examples are taken form an unpublished book I have written, called The Flight of Reason: Debunking Pseudo Skepticism, a parody on Gardner's book The Flight of Peter Fromm, in which, oddly enough, Gardner rejects his fundamentalist beliefs he grew up with and eventually finds a form of theism that lead him to say, "For a theist, evolution is God’s way of creating. It conflicts with no religion, only with primitive Christianity that takes every sentence of Genesis as literally true. (Gardner 1983: 373)"

In his book The Flight of Peter Fromm (FPF), a fictionalized auto-biographical novel, Gardner describes how he entered the halls of higher learning a Christian of the fundamentalist mindset, doubting the theory of evolution, and while studying geology came to realize the error of Creationist arguments such as the “flood theory of fossils,” and went through an ensuing “painful transition” in which he lost his belief in Christianity. Gardner muses that perhaps it was this painful conceptual revolution that aroused his interest in debunking pseudo-science.

Despite the loss of his childhood beliefs, Gardner managed to retain a form of religious belief called “fideism,” a theological position that asserts the primacy of faith over reason, which he describes as a form of “theological positivism.” In his book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (WPS) Gardner presents his arguments for belief in theism and the concept of a personal God and immortality—personality survival after death. Gardner notes that Carnap’s philosophy had a major influence on his approach to theology, and persuaded him that “metaphysical questions are ‘meaningless’ in the sense that they cannot be answered empirically or by reason. They can be defended only on emotive grounds.” To quote Gardner (my emphasis):

Fideism refers to believing something on the basis of faith, or emotional reasons rather than intellectual reasons. As a fideist I don't think there are any arguments that prove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. More than that I think the better arguments are on the side of the atheists. So it is a case of quixotic emotional belief that really is against evidence. If you have strong emotional reasons for metaphysical belief and it's not sharply contradicted by science or logical reasoning, you have a right to make a leap of faith if it provides sufficient satisfaction. (Michael Shermer, 1997. Why People Believe Weird Things, Pseudoscience, Superstition, and other Confusions of our Time, p. 276. Transcript of Interview by M. Shermer, August 11.)

To research material for writing The Flight of Reason I read practically everything Gardner ever wrote, including articles while he was a student. Now that took work, believe me, as I had to contact his university and inquire from rather arcane research librarians who pulled stuff out of rather dusty archives. After all, Gardner has been around a long time. You see, I did not just want to debunk Gardner, I wanted to understand him, to really understand him, and why he would make such a sad and tragic mistake near the end of his life after such a great career. And I don't say it was a sad and tragic mistake because he critiqued the Urantia Book, for if he critically yet honestly examined it, even if the critique was negative, I would see it as worthy of consideration. But he did not do this, as he betrayed his own values and standards, and the values and standards of the very movement and organization he helped to form, the modern Skeptical movement

Largely due to Gardner’s 1952 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science he has become known as the founding father of the modern Skeptical movement. Michael Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com), says the following about Gardner:

In 1950 Martin Gardner published an article in the Antioch Review entitled "The Hermit Scientist," about what we would today call pseudoscientists. It was Gardner's first publication of a skeptical nature …. In 1952 he expanded it into a book called In the Name of Science, with the descriptive subtitle "An entertaining survey of the high priests and cultists of science, past and present." … It has come down to us as Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, which is still in print and is arguably the skeptic classic of the past half a century.

[Gardner bemoans] that some beliefs never seem to go out of vogue, as he recalled an H. L. Mencken quip from the 1920s: "Heave an egg out of a Pullman window, and you will hit a Fundamentalist almost anywhere in the U.S. today." Gardner cautions that when religious superstition should be on the wane, it is easy "to forget that thousands of high school teachers of biology, in many of our southern states, are still afraid to teach the theory of evolution for fear of losing their jobs." Today creationism has spread northward and mutated into the oxymoronic form of "creation science." (Michael Shermer, Scientific American. Vol. 286, No. 3. (March 2002). p. 36-7.)

In an interview in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine (A Mind at Play, March/April 1998.) Martin Gardner says "I think of myself as a journalist who writes mainly about math and science, and a few other fields of interest." Gardner’s "main interests are philosophy and religion, with special emphasis on the philosophy of science." He majored in philosophy at the University of Chicago and graduated with the class of 1936.

He is described as having a mind that is "highly philosophical, at home with the most abstract concepts…." He has received numerous awards and praise from both scholars and scientists alike. To quote Frazier’s interview in the Skeptical Inquirer:

Douglas Hofstadter has said, "Martin Gardner is one of the greatest intellects produced in this country in this century." Stephen Jay Gould has said you have been "the single brightest beacon defending rationality and good science against the mysticism and anti-intellectualism that surround us."

Gardner states that "Philosophy gives one an excuse to dabble in everything. Although my interests are broad, they seldom get beyond elementary levels. I give the impression of knowing far more than I do because I work hard on research..." He likes to think that he is "… unduly harsh and dogmatic only when writing about pseudo-science … and when he is expressing the views of all the experts in the relevant field…." But notes when "… there are areas on the fringes of orthodoxy, supported by respected scientists, I try to be more agnostic." Anyone who has devoted a substantial amount of time studying the history of science, would I think, question just how reasonable it is to presume to express "the views of all the experts in the relevant field." Gardner sometimes likes to speak in absolutes, unlike most of the scientists he presumes to be speaking for, who seldom themselves speak in absolute dogmatic terms.

And so, in the next few posts we are going to examine just how "in depth" and "carefully" Gardner "perused" the Urantia Book, because the intergrity of his review hinges on whether or not he was an honest skeptic, or just an angry old man playing the part of the carping critic, a trifling skeptic who did not even take the time to read not only the book, but even some paragraphs (as will soon become painfully obvious), he claims to have "carefully" examined.

Nothing could persuade me to read every line of this monstrous mishmash of claptrap interspersed with puddles of pious platitudes, but I have perused it carefully enough to get the drift of its wild science-fiction themes..... Indeed it may be the largest, most fantastic chunk of channeled moonshine ever to be bound in one volume." (Notes of a Fringe-Watcher by Martin Gardner: The Great Urantia Mystery, in Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1990, p. 124)

Gardner has made his career as a journalist and author. His writings have championed the truth of clear reason informed by sound science, and exposed the false and misguided logical fallacies so often used by those who espouse such pseudo-scientific beliefs as PKI and Creationism. As a professional writer and journalist, having been trained in philosophy, Gardner should be well acquainted with those all essential journalistic standards of accuracy, integrity, and fairness.

