The Urantia Book as a source of Truth

[McCulloch]

In another thread

for the 1 in a 100 seekers of Truth amoung them, they may read enough [of the Urantia Book, UB] to discover its wisdom. That is why I am here; to expose them to the UB's clearer vision of religion, science, and cosmology.

Implicit in that statement, is the admission from Bro Dave that the UB is a source of Truth. The questions for debate are, "In general, how is it that a source of truth in religion, science and cosmology is determined? In what way does the UB meet those criteria?"

[Curious]

... for answering factual historical questions like, did Jesus exist, what did he teach, what did he do, did he really rise from death, the Urantia Book is completely useless. It is entirely a work of myth and fiction. I realize that myth is important, but it is not history nor science.

I think this is rather beside the point. While it may be patently obvious to you that from a purely physical perspective of truth the UB is pure baloney, from the perspective of religious truth it might hold a great deal. People often need faith to persevere and if the mythology helps then so be it. So long as the mythology does not impinge upon beneficial teaching then there really seems no harm. In an ideal world, the believer is able to drop the mythology and still retain the lessons within it. So what if the framework is a bit dodgy, as long as it is able to tie the concepts together? at least the UB specifically states that it is not the last word on the subject.

[McCulloch]

... for answering factual historical questions like, did Jesus exist, what did he teach, what did he do, did he really rise from death, the Urantia Book is completely useless. It is entirely a work of myth and fiction. I realize that myth is important, but it is not history nor science.

I think this is rather beside the point. While it may be patently obvious to you that from a purely physical perspective of truth the UB is pure baloney, from the perspective of religious truth it might hold a great deal. People often need faith to persevere and if the mythology helps then so be it. So long as the mythology does not impinge upon beneficial teaching then there really seems no harm. In an ideal world, the believer is able to drop the mythology and still retain the lessons within it. So what if the framework is a bit dodgy, as long as it is able to tie the concepts together? at least the UB specifically states that it is not the last word on the subject.

Check out the opening post

In another thread

for the 1 in a 100 seekers of Truth amoung them, they may read enough [of the Urantia Book, UB] to discover its wisdom. That is why I am here; to expose them to the UB's clearer vision of religion, science, and cosmology.

Implicit in that statement, is the admission from Bro Dave that the UB is a source of Truth. The questions for debate are, "In general, how is it that a source of truth in religion, science and cosmology is determined? In what way does the UB meet those criteria?"

What you said may have relevance to religious truth, whatever that is, but I fail to see how its unsubstantiated mythology can in any way provide a clear vision of science and cosmology.

[Curious]

...check out the opening post

In another thread

for the 1 in a 100 seekers of Truth amoung them, they may read enough [of the Urantia Book, UB] to discover its wisdom. That is why I am here; to expose them to the UB's clearer vision of religion, science, and cosmology.

Implicit in that statement, is the admission from Bro Dave that the UB is a source of Truth. The questions for debate are, "In general, how is it that a source of truth in religion, science and cosmology is determined? In what way does the UB meet those criteria?"

What you said may have relevance to religious truth, whatever that is, but I fail to see how its unsubstantiated mythology can in any way provide a clear vision of science and cosmology.

A clear vision need not be the correct vision. I doubt that even the most strong willed atheist, if completely honest, could argue that their own vision of science and cosmology is without the occasional blind spot or fuzzy area. The fanatic on the other hand believes their own vision completely clear, no matter how distorted this version of reality might appear to outsiders.

[Bro Dave]

But, for answering factual historical questions like, did Jesus exist, what did he teach, what did he do, did he really rise from death, the Urantia Book is completely useless. It is entirely a work of myth and fiction.

That too is not fact, but one more opinion...

Yet there has been no attempt to show that the Urantia Book measures up to any reasonable standards of validity. Perhaps, I should have written that the entire Urantia Book is useless to historians in persuit of historical information. They cannot possibly evaluate its validity.

One more time; The Urantia Book is not;

1) A religion

2) An historical text per se.

3) It is an update of previous philosophical, religious and cosmological understandings.

4) It does not claim infalibility, just a clearer view commencerate with our current social, and technological abilities.

5) Its was not expected to be accepted by everyone, only in those who are ready and capable of broadening their understanding.

6) If that "aint you", its completely okay. The one feature we all have in common, is that we are unique. Our paths are different, but our destinations are the same.

Bro Dave

[Rob]

... for answering factual historical questions like, did Jesus exist, what did he teach, what did he do, did he really rise from death, the Urantia Book is completely useless.

The only way we can answer "factual historical questions" about the life of Jesus is to examine records that attest to his existence that have their origin at or around the time of his life on this earth; in other words from the historical records. The Urantia Book, having its origin after the event (1955) cannot be used as one of those historical records. For one to accept it as a source of authoritative information one must have already accepted its internal claim to be revelation.

