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]

Darwin has often been depicted as a radical selectionist at heart who invoked other mechanisms only in retreat, and only as a result of his age's own lamented ignorance about the mechanisms of heredity. This view is false. Although Darwin regarded selection as the most important of evolutionary mechanisms (as do we), no argument from opponents angered him more than the common attempt to caricature and trivialize his theory by stating that it relied exclusively upon natural selection. In the last edition of the Origin, he wrote (1872, p. 395):

As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position-namely at the close of the introduction-the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main, but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misinterpretation.

— Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1872, p. 395)

— Gould, Stephen J., & Lewontin, Richard C. (1979) The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, SERIES B, VOL. 205, NO. 1161, PP. 581-598.

Darwin was far to an intelligent a man to be so arrogant as to believe he had discovered the one and only possible mechanism of evolution. Yet, for sometime now the claim that Darwin attributed natural selection as the sole mechanism of evolution has been often repeated, by both Neo-Darwinists as well as their foes.

Time makes fools of dogmatists though, and the newly developing science of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (evo-devo) is going to put this oft repeated myth to rest, once and for all.

There is another myth that has often been repeated by those within the circles of the Skeptical movement (which I admire and support, in case it should be construed that honest criticism implies antagonism), and that is the oft repeated myth that Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift was not supported by solid scientific evidence, and those who rejected it rejected it on sound scientific grounds.

The truth is not so black and white, and increasingly, scientists today are rewriting this myth, and recognizing that Alfred Wegener had very solid evidence and valid reasons and logic to question the existing theories, and challenge them with new ideas.

They are recognizing that the reasons for rejecting Alfred Wegener's ideas had more to do with established dogma, than open minded scientific reasoning; more to do with loyalty to theories that entire careers had been devoted to, than a search for truth; and more to do with arbitrarily chosen critical assumptions than well reasoned and logical choices based on a holistic evaluation of the facts, often a result of overspecialization between various scientific disciplines.

The following comes from Prematurity in Scientific Discovery (Ernest B. Hook, ed, University of California Press, 2002):

Alfred Wegener drew his case for continental drift from several elegant lines of empirical evidence. But unfortunately, Wegner's idea of great lateral movements of the continents flew in the face of geology's then-reigning canon--also based on suppositions--that the geological position of both the continents and ocean basins had always been fixed. [Ironically, they proposed at the same time that narrow land masses hand rose up that stretched accros the oceans and then sunk back down to explain similar fossils on different continents! No concern about consistency there, eh?]

Insurrectionist, paradigm-impugning ideas such as Wegener's continental drift theory have always catapulted their authors onto the hot griddle of orthodoxy....

There was virtually nothing known about the geology of the seafloor in Wegener's time. His most vocal and influential critics, the geophysicists, examined the drift question by inappropriately applying the first-order principles of physics equally to both the continents--whose geology was fairly well understood--and the seafloor, whose geology was a complete mystery.... Geophysicists concluded--from a highly fragmentary factual basis and immature theoretical surmise--that granitic continents could not move through the unyielding basaltic ocean crust.

(....) These various cases of theoretical conflict have much to teach us. Each seems to be a demonstration of too much faith put in canonical and orthodox knowlege that hid suppositions and uncertainties. It is as if the community of scholars, like the individual mind--as classically explicated by the Overstreets in The Mature Mind--is virtually incapable of holding a suspended judgment. Premature ideas are the acid test of the mature mind. (pp. 102-104

Examples of scientific ideas that were originally rejected because they fell outside the accepted paradigm include the sun-centered solar system, warm-bloodedness in dinosaurs, the germ theory of disease, and continental drift. When the idea of moving continents was first proposed early in this century by Alfred Wegener, it was vigorously rejected. Scientists could not accept an idea for which there was no explanatory mechanism and was so contrary to the traditional teachings of their discipline. Continental drift was finally accepted in the 1960s with the proposal of plate tectonics as a mechanism to explain how continental plates move (Hallam, 1975, and Menard, 1986).[1] This fundamental change in the Earth sciences, called a revolution by Kuhn, might have occurred earlier had it not been for the strength of the prior paradigm.