Accuracy demands that the information conforms to reality and is not misleading or false. It demands not only careful and thorough research, but a disciplined use of language. Integrity demands that the information is truthful; not distorted to justify a conclusion. Fairness demands the information reports or reflects equitably the relevant facts and significant points of view; it deals fairly and ethically with persons, institutions, issues, and events.

-- David Hall, DePauw University Examines the Question Readers Fairly Ask: Can Journalists Get Things Right, And Fairly Right? Intellectual Honesty Poses the Test. Reporting Standards: Reflections by DePauw University. Directions in Journalism. Vol. 1, No. 1, April 2, 2002. And Journalistic Standards and Practices. CBC Canada, 2001.

Honest critical examination of the Urantia Book and its teachings should be welcomed by its readers; it is also fair to expect such a critique to be factually accurate, fair, and honest to context when quoting, summarizing, and paraphrasing to assure the original meaning is not distorted in any way by adding or subtracting from it.

The spirit of the following passage, which is attributed to Jesus, would be good advice for readers of the Urantia Book and Skeptics alike:

True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one's belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor's attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals." (Urantia Book 1641)

[Rob]

Please abide by the following rules:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
2. Nothing "R" rated is allowed (this includes profanity and anything of sexual nature).
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
6. Do not debate in the discussion subforums. They are only for general discussion to get to know one other better.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
8. Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagarism.
9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).
10. Spamming (duplicate posts, advertisements, etc) is not allowed.
11. Hacking into other peoples' accounts or the forum will result in instant account banning and IP banning.
12. Do not post personal information about other people (license plate numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, phone numbers, etc). Information deemed personal by the moderators will immediately be edited.
13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

It was bro dave statement. I believe there is uncertainty. Dave said there was absolute uncertainty. I meant truth in uncertainty.

Cathar is cross-posting between debate threads, which is a violation of rule #4 above: Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread. This is an abuse of the debate forums.

Funny how you have misunderstood Gardners arguments.

Cathar here, and this has been done repeatedly in this thread, violates rule #5: Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Cathar refuses to conform or abide by the rules of these debate forums. He makes claims, but neither bothers to cite Gardner (he has the book, and claims to be reading it) nor provides evidence to support his baseless claims. Apparently, Cathar is confusing a debate with a discussion, and wants me to rally his evidence and make his argument for him.

[Cathar1950]

I seem to have got the two threads mixed up.
My mistake. I will get back later on your two arguments concerning Gardner. I was wondering why I couldn't find a statement I was looking for in the thread. It is all so clear now.
I got the two threads backwards and some how meshed. I will see if I can fix them.
I guess I will have to keep Gardner's book a few more days so I can quote the places you seem to misrepresent with such passion such as May 29, 7 B.C and the 750 Ma date. I almost took it back today.

[Rob]

I've been asked by Rob to keep this thread on topic. Which I think is a reasonable request. So, to reiterate the thread question:

The question is, did Gardner "carefully [and] in depth" evaluate the Urantia Book, did he get his "facts" correct, the very facts he uses to reach his conclusions? In other words, did he build upon "reliable authentic data or is the author going off on some wild tangent?"

The title of this thread is: "Martin Gardner's Review of The Urantia Book: Did Gardner really "carefully" and "in depth" Examine it?" It is not, I note, "Martin Gardner's Review of" what Bain et. al. or anyone else said ABOUT the Urantia Book.

To the extent that Gardner makes statements that misrepresent facts (i.e., the history of continental drift), misquote statements (i.e., from either the UB or others), and purposely ignores relevant information to the topic of this thread, it will be noted.

It is also relevant to this thread when Gardner critiques some individual's statements or beliefs, and then equates them with what the Urantia Book teaches when in fact it is not true. In other words, one of the tactics Gardner uses, is to find groups or individuals who have associated themselves with the Urantia Book, who hold beliefs or practices that are not supported in the Urantia Book, such as the use of drugs, but because Gardner is either too ignorant and careless or knowingly seeks to impugn the book he conflates the two and thereby distorts and misrepresents what the book actually teaches. And I will provide evidence of this from Gardner's own words.

Gardner, in reviewing Bain et. al. (or any other individual) was reviewing two different sources: 1) What does the book itself state, and 2) What did Bain et al. (or others) say about the book. The topic of this thread is about Gardner's review of the Urantia Book, and whether or not he got his facts right with regards to what the book actually states. Gardner conflates and confuses these two throughout his book, but that is not so surprising considering by his own admission he did not read the book and therefore would be unable to distinguish between the two; and the fact that he does so indicates his inability to suspend his judgment long enough to be able to distinguish between what someone says about the book and what the book itself states.

Gardner routinely critiques individuals and their beliefs about the book or their statements about the book, conflating such statements about it as representative of its actual content, which may or may not be true. And this will be determined one fact, one example, one point, at a time, so as not to conflate or confuse the two, as Gardner and others frequently do.

Cathar, you appear to be doing the same when you are unable to differentiate between what someone (i.e., Bain et al. or others) says about the book and what the book itself states. Gardner's book is full of these types of arguments, and you appear to be just parroting them.

You seem to miss the subtle but nonetheless important distinction that Gardner can be correct in critiquing Bain et al., but completely off when then extrapolating the same criticism onto the Urantia Book. One needs to evaluate the two independently so as not to confuse and conflate them. The only way to do this is to examine both Bain's and the Urantia Book's original statements in context (something you show absolutely no ability or willingness to do) to determine if they are fairly represented and if the critique is factually correct.

If you are so un-inclined to do your own homework with due diligence to determine the actual facts by examining the original sources, and insist on simply parroting Gardner’s erroneous and unwarranted extrapolations based upon a critique of statements made by Bain or some other misinformed reader onto the Urantia Book, why should I bother to untangle such a confused conflation of fact and fiction so I can acknowledge some point with which I might just agree and concede to you Cathar?

So, I expect you to support your arguments with not only quotes from Gardner, but relevant quotes from the Urantia Book (I can help with this), and to exercise enough discrimination so as to differentiate whether Gardner is actually critiquing the Urantia Book's statements or the statements of some one person's views which may or may not represent the actual position taken by the internal content of the book (you consistently confuse and conflate the two).