Now, as regards the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, not even the Bible can prove that. Yes, the apostles bore testimony that he rose from the dead, but in the final analysis, this is a belief that is either taken upon the assumed authority of testimony in the Bible, or faith, or both. Common sense tells one this.

As for his teachings, while there will never be 100% absolute certainty, we have via Biblical Criticism and Historical and Comparative Studies, been able to piece together a general outline of what was most likely the teachings of Jesus opposed to a corpus of teachings that were about his person and developed and evolved after his death. There is ample awareness of this within the enlightened liberal seminaries; this is not new or shocking news to those who study religion seriously. Regarding the general consensus of what the real teachings of Jesus most likely were, the Life and Teachings of Jesus as portrayed in the Urantia Book are in harmony with this information. Of course McCullock, you wouldn't have a clue if you don't know about the former (Biblical Criticism and Modern Scholarship regarding Jesus teachings) and haven't read the later (The Urantia Book, or at least the story of Jesus and his life and teachings).

The Urantia Book makes factual statements throughout both the section on the history of the solar system, earth, and life and teachings of Jesus. Some of these statements can be tested. For example, if the Urantia Book states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, one can check this claim against the date given by modern science. Modern science discovered this date in 1953 according to my studies. The Urantia Book was published in 1955, so this was known information; hence I would argue one could not claim this confirms its validity. I would note though, that it claims internally to have been completed in 1934 and at that time the 4.5 billion year date was not know. But this date cannot be proven as far as I can tell, and therefore it cannot be used to test the validity of the material.

On the other hand, in the section describing the history of the earth and continental drift, it makes several statements, such as the date for the first landmass, the date for the first break-up of this landmass, and the impact this process had on the evolution of life. Not only the date for the first landmass, but the date for the break-up stated to be 750 Million Years Ago was not known until in the 1970s, and this fact is attested to by one of the scientists who participated the field which provided us the scientific discoveries that revealed this part of our earth's history.

I provided the information for you to review yourself, but apparently you ignored it as it does not fit your preconceived opinions about the nature and content of the Urantia Book: 750 Ma Breakup of Rodinia Was Answer to Your Request.

One does not have to be a believer in the internal claims of the Urantia Book to be capable of examining evidence and acknowledging a documented fact. It is a fact the Urantia Book makes the statements regarding the first landmass and the timing of its break-up at 750 Ma; it is a fact this was not known by science until the 1970s; and it is a fact that one honest scientist is able to put aside his prejudices long enough to examine this fact and honestly and fairly comment on it. It is also a fact that when you make statements like, "It is entirely a work of myth and fiction," and " there has been no attempt to show that the Urantia Book measures up to any reasonable standards of validity"; regarding your former statement, at least one statement in the Urantia Book was not a "work of myth and fiction" (the 750 Ma date was fact, albeit unknown to science at the time, when it was stated in 1955, and it is fact today, the difference being science now confirms this fact, and as I told you there are others, but why bother if you show such biased preconceived opinions that you won't even bother to examine the facts, i.e., The Hittites and the Tin Problem -- Archeology), and with regards to your latter statement, I tried, and you showed your proclivity to prejudge facts based upon preconceived opinions about a book the content of which you know little or nothing.

I fail to see how its unsubstantiated mythology can in any way provide a clear vision of science and cosmology.

You know McCullock, I know you may be frustrated, but to refer to the entire content of a book which you clearly have no clue about as "unsubstantiated mythology" when many of the statements in the book can be substantiated against other records (historical and scientific), such as for example its claim that the first landmass broke-up 750 Ma, is to show only your own ignorance. And don't misunderstand what I am saying; I know there are many claims in the book that are incapable of being validated by historical or scientific means, and I care less whether you call them "mythology," "fiction," or "claptrap," but when you claim that NO statements in the book can be validated you are simply wrong, and the fact is you have at least one fact having already been given to you which proves such a blanket statement is false. Again, I don't claim it proves the internal claim it is a revelation, and I never did. But a fact is a fact, and only someone who is blinded by prejudice departs from facts.

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 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)

[Curious]

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 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)

Religious "facts" are not the same as scientific facts. While certain religions might state that the flood was a fact, and this could be argued against, a scientific fact is irrefutable. That the patient was given 400mg of substance X and died at 4.15pm is a fact of instance and not of interpretation or belief. I fail to see how it would be possible to be self-critical on such a plain issue as scientific fact.