-- McComas, W.F. (1997) Myths of Science: Lessons of Misconception and Misunderstandings from a Science Educator. Skeptic, 5(2): 93, 88-95. Emphasis added.

[1] This is mistaken, convection currents, although today not considered the sole mechanism, are nevertheless still thought to be one of the primary mechanisms driving the movement of the plates. McComas has confused the cause (mechanism) with the results (plate tectonics, or movement of the plates). In fact, "Joly (1925), [and] Holmes (1928), and other geologists pointed out very early in the debate that the convection currents already presumed to exist in the mantle could move continents." (Rogers et al., Continents and Supercontinents, 2004: 6) Edelman notes "Arthur Holmes (1931) proposed convection currents in the mantle as the driving mechanism, which is very similar to the assumed mechanism of plate tectonics." (Edelman 1988: 399-400) Holmes even postulated the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was where convection currents were rising, which turned out to be correct. Wegener took note of the scientific work of Joly and Holmes, and accordingly modified his theory to account for this new information, which is just what good scientists do. Also, Menard (1986: 210) states, “The convection hypothesis remained as the only one not discredited.” And Hallam (1975: 74-75) notes,

“The question inevitably arises: what causes the plates to move? This is likely to be a speculative matter for considerable time because of our ignorance of the mantle, which is bound to remain inaccessible to direct observation. Considerable progress can be made, however, towards understanding the driving mechanism by reducing the range of possibilities and constructing plausible models to fit the existing data.

“In the early 1960s [see Joly and Holmes above] both Hess and Runcorn proposed models involving thermal convection within the mantle, with the migration of continents or ocean floor being coupled directly to the upper limbs of the underlying convection cells. This explanation fails to account for the phenomena of plate tectonics [fully]…. Thermal convection of some sort seems to be the only sufficient source of energy…. Convection is most likely in the relatively hot and weak asthenosphere.” (pp. 74-75)

Two quick points. Even a science educator can get his facts wrong; and even today, with the modern theory of plate tectonics, they still don’t completely understand the mechanism driving the plates, yet nevertheless, they don’t reject plate tectonics! So the claim that Wegener’s theory was rejected because there was no mechanism is complete balderdash!

By the beginning of the 20th century, geologists had been forced to accept the doctrine that the Earth is completely solid. Not only did they abandon the contraction theory as an effective explanation of mountain building and earthquakes; they were also reluctant to consider any horizontal movement of parts of the Earth’s crust, since a solid moving through a solid would encounter enormous resistance. Thus when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift in 1912, it was rejected on grounds of physical impossibility. (Brush 1996a: 143)

The rigidity of the Earth was so strongly emphasized by the solidists that it was difficult for several new ideas to get a fair hearing. The acceptance of a liquid core, suggested by seismological evidence as early as 1906, was delayed for two decades; my guess is that this was in part because of reluctance to contradict Kelvin’s doctrine of complete solidity. When the Oldham—Gutenberg discontinuity was eventually interpreted as a transition between solid and liquid regions, this conclusion was seen as a new discovery, not a reversion to 19th-century ideas.

The solidist victory was probably a major reason for the hostile response to Wegener’s theory of continental drift when it was first proposed. Here we have some fairly clear evidence of the influence of the 19th-century debate in a remark of R. D. Oldham at a discussion of Wegener’s theory in 1923:

I can remember that when I started as a geologist the idea was not unknown that a good deal of geological evidence was, at any rate, not inconsistent with the notion that the continents have not always occupied the positions on the surface of the globe which they do now. But I also can remember very well that in those days it was unsafe for anyone to advocate an idea of that sort.