[Cathar1950]

Rob Wrote:

The question is, did Gardner "carefully [and] in depth" evaluate the Urantia Book, did he get his "facts" correct, the very facts he uses to reach his conclusions? In other words, did he build upon "reliable authentic data or is the author going off on some wild tangent? "

I am not sure why you even asked this question.
If Gardner said he didn't read the whole book, he didn't read the whole book. You’re questioning his carefulness and depth. Yet you use a book that he clearly states that it is about the “cultic” followers of the UB.
In his chapter on science and the UB he devotes a few pages to the pains followers will go defending the UB and science. He barely gave two pages to Wegener’s guess and correctly uses it, as an example of UBers getting all happy over something the UB gets correct. He also explains that the theory of continental drift was around before the UB. You took it out of proportion. He was describing the wrong science in the UB such as Mercury rotating the Moon not rotating and countless others.
Rob wrote:

The title of this thread is: "Martin Gardner's Review of The Urantia Book: Did Gardner really "carefully" and "in depth" Examine it?" It is not, I note, "Martin Gardner's Review of" what Bain et. al. or anyone else said ABOUT the Urantia Book.

I wonder why you spent pages on Bainet. al. if that is not what it is about?
It worse part is you repeated most of it.
As near as I can figure your "painfully obvious" critic of his "carefully [and] in depth" reading comes down to the differences between two statements made by Gardner.
Those two statements being:
1]strongly rejected by geologists at the time the UB papers were written.
2]continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory

or
1]strongly rejected
2]widely respected

I guess he did state 1]strongly rejected in two different sources.
What the real problem is with statement 2]?
Maybe it is possible it was a miscopied, misprinted or a misspelled word Respected
Or maybe a theory could be 1]strongly rejected and 2]widely respected as well as controversial.
Any way what does it have to do with:
Rob wrote:

The title of this thread is: "Martin Gardner's Review of The Urantia Book: Did Gardner really "carefully" and "in depth" Examine it?" It is not, I note, "Martin Gardner's Review of" what Bain et. al. or anyone else said ABOUT the Urantia Book.

Rob wrote:

It is clear Gardner was consistently careless in his research and repeatedly failed to confirm if the claims he was making were true.

Yes it is all so clear. Now.

Rob wrote:

When we rely upon a so-called opinions of experts based upon their claim that they "carefully" evaluated a subject, such as the Urantia Book, and that they examined it "in depth," we run the risk of committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" if we neglect to do our own due dilligence and confirm that they got their facts straight, and that the facts actually are valid enough to support their conclusions.

You have certainly showed us the

logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"

In fact it was painfully repetitive.
You quoted:
Jesus Purportedly wrote:
I don't know how many times which was clearly an appeal to authority of course it was from the UB.
You quoted Luther 3 times and I might add the same quote.
This little tidbit at least 4 times plus on every page in the thread:
UB wrote:

Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth…. The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle—these constitute falseness. (Urantia Book 555)

All I kept thinking was "The shadow of a hair's turning" or "styling your hair in the dark".
I don't know how many times you quoted yourself.
You quoted me at least 5 times with this:
Cathar1950 wrote:

I don't think bob read the book or he is being dishonest ...

Now in the quote I was clearly parroting your repetious charge that
Gardner is dishonest and didn't read the book. Something you have still failed to prove.

When I wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:

Funny how you have misunderstood Gardners arguments.

You replied with:

Cathar here, and this has been done repeatedly in this thread, violates rule #5: Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence. Cathar refuses to conform or abide by the rules of these debate forums. He makes claims, but neither bothers to cite Gardner (he has the book, and claims to be reading it) nor provides evidence to support his baseless claims. Apparently, Cathar is confusing a debate with a discussion, and wants me to rally his evidence and make his argument for him.

How is it you compare my statement
:

Funny how you have misunderstood Gardner’s arguments.

To words used by you, such as:

Baseless
unable to differentiate
parroting
completely off
erroneous and unwarranted extrapolations
confused conflation of fact and fiction
confusing
dogmatic presuppostions and fallacious reasoning.
Careless
Gardner's fallacious arguments

????

Cathar1950 wrote:

It was bro dave statement. I believe there is uncertainty. Dave said there was absolute uncertainty. I meant truth in uncertainty.

The above post was an accident. What were you thinking when you posted:

Cathar is cross-posting between debate threads, which is a violation of rule #4 above: Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread. This is an abuse of the debate forums.

?????
Back when I posted

Cathar1950 wrote:

I don't think bob read the book or he is being dishonest ...

many post before my mistake you wrote:

For the record, Cathar's litany of ad hominem diatribe:

Cathar1950 wrote:
I hate going places where no one wants you. I know when I am not wanted and I usually leave an hour after when I have eaten the food and all the damage is done. -- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 11/26/2005

Here Cathar uses innuendo to imply 1) that anyone who reads the UB is not welcome on DebatingChristianity.com, and 2) more importantly, they are not welcome because they somehow "damage" the tone of this site. That is interesting, when one looks at Cathar's consistent ad hominem below.

Cathar1950 wrote:
I think that is crap.... I am sure some UB nut .... -- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 11/30/2005

Cathar1950 wrote:
The UBers remind me of Amway distributers only weird. Not that Amway is not weird. -- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 11/28/2005

Here, he again uses ad hominem characterizations by comparing UBers (a gross ad hominem stereotype of an entire group) as "only weird."

Cathar1950 wrote:
Quote: But, is it a branch of Christianity? I would think if they say they are, yes. A weird branch maybe. -- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 12/1/2005


Now for the record all those quotes by me were from two other posts.
Clearly you were "cross-posting between debate threads".
In the following quotes I was talking about the UB site not DebatingChristianity.com. If you had read the thread you would have known that. Instead you not only cross treads but also take something out of context and falsify it. What if Gardner had done that?

Cathar1950 wrote:
I hate going places where no one wants you. I know when I am not wanted and I usually leave an hour after when I have eaten the food and all the damage is done. -- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 11/26/2005

Here Cathar uses innuendo to imply 1) that anyone who reads the UB is not welcome on DebatingChristianity.com, and 2) more importantly, they are not welcome because they somehow "damage" the tone of this site. That is interesting, when one looks at Cathar's consistent ad hominem below.

Like I said I was talking about the UB site in another thread about UBers and a double standard!!!