[Rob]

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 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)

Quantity may be identified as a fact, thus becoming a scientific uniformity. Quality, being a matter of mind interpretation, represents an estimate of values, and must, therefore, remain an experience of the individual. When both science and religion become less dogmatic and more tolerant of criticism, philosophy will then begin to achieve unity in the intelligent comprehension of the universe. (1477.2)

Religious "facts" are not the same as scientific facts. While certain religions might state that the flood was a fact, and this could be argued against, a scientific fact is irrefutable. That the patient was given 400mg of substance X and died at 4.15pm is a fact of instance and not of interpretation or belief. I fail to see how it would be possible to be self-critical on such a plain issue as scientific fact.

The foundation of all "facts" are human experience, since neither putative spiritual realities nor material reality are directly experienced by human beings, as both must first pass through the filter of human mind and human experience; the fact of experiential religion is based upon personal religious experience and is the interpretation of the experience of experiencing spiritual realities, and therefore can never become a fact of science (except perhaps via psychology, which is the observation of the artifacts of religious experience, i.e., belief, rituals, etc.); scientific fact is based upon personal experience with material reality and the fact that the material universe is indirectly observable via our senses (or extensions of them via instruments); this is the "mathematical level of the causes and effects of the physical domains" and is based upon the fact that "matter-energy is recognized by the mathematical logic of the senses." And it is true that "mathematics, material science, is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe." Because those observations and measurements (of human mind-experience) made by one scientist can be repeated and verified by another scientist, such observations can become through precise agreement as to terms and meanings a scientific fact, and therefore part of the cumulative knowledge of the scientific community. In other words, science has to do with material "causation--the reality domain of the physical senses, the scientific realms of logical uniformity, the differentiation of the factual and the nonfactual."

The facts of science and so-called "facts" (actually erroneous beliefs) of religion, such as "flood geology" only come into conflict when religionists insist on confusing a priori beliefs with facts of experience. The belief in "flood geology" is a belief founded upon a priori dogmatic beliefs about scripture -- biblical literalism -- and not personal experience of spiritual values, such as living truth, beauty, and goodness. Hence, the dogmatic religionist in this case insists on departing from the known facts of both science and biblical criticism and scholarly studies which should alert a deep thinking person to the intellectual fallacy of "biblical literalism." Humans have via the discovery of many "facts" from the diverse fields of science correctly interpreted the geological history of the earth; and it is a simple truth that "The moment departure is made from the stage of [these] facts [regarding the geological history of the earth], reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic (1138.5)," such as the creationist's effort to explain away dinosaur bones and the work of the devil, which is a perfect example of reason abdicating and degenerating into a consort of false logic. In other words,

Science teaches man to speak the new language of mathematics and trains his thoughts along lines of exacting precision. And science also stabilizes philosophy through the elimination of error, while it purifies religion by the destruction of superstition. (907.7)

A scientific fact is irrefutable.... I fail to see how it would be possible to be self-critical on such a plain issue as scientific fact.

At one time scientists thought that there were 48 human chromosomes; it was clearly considered a "scientific fact." Later, it was discovered that due to the poor resolution of microscopes, that they were mistaken; there were 46 human chromosomes. Facts can change too. We are human; we are fallible, and even facts can change with new information.

Scientists also must remain critical of their facts; for example, at one time it was thought that the continents do not move and this idea was based upon observation of so-called scientific "facts"; new "facts and evidence" revealed that they did; eventually, this lead to a new understanding of the "facts and evidence" and the theory of continental drift and plate tectonics were born.

Another example of how science can only be self-critical of its facts is found in the history of the theory of evolution. It is a fact that we observe many different phyla that have all evolved eyes. In the past, according to the neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis) interpretation of the "facts" it was believed that eyes evolved independently many times in different phyla.

For example, and it is still often repeated by many that:

Only three of the 11 major phyla of animals have developed well-formed, image-resolving eyes; the arthropods (insects, crabs, spiders), mollusks (octopus, squid) and vertebrates. These three types of eye are entirely independent developments. There is no connection among them, anatomical, embryological or evolutionary. This is an important realization, for it means that three times, in complete independence of one another, animals on this planet have developed image-forming eyes. It is all the more remarkable for this reason that in all three types of eye the chemistry of the visual process is very nearly the same. In all cases the pigments which absorb the light with stimulates vision is made of vitamin A. (....) How does it happen that whenever vision has developed on our planet it has come to the same group of molecules, the A vitamins, to make it light-sensistive pigments?

-- Wald, George. Radiant Energy and the Origin of Life. In The Molecular Basis of Life: An Instroduction to Molecular Biology. (Readings From Scientific American, ed.).: Freeman; 1968; pp. 302-303.