The physicists, who before that had forced on us the notion of a fiery globe with a molten interior and thin crust on it, had gone round and insisted on a solid globe, and any notion of the shifting of continents was incompatible with that theory. Those ideas held the ground so strongly that it was more then any man who valued his reputation for scientific sanity ought to venture on to advocate anything like this theory that Wegener has nowadays been able to put forward. (Oldham 1923: 180)

--(Brush 1996a: 174)

When Alfred Wegener proposed his hypothesis of continental drift in 1912, he could make little headway against the prevalent belief in a rigid Earth (see Oldham’s recollections, quoted in Nebulous Earth, 2.2.10). Wegener himself, in a 1927 statement that he later repudiated, mirrored the contemporary feeling that physical evidence is superior to geological evidence:

I believe that the final resolution of the problem can only come from geophysics, since only that branch of science provides sufficiently precise methods. Were geophysics to come to the conclusion that the drift theory is wrong, the theory would have to be abandoned by the systematic earth science as well, in spite of all the corroboration, and another explanation for the facts would have to be sought. (Wegener 1929/1966: vii)

--(Brush 1996b: 54)


With Chamberlin’s view of geological processes involving rearrangement of the solid materials of the Earth’s interior, lubricated by temporary melting and driven by the heat of gravitational contraction, one might have expected a more favorable climate for hypotheses such as continental drift. But in fact Chamberlin did not establish a new worldview and did not support Wegener’s continental drift hypothesis in spite of his remarks in the 1896 lecture about differential motion of the crust. (Brush 1996c: 37)

As Frankel (1976) noted in connection with Wegener’s theory of continental drift, a theory that ranges over many diverse fields is unlikely to perform as well as a special theory in each individual field, and since most scientists are specialists rather than generalists they judge a theory primarily by how well it accounts for the evidence in their own field. He sees this as the main reason why Wegener’s theory was rejected for several decades even though it had greater overall explanatory power than the established theories in geology, geodetics, paleoclimatology, and biology. (Brush 1996c: 87)

— Brush, Stephen G. (1996a) Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar System and the Core of the Earth from Laplace to Jeffreys. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— Brush, Stephen G. (1996b) Transmuted Past: The Age of the Earth and the Evolution of the Elements from Lyell to Patterson. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— Brush, Stephen G. (1996c) Fruitful Encounters: The Origin of the Solar System and of the Moon from Chamberlin to Apollo. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[Dilettante]

Rob, maybe you're having fun proving that Martin Gardner did not closely inspect every line of the UB. If that is the case, go ahead. But if you are trying to show us, let me save you a lot of time and effort by saying that I know Gardner did not read the whole thing. What he investigated was not the text, but the genesis of the text, which is the first thing one ought to do in order to make sense of a "revelation". That's what I was referring to.

There is no way to come up with any "internal" evidence of the truth of the UB by reading it, just like you cannot prove that the Bible is true just by reading the Bible. If someone tells me that they have channeled a revelation in a book, I would ask them how exactly such an extraordinary thing was possible, who these supermortals, aliens, angels or daemons were, where they came from, what new information about our world they can offer, how they are planning to save us, etc. If that person cannot answer these questions, I am justified in concluding that he has made a mistake and he is attributing to unknown entities what is simply the product of his own mind. If, in addition to this, the book in question sounds like something mere humans could have produced, then, as far as I'm concerned, the issue is settled.

[Woody]

Mr Dil,

you- There is no way to come up with any internal evidence of the turht of the UB by reading it....

Well yes there is. The information in this book is SO extrordinary, brilliant, excellent...that the validity of the material becomes self-evident.

Scientific proof? No, we'll grant that, but that is the same as asking someone to proves that God exists. That will never be done.

But also, the UB explains all of this too and in great detail.......but..here goes....you'll never know this until you read the thing.

And that is why it is valid in this context for "us" to keep saying, "you won't know until you read it".