Rob wrote:

For example, Gardner makes the assertion that readers of the Urantia Book worship angels, though none are specified and he neglects to document any evidence for such a claim:
Gardner wrote:

From time to time cults arose in which angels were worshiped. Many churches were dedicated to individual angels, especially Michael. Angelotry is still prevalent, and not just among Urantians. (GCM 192)

It would not have taken a lot of research to determine whether or not the Urantia Book teaches “angelotry,” by which he means the worship or adoration of angles. I found the following statement in the Urantia Book regarding the worship of angels:
UB wrote:

You do well to love them, but you should not adore them; angels are not objects of worship. The great seraphim, Loyalatia, when your seer "fell down to worship before the feet of the angel," said: "See that you do it not; I am a fellow servant with you and with your races, who are all enjoined to worship God." (Urantia Book 419)

Gardner is writing about UB cult followers thus the name of his book.
Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery
Cult?
So how is what the UB teaches even relevant to his statements? He is talking about UBers not the book. The sad part is you agree with him.
Rob wrote:

For the record, in some cases where Gardner critiqued what other readers said or believed about the Urantia Book, I agree with him, and would level the same critique myself, and have done so. But that is not the topic of this thread, which is: Was Gardner's critique of the Urantia Book factually correct?

Or was this just an excuse to quote more UB?

And so, in the next few posts we are going to examine just how "in depth" and "carefully" Gardner "perused" the Urantia Book, because the intergrity of his review hinges on whether or not he was an honest skeptic, or just an angry old man playing the part of the carping critic, a trifling skeptic who did not even take the time to read not only the book, but even some paragraphs (as will soon become painfully obvious), he claims to have "carefully" examined.

Are you projecting?
I think you run into much of the same problem when you discuss the Jesus birthday date.
Would you like to discuss the racism in the UB?
I say that it as racist long before I read Gardner’s take on it. So I wouldn’t be parroting.

[Rob]

As I recall you were trying to label or compare the UB to Liberal Christianity.

Liberal Christianity has a long tradition and distinctive character.... The UB hardly fits into this category historically.

(....)

So I would repeat [parrot Gardner's] opinion that the UB would be more like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists. Now as for labeling, Are you saying there is something wrong with these groups that the UBers would be ashamed of?

1. The Genetic Fallacy. Gardner asserts that The Urantia Book is the product of channeling; therefore, he implies, its message is inferior, or, at least, the product of human authorship. The Urantia Book is not the product of channeling activity. In 1958, I arranged a meeting of a group of ministers who were making a critical study of The Urantia Book and Dr. William S. Sadler to discuss the origin of the Urantia Papers. When we arrived, he had prepared a paper for us listing every imaginable form of subconscious mind or psychic activity, including channeling. At the bottom of the outline he had a note saying, "The technique of reception of The Urantia Book in English in no way parallels or impinges upon any of the above phenomena of marginal consciousness." He went on to tell us that as far as he could determine, the appearance of the Urantia Papers was associated with some form of superconscious mind activity.

Even if the book were a product of channeling, or any other technique or source of authorship, the only way to ascertain its quality is by evaluating its content or teachings. The real issue of spiritual quality is not seriously considered by Gardner.

2. The Post Hoc Ergo Hoc Fallacy (After this, therefore, because of this). Gardner points to the contradictions in Sister Ellen White's pronouncements, documents her plagiarisms, and recites disputes among Seventh-day Adventists. Early in my correspondence with Gardner I observed that he had an emotional fixation on Seventh-day Adventism. I was therefore not surprised to read on his p. 181, "I have always been interested in the history of Seventh-day Adventism ever since, as a young boy, I considered myself an Adventist." After these extensive references to Seventh-day Adventism, Gardner implies that since Dr. Sadler as a young man was active in Seventh-day Adventism ministry, The Urantia Book is in many ways an outgrowth of the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism.

This is a vast distortion of fact and truth. The Urantia Book contains many theological and philosophical positions which are harmonious with insights in many of the world religions. Although it most closely parallels the insights of progressive mainline Christian theology, historical analysis may show that the Mormon movement, Seventh-day Adventism, and other contemporary religious movements were instrumental in preparing for the advent of the Fifth Epochal Revelation. The Urantia Book at the same time differs, particularly in its spiritual cosmology, from all traditional religious positions. Gardner again fails to discuss the spiritual truths presented by The Urantia Book with which he may disagree.

3. The Faulty Generalization Fallacy. Gardner cites the absurd dietary beliefs and practices of Dr. John Kellogg, Vern Grimsley's deceptive pronouncements, the strange visions of Joe Pope, and the controversial beliefs of the channeling movement, and implies that these reflect the content of Urantia Book teachings--for there are none!

4. The Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy. Gardner analyzes and uses the scientific errors in The Urantia Book to depreciate its value even though the authors clearly state that the science and cosmology of the book are not inspired and will soon need to be updated. He also notes that human sources were used, which he labels as plagiarism, and thereby implies that the spiritual quality of the book is equally erroneous and human.

As we mentioned earlier, the authors of The Urantia Book clearly state that they have used human sources and why they are using them. The use of these human sources is often handled in such a way as to arrive at a position differing from that of the human author. To accuse the superhuman authors of plagiarism is a bit far fetched, as they are not concealing the use of human sources and they deliberately avoided reference to specific human personalities--they do not want any St. Peter or St. Paul connected with the Fifth Epochal Revelation. This, in my judgment, is certainly a wise decision. There is very little in The Urantia Book which would support Urantia Book fundamentalism! Nonetheless, revelation always gives rise to fundamentalists.