This assumption was based upon what has now become the dogma of the Modern Synthesis, which was expressed by Ernest Mayr's statement that "All evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection ..., and that transpecific evolution ... is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species." (Gould 2002: 160) Since this "accumulation of small genetic changes" was non-directional and ubiquitous it was further asserted by Mayr:

In a particularly revealing quote within the greatest summary document of the Modern Synthesis, for example, Mayr ... formulated the issue in a forthright manner. After all, he argued, more than 500 million years of independent evolution must erase any extensive genetic homology among phyla if natural selection holds such power to generate favorable change [novelty]. Adaptive evolution, over these long intervals, must have crafted and recrafted every genetic locus, indeed every nucleotide position, time and time again to meet the constantly changing selective requirements of continually varying environments. At this degree of cladistic separation, any independently evolved phenotypic similarity in basic adaptive architecture must represent the selective power of separate shaping by convergence, and cannot record conserved influence of retained genetic sequences, or common generation by parallelism: "In the early days of Mendelism there was much search for homologous genes that would account for such similarities. Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives." But we now know that extensive genetic homology for fundamental features of development does hold across the most disparate animal phyla. (Gould 2002: 1066)

But today, with the aid of molecular biology and evo-devo we have discovered new "facts", and the following is now known:

Natural selection has not forged many eyes completely from scratch; there is a common genetic ingredient [Pax-6] to making each eye type, as well as to the many types of appendages, hearts, etc. These common genetic ingredients must date back deep in time, before there were vertebrates or arthropods, to animals that may have first used these genes to build structures with which to see, sense, eat, or move.

-- Carroll, Sean B. Endless Forms Most Beautiful. New York: Norton & Company; 2005; p. 72.

No case has received more attention, generated more surprise, rested upon firmer data, or so altered previous "certainties," than the discovery of an important and clearly homologous developmental pathway underlying the ubiquitous and venerable paradigm of convergence in our textbooks: the independent evolution of image-forming lens eyes in several phyla, with the stunning anatomical similarities of single-lens eyes in cephalopods and vertebrates as the most salient illustration. As Tomarev et al. (1997, p. 2421) write: "The complex eyes of cephalopod mollusks and vertebrates have been considered a classical example of convergent evolution." (....)

PARALLELISM IN THE LARGE: PAX-6 AND THE HOMOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENTAL PATHWAYS IN HOMOPLASTIC EYES OF SEVERAL PHYLA

DATA AND DISCOVERY. Salvini-Plawen and Mayer (1977), in a classical article nearly always cited in this context, argued that photoreceptors of some form have evolved independently some 40 to 60 times among animals, with six phyla developing complex image-forming eyes, ranging from cubomedusoids among the Cnidaria, through annelids, onychophores, arthropods and mollusks to vertebrates along the conventional chain of life. In the early 1990s, using Drosophila probes, researchers cloned a family of mammalian Pax genes, most notably Pax-6, which includes both a paired box and homeobox (Walther and Gruss, 1991). (....) The similar function of these Pax-6 homologs in different phyla was then dramatically affirmed by expressing the mouse gene in Drosophila (Halder et al., 1995), and finding that the mammalian version could still induce the formation of normal fly eyes. (....) [T]he Pax-6 story has now furnished an important homological basis in underlying developmental pathways for generating complex eyes in cephalopods and vertebrates. Thus, a channel of inherited internal constraint has strongly facilitated the resulting, nearly identical solution in two phyla, and evolutionists can no longer argue that such similar eyes originated along entirely separate routes, directed only by natural selection, and without benefit of any common channel of shared developmental architecture. But just as the advocates of pure convergence erred in claiming exlclusive rights of explanation, the discovery of Pax-6 homologies does not permit a complete flip to exclusive explanation by constraint. (Gould 2002: 1123-1128)

I began this "symphony" of evo-devo with a quotation from one of the great architects of the Modern Synthesis -- Mayr's statement, based on adaptationist premises then both reasonable and conventional, that any search for genetic homology between distantly-related animal phyla would be doomed a priori and in theory by selection's controlling power, a mechanism that would surely recycle every nucleotide position (often several times) during so long a period of independent evolution between two lines. The new data of evo-devo have falsified this claim and revised our basic theory to admit a great, and often controlling, power for historical constraints based on conserved developmental patterns coded by the very genetic homologies that Mayr had deemed impossible. (Gould 2002: 1175)

So, the discovery of new facts cause a self-critical reevaluation of theories, and this is science functioning as it should. Mayr's claim that deep homology was impossible reminds me that "What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status."

Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist is at once supermaterial. Matter knows not truth, neither can it love mercy nor delight in spiritual realities. Moral convictions based on spiritual enlightenment and rooted in human experience are just as real and certain as mathematical deductions based on physical observations, but on another and higher level. (2077.8)

Ultimate universe reality cannot be grasped by mathematics, logic, or philosophy, only by personal experience in progressive conformity to the divine will of a personal God. Neither science, philosophy, nor theology can validate the personality of God. Only the personal experience of the faith sons of the heavenly Father can effect the actual spiritual realization of the personality of God. (31.5)