You will observe that there IS a truth to everything out in the universe...everything going on around you that you cannot know or tell with you animal physical senses. Thing is at this time, this these truth and facts are not commonly known of our world. Well time goes by, civilzation grows and progresses....evolves....and the time has come for us to possess a great body of this information. We deserve it by now. It has been brought to us in and with this book.

Do you have to believe? Of course not....just like you do not have to believe in an intelligent creator.

But you will also note that folks who do not acknowledge intelligent creation....don't have any other answers either.....except to say that "everything just happened" or "life sprang forth from a rock" or " life is all some mystical cosmic accident".

Well you ascribe to one of those if you want but that's not good enough for many others. Others are truth seekers and they want to know.

And that is the group that the UB mainly finds the most appeal to in it's early stages of spread.....and that is truth seekers.

Truth seekers who are at the same time only provable-science minded and refuse to consider intelligent creation.....well they are only seeking certain kinds of truth and are closing their minds to all-encompassment. True truth seekers are open to everything. Whatever is out there. Whatever the truth is....that is the truth to be had.

You can't be a truth seeker and not be open to everything.


As I've mentioned before, perhaps these thought lines don't belong in the debate forums on this site. Maybe they would be better served down in one of the Discussion Forums.

[Dilettante]

Hi Woody,

I think you're right about your thought lines belonging in the discussion department rather than in debate. Anyway, I found them interesting. But you also make some debatable assertions. Let's see:

The information in this book is SO extrordinary, brilliant, excellent...that the validity of the material becomes self-evident.

First, if many in this forum have voiced their doubts about the material contained in the UB, then it can hardly be self-evident. Second, is the information contained in the book really so extraordinary that no mere human being could have come up with it? Think about all the extraordinary men and women who have produced great works in the field of science, philosophy, art, literature. I find Shakespeare, Plato, Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, Feynman, and others truly amazing. But just because I could not have done what they did it doesn't mean they had superhuman help.
What new, fertile research programs has the UB helped established? How has it advanced scientific, cosmological, or philosophical knowledge? Can that information be falsified?

I agree that truth-seekers should be open to new things. But they also need to make decisions. You can't reserve judgement forever. The UB is not that new anymore. I have read just a fraction (the preliminary pages) and found its language obscure and its ideas highly improbable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed. The book didn't strike me as something no human could ever produce.

I am not one of those who think scientific truth is the only kind of truth. I value philosophy a lot. "All-encompassment" sounds like metaphysics to me, and I for reasons which do not belong in this thread, I don't think metaphysics can lead us anywhere, since it assumes that "everything is one", i.e., it assumes what it is trying to prove. I believe there is such a thing as objective truth and reality, just that metaphysics is not the way to get there.

This is not the place to discuss intelligent creation (it's being done elsewhere in this forum) but the alternative is not just random luck.
People thing of chance as if it were the opposite of necessity, but they're really on different levels. If you throw a regular cubic die, it is a matter of chance which number from one to six you will get, but necessity determines that you can't get zero or seven (or nine, for that matter).

Regards,
Dilettante

[AlAyeti]

There is no need for any "in-depth" reading of the Urantia book. It is not compatible with the Gospels and as usual is a rewrite of Biblical based belief. From the Gospels to Mormonism to Heavens Gate to politics, the Gospel is the source of much that is challenged by those that change it.

The common man can look at the Bible and Urantia and see that there is a challenge to Jewish and Chrsiatian beliefs. It is one af many NewAge attempts to universalize an uncomfortable message that heaven awaits people down one street.

Jesus obviously knew what would happen. Even in the garden of Gethsemene it is claer.

It is also clear in another garden that challenging God always starts with the same kind of question: "Did God really say . . ." and then of course the adversary to God starts his own translation of events.

I'm sure this is why Satan means "adversary." And it also interesting that "Michael" is the proclamtion "Who IS like MY God?" His name is like that of many Biblical heros. It is more like a question and not just a title.