5. Ad Hominem Fallacy. Since Gardner is apparently not interested in grappling with the spiritual content of Urantia Book teachings, he attacks the activities of people he assumes are associated with its origin or who are Urantia Book readers: Seventh-day Adventists, the atypical people in the Urantia movement, as well as Dr. Sadler. He quotes Harry Loose (so far as I know, no one in the Urantia movement has ever heard of him except Harold Sherman) as saying, "The truth is that Sadler is mentally unsound. A paranoid with a religeo-power complex--feverishly grasping for greater just-ification for greater jurisdiction of the mentalities of the many." (Gardner's p.149) "Sherman was convinced," Gardner writes, "that after Lena died Sadler became paranoid, his mind 'perverse and deranged.' Both he and his son Bill, Sherman wrote, 'will lie and frame anybody and [do] anything to accomplish their purposes.'" (p. 150). Gardner's personal opinion is a little more reserved, "Although I do not question Sadler's honesty and sincerity, I am convinced that he fell victim in his declining years to delusions of self-importance and grandeur of the sort that occasionally descend on the elderly." (p. 403)

Anyone who knew Dr. Sadler will recognize that these statements are ridiculous. Dr. Sadler was an exceptionally well balanced, rational individual. He did not express his opinion about an issue unless asked. He deliberately removed himself from leadership responsibilities in the Urantia Foundation and the Urantia Brotherhood and did not try to influence their decisions. He did everything he could to prevent his name from being associated with The Urantia Book. I was amazed at his ability to remove himself from leadership influence and allow younger people to assume responsibility without his interference. He was also a very competent leader and I assume he could be autocratic with anyone who wanted to alter the content of The Urantia Book. Christy (Emma Christiansen, a member of the contact commission that received the Urantia Papers) told me that Harold Sherman wanted to enter material on extrasensory perception in the book and was categorically refused.

-- Meredith Sprunger, The Purpose of Revelation:A Response to Martin Gardner's Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery.

http://www.urantiabook.org/archive/news ... page6.html

As typical of Cathar's thoughtless parroting of Gardner, he continues with more of the same. As the evidence below shows, Cathar clearly neither knows the specific views and teaching of liberal Christianity or the Urantia Book, but speaks from dogmatic a priori assumptions based upon prejudice, logical fallacies, and appeals to authority.

The following comes from Gary Dorrien's comprehensive history of American theological liberalism, from which I will draw and provide comparative analysis with the teaching of the Urantia Book to refute Cathar's thoughtless dogmatic parroting of Gardner, to show that the teachings contained in the Urantia Book are in harmony with progressive liberal theology. I note that liberal progressive Christian theology is not in many cases in harmony with "Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists" theological interpretations, as most informed individuals already know, so I will not bother to highlight their doctrines, as showing the Uranita Book's similar teachings with liberal progressive Christian theology is enough to refute Cathar's ignorance of what the Urantia Book actually teaches.

Dorrien writes:

Three issues were crucial: How was Christianity to deal with increasing scientific acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory, the recent developments in German biblical criticism, and the problems of a rapidly industrializing social order? These questions fundamentally shaped what came to be called American theological liberalism.... American liberal Christianity ... emphasized the convergence between Christianity and evolution, the constructive value of modern historical criticism, the spiritual union between God and humanity, and the kingdom-building social mission of the chruch.

-- Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805-1900.

Contrary to Cathar's claim that the Urantia Book is closer to the belief's of "Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists," none of which I believe accept that evolution is a fact, the Urantia Book unequivocally states that evolution (by natural means) is a fact.

The fact of evolution is not a modern discovery; the ancients understood the slow and evolutionary character of human progress. (837.4 )

The facts of evolution must not be arrayed against the truth of the reality of the certainty of the spiritual experience of the religious living of the God-knowing mortal. Intelligent men should cease to reason like children and should attempt to use the consistent logic of adulthood, logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact. Scientific materialism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher back into that which is admittedly lower. Consistency demands the recognition of the activities of a purposive Creator. (1125.4 )

Organic evolution is a fact; purposive or progressive evolution is a truth which makes consistent the otherwise contradictory phenomena of the ever-ascending achievements of evolution. The higher any scientist progresses in his chosen science, the more will he abandon the theories of materialistic fact in favor of the cosmic truth of the dominance of the Supreme Mind. Materialism cheapens human life; the gospel of Jesus tremendously enhances and supernally exalts every mortal. Mortal existence must be visualized as consisting in the intriguing and fascinating experience of the realization of the reality of the meeting of the human upreach and the divine and saving downreach. (1125.5)

On issue #1, liberal theological Christianity and the Urantia Book are similar, if not the same, and both are 180 degrees opposite of "Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists." But of course, Cathar would never know this, as he spouts only uninformed opinions, nothing more than thoughtless parroting of Gardner, rather than actually reading the Urantia Book and confirming what it actually teaches in relation to liberal theological Christianity.

THE TALK WITH NATHANIEL

And then went Jesus over to Abila, where Nathaniel and his associates labored. Nathaniel was much bothered by some of Jesus' pronouncements which seemed to detract from the authority of the recognized Hebrew scriptures. Accordingly, on this night, after the usual period of questions and answers, Nathaniel took Jesus away from the others and asked: "Master, could you trust me to know the truth about the Scriptures? I observe that you teach us only a portion of the sacred writings--the best as I view it--and I infer that you reject the teachings of the rabbis to the effect that the words of the law are the very words of God, having been with God in heaven even before the times of Abraham and Moses. What is the truth about the Scriptures?" When Jesus heard the question of his bewildered apostle, he answered: (1767.3 )


"Nathaniel, you have rightly judged; I do not regard the Scriptures as do the rabbis. I will talk with you about this matter on condition that you do not relate these things to your brethren, who are not all prepared to receive this teaching. The words of the law of Moses and the teachings of the Scriptures were not in existence before Abraham. Only in recent times have the Scriptures been gathered together as we now have them. While they contain the best of the higher thoughts and longings of the Jewish people, they also contain much that is far from being representative of the character and teachings of the Father in heaven; wherefore must I choose from among the better teachings those truths which are to be gleaned for the gospel of the kingdom.

"These writings are the work of men, some of them holy men, others not so holy. The teachings of these books represent the views and extent of enlightenment of the times in which they had their origin. As a revelation of truth, the last are more dependable than the first. The Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin, but mistake not, they do constitute the best collection of religious wisdom and spiritual truth to be found in all the world at this time.

"Many of these books were not written by the persons whose names they bear, but that in no way detracts from the value of the truths which they contain. If the story of Jonah should not be a fact, even if Jonah had never lived, still would the profound truth of this narrative, the love of God for Nineveh and the so-called heathen, be none the less precious in the eyes of all those who love their fellow men. The Scriptures are sacred because they present the thoughts and acts of men who were searching for God, and who in these writings left on record their highest concepts of righteousness, truth, and holiness. The Scriptures contain much that is true, very much, but in the light of your present teaching, you know that these writings also contain much that is misrepresentative of the Father in heaven, the loving God I have come to reveal to all the worlds.