Urantia is just another example how the truth of the Bible can be proven in current events.

Jesus and the New Testament didn't proclaim that everyone would just come running to the Gospel message, but that in fact it would be very hard to swallow and that people would invent easy doctrines to follow instead of the absoluteness of words of Christ Jesus.

Rememeber the fable about Hansel and Gretel? Sweet little old lady invites the kiddies in for traets and only after they have been traeted so kindly, do they learn the fate prepared for them.

There is a universal TRUTH . . . like gravity, that is for sure.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

From instinct and history we are warned.

[Rob]

Alfred Wegener drew his case for continental drift from several elegant lines of empirical evidence. But unfortunately, Wegner's idea of great lateral movements of the continents flew in the face of geology's then-reigning canon--also based on suppositions--that the geological position of both the continents and ocean basins had always been fixed.

[Ironically, they proposed at the same time that narrow land masses hand rose up that stretched accros the oceans and then sunk back down to explain similar fossils on different continents! No concern about consistency there, eh? Of course, Wegener noticed this inconsistency and made this fact part of his theory, but some of his critics refused to acknoweldge this fact, similarly I note, as those who refuse to acknowlege the 750 Ma date as fact too.]

Insurrectionist, paradigm-impugning ideas such as Wegener's continental drift theory have always catapulted their authors onto the hot griddle of orthodoxy....

There was virtually nothing known about the geology of the seafloor in Wegener's time. His most vocal and influential critics, the geophysicists, examined the drift question by inappropriately applying the first-order principles of physics equally to both the continents--whose geology was fairly well understood--and the seafloor, whose geology was a complete mystery.... Geophysicists concluded--from a highly fragmentary factual basis and immature theoretical surmise--that granitic continents could not move through the unyielding basaltic ocean crust.

(....) These various cases of theoretical conflict have much to teach us. Each seems to be a demonstration of too much faith put in canonical and orthodox knowlege that hid suppositions and uncertainties. It is as if the community of scholars, like the individual mind--as classically explicated by the Overstreets in The Mature Mind--is virtually incapable of holding a suspended judgment. Premature ideas are the acid test of the mature mind.

-- Hook, Ernest B. (2002) Prematurity in Scientific Discovery. University of California Press, pp. 102-104.

The following is from Nils Edelman, professor emeritus of geology and mineralogy at the university of Åbo Adademi, Åbo, Finland. He has responded to the repeated, but nonetheless false, charge that Alfred Wegener was either a pseudoscientist or a "borderline case" of course implying that somehow Alfred Wegener was not practicing good science:

Cranks are wrong in using the rejection of Wegener’s theory of continental drift as a weapon in discussions about pseudoscience. Yet neither is this theory a borderline case between science and pseudoscience.

Recently I happened to read some views on Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift. According to Martin Gardner (1983: 373) cranks have used Wegener as a weapon in discussions about pseudoscience. Daisie and Michael Radner (1982: 88-92) consider Wegener’s theory a borderline case between science and pseudoscience. I will explain why I cannot agree with either of these views. (Edelman 1988: 398)

-- Edelman, Niles (1988). Wegener and Pseudoscience: Some Misconceptions. The Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 12 (Summer) No. 4: 398-402.

-- http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/edelman/edelman.pdf

The following is from Martin Gardner's Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science [my footnotes]:

Most pseudo scientists have a number of characteristics in common. First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Not isolation in the geographical sense, but in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers. (Gardner 1957: 8 )

It would be foolish, of course, to deny that history contains many sad examples of novel scientific views which did not receive an unbiased hearing, and which later proved to be true. The pseudoscientists never tires reminding his readers of these cases.[1] (Gardner 1957: 9)