"Nathaniel, never permit yourself for one moment to believe the Scripture records which tell you that the God of love directed your forefathers to go forth in battle to slay all their enemies--men, women, and children. Such records are the words of men, not very holy men, and they are not the word of God. The Scriptures always have, and always will, reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. Have you not noted that the concepts of Yahweh grow in beauty and glory as the prophets make their records from Samuel to Isaiah? And you should remember that the Scriptures are intended for religious instruction and spiritual guidance. They are not the works of either historians or philosophers.

"The thing most deplorable is not merely this erroneous idea of the absolute perfection of the Scripture record and the infallibility of its teachings, but rather the confusing misinterpretation of these sacred writings by the tradition-enslaved scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem. And now will they employ both the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures and their misinterpretations thereof in their determined effort to withstand these newer teachings of the gospel of the kingdom. Nathaniel, never forget, the Father does not limit the revelation of truth to any one generation or to any one people. Many earnest seekers after the truth have been, and will continue to be, confused and disheartened by these doctrines of the perfection of the Scriptures.

"The authority of truth is the very spirit that indwells its living manifestations, and not the dead words of the less illuminated and supposedly inspired men of another generation. And even if these holy men of old lived inspired and spirit-filled lives, that does not mean that their words were similarly spiritually inspired. Today we make no record of the teachings of this gospel of the kingdom lest, when I have gone, you speedily become divided up into sundry groups of truth contenders as a result of the diversity of your interpretation of my teachings. For this generation it is best that we live these truths while we shun the making of records.

"Mark you well my words, Nathaniel, nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible. Through the mind of man divine truth may indeed shine forth, but always of relative purity and partial divinity. The creature may crave infallibility, but only the Creators possess it.

"But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.

"But the saddest feature of all is the fact that some of the teachers of the sanctity of this traditionalism know this very truth. They more or less fully understand these limitations of Scripture, but they are moral cowards, intellectually dishonest. They know the truth regarding the sacred writings, but they prefer to withhold such disturbing facts from the people. And thus do they pervert and distort the Scriptures, making them the guide to slavish details of the daily life and an authority in things nonspiritual instead of appealing to the sacred writings as the repository of the moral wisdom, religious inspiration, and the spiritual teaching of the God-knowing men of other generations."

Nathaniel was enlightened, and shocked, by the Master's pronouncement. He long pondered this talk in the depths of his soul, but he told no man concerning this conference until after Jesus' ascension; and even then he feared to impart the full story of the Master's instruction.

Well, it matters not whether Jesus actually spoke these words, at least as far as refuting Cathar's parroting of Gardner is concerned, for the above make clear the teachings of the Urantia Book have no problem with issue #2, biblical criticism.

Christianity suffers under a great handicap because it has become identified in the minds of all the world as a part of the social system, the industrial life, and the moral standards of Western civilization; and thus has Christianity unwittingly seemed to sponsor a society which staggers under the guilt of tolerating science without idealism, politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without restraint, knowledge without character, power without conscience, and industry without morality. (2086.6 )

The hope of modern Christianity is that it should cease to sponsor the social systems and industrial policies of Western civilization while it humbly bows itself before the cross it so valiantly extols, there to learn anew from Jesus of Nazareth the greatest truths mortal man can ever hear--the living gospel of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. (2086.7 )

And obviously on issue #3 the Urantia Book is similar to the early gospel movement and the desire for social justice.

The Urantia Book's teachings are similar the teachings and principles below:

The essential idea of liberal theology is that all claims to truth, in theology as in other disciplines, must be made on the basis of reason and experience, not by appeal to external authority. Christian scripture ... does not settle or establish truth claims about maters of fact. (p. 1 )

The Progressive-era liberals believed that God was immanent in the evolutionary process of nature and modern cultural development. They accepted the Enlightenment dictum that no credible truth claim can be settled or based upon an appeal to external authority. Most of them embraced an idealistic theology of social salvation that was novel in Christian history. (p. 2 )

Fundamentally it is the idea of a modern Christianity not based on external authority. Specifically, liberal theology is defined by its openness to the verdicts of modern intellectual inquiry, especially historical criticism and the natural sciences; its commitment to the authority of individual reason and experience; its conception of Christianity as an ethical way of life; its favoring of moral concepts of atonement; and its commitment to make Christianity credible and socially relevant to contemporary people. (p. 3 )

[Its] Personalist philosophy and theology taught that personality (experience) is the key to reality and that life (experience) is the test of truth.... [V]irtually all liberal theologians accepted the empiricist dictum that critically interpreted experience is the test of truth. (p. 8 )

Christian teaching must be reconceptualized in the form of a modern philosophical and/or scientific worldview that satisfies modern tests of credible belief.... Liberal theologians have argued that reason and revelation are both important for theology and that they go together. (p. 15 )

Harnack taught that the basis of Christianity is the historically reconstructed person of Jesus and his message of divine fatherhood and human brotherhood. (p. 18 )

-- Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, & Modernity 1900-1950.

On issue #1 above, that all claims to truth evaluated on basis of reason and experience, not appeal to external authority, the Urantia Book has the following to say:

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. (1138. 5)

The experience of God-consciousness remains the same from generation to generation, but with each advancing epoch in human knowledge the philosophic concept and the theologic definitions of God must change. God-knowingness, religious consciousness, is a universe reality, but no matter how valid (real) religious experience is, it must be willing to subject itself to intelligent criticism and reasonable philosophic interpretation; it must not seek to be a thing apart in the totality of human experience. (69.7 )

Just as certainly as men share their religious beliefs, they create a religious group of some sort which eventually creates common goals. Someday religionists will get together and actually effect co-operation on the basis of unity of ideals and purposes rather than attempting to do so on the basis of psychological opinions and theological beliefs. Goals rather than creeds should unify religionists. Since true religion is a matter of personal spiritual experience, it is inevitable that each individual religionist must have his own and personal interpretation of the realization of that spiritual experience. Let the term "faith" stand for the individual's relation to God rather than for the creedal formulation of what some group of mortals have been able to agree upon as a common religious attitude. "Have you faith? Then have it to yourself." (1091.6 )

FAITH AND BELIEF

Belief has attained the level of faith when it motivates life and shapes the mode of living. The acceptance of a teaching as true is not faith; that is mere belief. Neither is certainty nor conviction faith. A state of mind attains to faith levels only when it actually dominates the mode of living. Faith is a living attribute of genuine personal religious experience. One believes truth, admires beauty, and reverences goodness, but does not worship them; such an attitude of saving faith is centered on God alone, who is all of these personified and infinitely more. (1114.5 )

Belief is always limiting and binding; faith is expanding and releasing. Belief fixates, faith liberates. But living religious faith is more than the association of noble beliefs; it is more than an exalted system of philosophy; it is a living experience concerned with spiritual meanings, divine ideals, and supreme values; it is God-knowing and man-serving. Beliefs may become group possessions, but faith must be personal. Theologic beliefs can be suggested to a group, but faith can rise up only in the heart of the individual religionist. (1114.6 )

Faith has falsified its trust when it presumes to deny realities and to confer upon its devotees assumed knowledge. Faith is a traitor when it fosters betrayal of intellectual integrity and belittles loyalty to supreme values and divine ideals. Faith never shuns the problem-solving duty of mortal living. Living faith does not foster bigotry, persecution, or intolerance. (1114.7 )

Faith does not shackle the creative imagination, neither does it maintain an unreasoning prejudice toward the discoveries of scientific investigation. Faith vitalizes religion and constrains the religionist heroically to live the golden rule. The zeal of faith is according to knowledge, and its strivings are the preludes to sublime peace. (1115.1 )

Clearly, in Jesus' purported discourse on true religion below he is saying that living religion is a matter of personal experience, and is an "openness to the verdicts of modern intellectual inquiry, especially historical criticism and the natural sciences; its commitment to the authority of individual reason and experience":

The acceptance of the traditional religions of authority presents the easy way out for man's urge to seek satisfaction for the longings of his spiritual nature. The settled, crystallized, and established religions of authority afford a ready refuge to which the distracted and distraught soul of man may flee when harassed by fear and tormented by uncertainty. Such a religion requires of its devotees, as the price to be paid for its satisfactions and assurances, only a passive and purely intellectual assent. (1729.4 )

And for a long time there will live on earth those timid, fearful, and hesitant individuals who will prefer thus to secure their religious consolations, even though, in so casting their lot with the religions of authority, they compromise the sovereignty of personality, debase the dignity of self-respect, and utterly surrender the right to participate in that most thrilling and inspiring of all possible human experiences: the personal quest for truth, the exhilaration of facing the perils of intellectual discovery, the determination to explore the realities of personal religious experience, the supreme satisfaction of experiencing the personal triumph of the actual realization of the victory of spiritual faith over intellectual doubt as it is honestly won in the supreme adventure of all human existence--man seeking God, for himself and as himself, and finding him. (1729.5 )

The religion of the spirit means effort, struggle, conflict, faith, determination, love, loyalty, and progress. The religion of the mind--the theology of authority--requires little or none of these exertions from its formal believers. Tradition is a safe refuge and an easy path for those fearful and halfhearted souls who instinctively shun the spirit struggles and mental uncertainties associated with those faith voyages of daring adventure out upon the high seas of unexplored truth in search for the farther shores of spiritual realities as they may be discovered by the progressive human mind and experienced by the evolving human soul. (1729.6 )

The Urantia Book teaches that true religion leads to the bearing of the fruits of the spirit, which bring forth ethical living, it refutes the atonement doctrine as being primitive religion, and insult to God, and emphasizes that we as the children of God are endowed with the divine gift of personality and free will choice, and that as we experience, realize, choose, and actualize divine values (living truth, living beauty, and living goodness), i.e., choose to do the will of God as revealied through faith-insight of the divine indwelling spirit, we are co-partners with God (experiential Deity) in actualizing new experiential realities of eternal value.

None of these positions are consistent with the teachings of the groups Cathar tries so desparately to associate the UB with in his blind parroting of Gardner.

The spiritually blind individual who logically follows scientific dictation, social usage, and religious dogma stands in grave danger of sacrificing his moral freedom and losing his spiritual liberty. Such a soul is destined to become an intellectual parrot, a social automaton, and a slave to religious authority. (1458.1 )

Truly, the blind parroting the blind.

[Cathar1950]

Rob your quoting from another thread again.

Cathar1950 wrote:
As I recall you were trying to label or compare the UB to Liberal Christianity.

Liberal Christianity has a long tradition and distinctive character.... The UB hardly fits into this category historically.

(....)

So I would repeat my opinion that the UB would be more like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists. Now as for labeling, Are you saying there is something wrong with these groups that the UBers would be ashamed of?

That post was from:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60
Post 70: Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:29 pm
Is the Urantia Book a branch of Christianity?
Is where I posted that.
Mine was a mistake you have done it now 4 times. 3 times before my mistake.
I am sure these things happen.

[Cathar1950]

You Parroting of the UB is hardly worth a comment.
I guess that would be an appeal to non-authority.
Quoting Jesus from the UB is not even interesting but it is rather cultic.
I am sure your into biblical criticism of the bible but hardly in a position to
apply those critical methods to the UB. I notice if some one does you find all kind of fault and level all kinds of charges against your critics.
Are you denning the influence of the Seventh Day Adventists or the similarities?
Ok, maybe the UB is a modern New Age Seventh Day Adventists splinter.
snappyanswer posted in the post, where you were suppose to be posting and where I made my comments, an excellent review of Gardners book.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=70

BOOK REVIEW

URANTIA: The Great Cult Mystery


by Martin Gardner


For several years, I’ve tried to read every new book that Martin Gardner has written. Gardner is a deist who believes that no Scriptures come from God, that fundamentalists are ideologues, and that creationism is an unscientific, witless swindle. Despite his stereotyped and sometimes condescending remarks, what engages me to continue reading is his insistence on testing religious and scientific truth claims.

A founding Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and a regular contributor to The Skeptical Inquirer, Gardner generally focuses his skeptical eye on occult phenomena: astrology, ESP, channeling (mediumship), "new energies," and other forms of quackery and pseudoscience (and yes, he often includes creationism among his targets). His Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, written over 40 years ago, has been of value in exposing movements such as Flat Earthers, pyramidologists, dowsing, Dianetics, radionics, homeopathy, and Reichian orgone energy.