In the field of medicine, the germ theory of Pasteur, the use of anesthetics, and Dr. Semmelweiss’ insistence that doctors sterilize their hands before attending childbirth are … well known examples of theories which met with strong professional prejudice…. Many other examples of scientific traditionalism might be cited. (Gardner 1957: 9)

Here and there, of course—especially among older scientists who, like everyone else, have a natural tendency to become set in their opinions—one may occasionally meet with irrational prejudice against a new point of view. You cannot blame a scientist for unconsciously resisting a theory which may, in some cases, render his entire life’s work obsolete. (Gardner 1957: 10)

It must also be admitted that in certain areas of science, where empirical data are still hazy, a point of view may acquire a kind of cult following and harden into rigid dogma…. Actually, a certain degree of dogma—a pig-headed orthodoxy—is both necessary and desirable for the health of science.[2] If forces the scientist with a novel view to mass considerable evidence before his theory can be seriously entertained. (Gardner 1957: 10-11)

-- Gardner, Martin (1957) Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover Books.

Notes:

[1] Historians of Science also frequently cite such cases, but for different reasons; to shed light on the actual historical facts and to examine how these facts can teach us how scientists pursue their profession, and to learn how this very human enterprise called ‘science’ moves forward, sometimes slowly, sometimes in what seem like ‘revolutions,’ towards a closer approximation to truth—a more realistic understanding of ourselves, the universe we live in, and our place in it. They never tire of citing them either, since there is so much to be learned from them.


[2] This point is emphasized in I. Bernard Cohen’s excellent paper, Orthodoxy and Scientific Progress, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Oct., 1952. The same issue also contains Edwin G. Boring’s wise and witty lecture, The Validation of Scientific Belief, which opened the society’s 1952 symposium on scientific unorthodoxies. See also L. Sprague de Camp’s informative article, Orthodoxy and Science, Astounding Science Fiction, May 1954.

[mark king]

AlAyeti wrote;

There is no need for any "in-depth" reading of the Urantia book. It is not compatible with the Gospels and as usual is a rewrite of Biblical based belief. From the Gospels to Mormonism to Heavens Gate to politics, the Gospel is the source of much that is challenged by those that change it.

The fact that the UB is incompatible with the the Gospels does not substantiate your recommendation that there is no need for any "in-depth" reading, this is of course your opinion and admittedly an uneducated one.

My opinion...?
The Gospels you refer to have been manipulated, corrupted, this in part was why this revelation was neccessary.

Norm Du Val wrote;

Many religions are complex, but the real gospel of Jesus is simple: Love God your Father, and love your fellow man. If you do this you will be doing the Father's will, and you will have an eternal life of love and service with God. This real gospel of Jesus will also be acceptable to all of God's children on earth who love Him, whether they be Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist, or Hindu.

http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc112.htm

AlAyeti wrote;

The common man can look at the Bible and Urantia and see that there is a challenge to Jewish and Chrsiatian beliefs.

Precisely. But again, no reason to discount the possibility of validity. As in the quote from E. Hook.. too much faith put in canonical and orthodox knowlege .

AlAyeti wrote;

It is one af many NewAge attempts to universalize an uncomfortable message that heaven awaits people down one street.

Ignorance of the book has again lead you to make an unfounded assumption. If anything the UB has shown me how surprisingly broad are the gates of eternal life and how justice will not destroy what mercy can save.... or something like that.

[otseng]

As I've mentioned before, perhaps these thought lines don't belong in the debate forums on this site. Maybe they would be better served down in one of the Discussion Forums.

You are correct. And I think we're going to have to clamp down on this. We've given the UB a fair chance, but it seems evident that external evidence of its validity has been lacking. From now on, please limit all opinions to the discussion category. Debate threads should comprise of posts which have logical arguments and supporting evidence.

Also, 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 quesion 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? "

As for debating the validity of the UB, please post in The Urantia Book - Is it a reliable source?