Behind his jabs at the Christian faith (though it’s usually "young earth" creationism that raises his ire) stands a confirmed naturalist who asks how channeled revelations square with science. Unlike Christians, rationalists do not believe demons exist, so they cannot dismiss the difficulties posed by occult phenomena or The Urantia Book as manifestations of demonic power. In other words, humanists don’t have a "Satan of the gaps," as Christians do, to account supernaturally for problematic occult experiences. Their very rationalism forces them to seek natural explanations, often long after evangelicals have despaired of earthly answers and begun talking about demons.

While I certainly believe in supernatural agents, both demonic and divine, who influence people on earth, my point is that we theists sometimes give up too easily. In this case it took a hard-core skeptic to unwind methodically the tangled origins and material fallacies embodied in The Urantia Book (UB). His chronicle is a landmark exposé of the origins of the Urantian movement.

Gardner’s interest in the UB was aroused in part by the long-maintained secrecy regarding its true author. He also describes himself as "fascinated by the enormous amount of science in the UB" (p. 181). Most channeled writings are deadly dull and palpably untrue where they touch on scientific matters. The UB is an exception. Its discussions of cosmology and anthropology are more erudite, and its errors and internal contradictions more difficult to detect.

The UB claims to be authored by supermortal, celestial beings through an unnamed "human subject" who conveyed messages from them in his sleep. A prominent Chicago psychiatrist, Dr. William S. Sadler, privately transcribed the contactee’s messages, and in 1923 assembled a small group to study the messages while hiding the contactee’s name and identity. The supermortals described themselves as extraterrestrials from other planets and star systems. Their name for earth is Urantia; they claim to have been observing and guiding the evolution of our planet (Adam and Eve, we learn, were actually transported here from the planet Jerusem). They say Christendom has distorted the true nature and teachings of Jesus Christ, and the time is now ripe for mankind to receive this "epochal revelation."

Sadler’s study group submitted written questions to the contactee and eventually came to believe the Urantia Papers were a new revelation from God, on a par with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Inner circle members funded its printing, and the first edition finally appeared in 1955, weighing in at 2,097 pages.

Looking for the human sources behind the UB, Gardner zeroes in on two former Seventh-day Adventists: Dr. William S. Sadler and his brother-in-law, Wilfred Custer Kellogg, who lived with the Sadlers in Chicago. The unnamed contactee was Wilfred (a nephew of W. K. Kellogg, the cornflake king), an identification Gardner first made in 1991. In Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery, he sets forth the full range of evidence to support this conclusion.

Gardner begins with Dr. Sadler, who taught at Chicago’s McCormick Theological Seminary. (The UB reflects that school’s liberal views on the dating and origin of the biblical texts.) Sadler was previously employed by John Harvey Kellogg, an eccentric Adventist doctor who became skeptical of biblical miracles and the Atonement (93). Sadler’s own theories about eugenics and racial inferiority seem to surface in the UB, and Gardner believes "too much material in the UB comes straight out of early books written by Sadler" (283).

Seventh-day Adventism looms large in Gardner’s narrative, which notes that the UB contains Adventist doctrines (e.g., soul-sleep and Jesus being Michael the Archangel) and even the names of famous Adventist leaders. Later in the book, Gardner admits that he himself was an Adventist in his youth, for about one year (181). Thereafter, Adventist offshoots have continued to fascinate him.

Eventually, Gardner comes to the science of the UB. If the UB really were an extraterrestrial revelation, it should accurately describe our universe. It fails this test miserably. The UB claims the universe is over one trillion years old; most scientists date it at about 15 billion years (186). The temperature it assigns to the sun’s surface is off by thousands of degrees (190); it falsely says that Mercury keeps the same face towards the sun (196). The UB teaches that humans have 48 chromosomes; it should be 46 (217). Atoms supposedly cannot possess more than 100 electrons; this "limit" was broken in 1955, as any periodic table will confirm (214).

Once or twice Gardner slips up. The UB claims our solar system was formed with 12 planets, and Gardner notes the improbability of "three undiscovered planets beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto" (189). He apparently missed its statement that the fifth planet between Mars and Jupiter "fragmentized" and became the asteroid belt (UB, 658). This leaves two undiscovered planets, not three. He also refers to gamete reproduction as mitosis, instead of meiosis (217).

Like a good storyteller, Gardner saves the best for last. A lengthy chapter reveals scads of plagiarisms in the UB, originally discovered by Urantian believer Matthew Block. In 1992, Block wrote a paper on "bibliographic" sources used in the UB. The paper reveals shameless plagiarism of earlier works, sometimes word-for-word but more frequently thought-for-thought. Gardner develops these discoveries in parallel-column comparisons and points out that Seventh-day Adventist founder Ellen White had a bad problem with plagiarism (he devotes a full chapter to this), as did Sadler occasionally (290).

The final chapters disclose important recent developments. We learn that since the 1980s the Urantia Foundation has taken legal action against organizations that used the word "Urantia" in their name, even if a group was friendly to the UB itself. The biggest blow occurred in 1989 when the Urantia Foundation "denied the [Urantia] Brotherhood the right to sell the UB, or to use the name ‘Urantia’ or the three-circle logo" (396-97). The Urantia Brotherhood — founded in 1955 with the Foundation’s approval by 36 members of Sadler’s study group, and located at the address of the Foundation — then disbanded and reorganized under another name. The Foundation seems to have become very territorial.

The idea of copyrighting a "divine revelation" was directly challenged in 1990, when Kristen Maaherra distributed free Folio Infobase copies of the UB on computer diskette. (It is now available at several Internet sites.) The following year the Foundation sued her, claiming copyright infringement. Maaherra countersued, arguing that the copyright renewal for the UB was invalid, since copyright can only be granted to human authors. A federal district court agreed, striking down the copyright to the UB in February 1995. The case is now on appeal.

We are also told of a virtual explosion of alleged contact with UB deities over the past decade. Urantians claim they have increasingly been contacted with end-times messages from the celestials. Like other occult movements such as Theosophy, the Urantian revelation provided the seedbed for a new crop of contactees or "Transmitter-Receivers" (Urantian term) to appear later and diversify into new submovements.

In the absence of a good Christian response to the UB in English, this volume by Martin Gardner will have to stand as the thinking person’s premier exposé on the Urantia movement.

—Eric Pement

Eric Pement is a senior editor at Cornerstone magazine.

Thanks snappyanswer. Unlike your excessive posts this is not an appeal to authority but a good summery. {|=