[Rob]

Gardner states [my footnotes]:

[Kitcher’s] Abusing Science does more than just explode moldy arguments. As a philosopher concerned with the way science operates, Kitcher is good at showing how creationists distort Karl Popper’s views on scientific method, and how they misuse such books as Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He is equally skillful at showing how creationists persist in quoting out of context[1] Stephen Jay Gould and other “punctuationists” (who believe evolution is not as gradual as Darwin thought) to give the false impression that even the experts now doubt the fact of evolution. (Gardner 1983: 373)

Every devotee of a fringe science should read Kitcher’s pages on Alfred Wegener, whose theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists.[2] Cranks are forever citing this as proof that orthodox scientists oppose novel theories for irrational reasons. The truth is that the establishment had excellent reasons for not embracing Wegener’s theory until the discovery of plate tectonics provided a mechanism for it.[3] “An ideally rational and open-minded scientific community,” writes Kitcher, “faced with Wegener’s theory and Wegener’s evidence, would have done what the actual scientific community actually did.”[4] (Gardner 1983: 373)

Must believers in evolution abandon faith in a Creator? Kitcher takes great pains to rebut the Moral Majority’s foolish charge that evolution leads straight to atheism. 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)

-- Gardner, Martin (1983) Order and Surprise. Prometheus Books.

[1] Kitcher does a good job of citing examples of how creationists repeatedly misquote scientists, ignoring context and the real meaning of their statements, in order to twist the truth to support their "creation science" arguments. I note here that it is one of the standards of academic principles, in any field, including science, to accurately (i.e., in context) represent the statements of one's opponent in any debate or discussion of opposing views. It is even required of scientists (and Skeptics too) to note those lines of evidence that counter or refute specific claims in one’s argument; otherwise, one’s credibility is appropriately seriously questioned and one’s work becomes suspect and likely to be taken less seriously. Yet, Gardner, as I will soon show, does not hesitate to do exactly what his creationist opponents so frequently do, misquote and misrepresent statements from the Urantia Book, when he puportedly reviews it "carefully" and "in depth."

[2] Here, Gardner characterizes Alfred Wegener's theory as "long rejected by geologists." This is not an unfair characterization, but the facts on the ground are more subtle. On one hand, Wegener's theory was received with mixed reviews in Europe and outside the United States, with some supporting his ideas and some critical of them. They were at least willing to hear the evidence. On the other hand, In 1924, when his book was first published into English, his theory was largely met with outright derision except by a few scholars, and within the continental US it was soon dangerous to one's professional career to come out to strongly in support of his ideas, especially if one was a graduate student whose teachers were using Wegener as fodder for classroom jokes, which is recounted as his own personal experience by one of the founders of plate tectonics.

[3] This is a half-truth, and shows the lack of Gardner's understanding of the historical facts, and his propensity for just repeating "moldy arguments" without researching the actual historical evidence in context to get his facts straight. The half that is true is that when Wegener first published his theory he did not have a good solution for the mechanism, but the half that is false (or simply a sloppy oversight) is that after responding to both his critics and incorporating the new ideas and discoveries of both J. Joly and Sir Arthur Holmes, who theorized convection currents as the driving mechanism (still the same mechanism thought to drive plate tectonics), he incorporated these theories into his own, thereby proposing the very mechanism (in 1929) that is still accepted today.

[4] This position is roundly refuted by overwhelming evidence from studies on this subject from the history of science done by reputable scholars. It is a gross oversimplification of what actually happened. The only group who still clings to this mischaracterization is some psuedoskeptics and others who don't bother to research the history "in depth" enough to see this is a mischaracterization of the events.

Of particular note is Gardner's words "Alfred Wegener, whose theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists." For soon enough, he is going to reverse his position, and the reasons for doing so will be painfully clear when viewed within the context of his "in depth" and "carefully" researched review of the Urantia Book. Truth mattered little, when he makes this rhetorical shift in meaning, and argues the exact opposite of this view, despite his self-contradictory words above.