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?"

[Rob]

I was born out of the cult Scientology, so I am well aware of the illogicality of this foolishness when I see it.

I admire the fact that you were able to apply outward analysis and critical examination to the teachings of Scientology despite the fact having been born into it. Having never been a Scientologist, I don't know what critical issues led you to your conclusions, but I would be interested to know.

In any, case, I suspect, if you made your decision upon reason and logic, that you then examined the "content" of the teachings and found them wanting, rather than making your decision based upon a priori judgments or stereotypes.

I can only encourage you not to throw the baby out with the bath water; i.e., the search for God (truth, beauty, and goodness), no matter where you might be lead to look. I have found living truth in Buddhism, Islam, Chrisitiantiy, and other sources too. That does not mean I don't find via honest critical examination shortcomings, but I also find much that is worthy, and therefor do not toss the baby with the dirty bath water.

God cannot be proven. Neither can the claims made internally by the Urantia Book. The only way to really know any teaching is by its content. By applying the principles and ideals noted below to it, sincerely, with a desire to know and love the truth whever it will lead:

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. (1641)

We always know if we ask serious, yet critical question of any belief system or teaching, and we get back honest, open, and forthright answers, then even if we don't agree with them we can see the character of the response. On the other hand, if we get back sophistry and rhetoric, and denial of truth to maintain support for erroneous beliefs, or power, or prestige, or resentment and anger for being subjected to such honest yet critical questions, than the root of the tree is not good, for good trees do not bring forth bad fruit, and bad trees do not bring forth good fruit. Either the root of the tree is good, and brings forth good fruit, or it is not.

[QED]

Still, it is natural to want to know about the authors. All I can say is, if the content is not there, the authors do not matter. And likewise, if the content does not stand up, authors do not matter. In real estate, its location, location, location. With revelation, it content, content, content...

I think you're borrowing too heavily from the world of "scientific revelation" here. Certainly the authors of any piece of scientific research do not matter. If anyone can repeat their work and verify the findings independently then it clearly doesn't matter if the author is a pauper or a pope. But the only validation offered by the sort of revelation you wish to introduce us to is that it sounds about right to people already bearing such a hunch. In this case all that we are being offered is an apparent correlation between the world and yet another story, in a tradition going back to the dawn of history.

There is no malice in my observation here, just a desire to communicate a frustration with the presentation of such intricately detailed accounts, when all that might be reasonably expected from this tradition would be an extremely generalized overview of a created cosmos. As soon as specific details start popping up it is only natural to ask where the information is coming from so that we can all check to make sure it's right.

Now I know that this is seen by some as the biggest sin of all; "the sin of the doubting Thomas". But there is yet another group of people who believe in the very same sin -- snake oil salesmen. Were it not for them I might be content to give up my rights to ask for proof but that is not the world that we live in.

[Bro Dave]

There is no malice in my observation here, just a desire to communicate a frustration with the presentation of such intricately detailed accounts, when all that might be reasonably expected from this tradition would be an extremely generalized overview of a created cosmos. As soon as specific details start popping up it is only natural to ask where the information is coming from so that we can all check to make sure it's right.

Now I know that this is seen by some as the biggest sin of all; "the sin of the doubting Thomas". But there is yet another group of people who believe in the very same sin -- snake oil salesmen. Were it not for them I might be content to give up my rights to ask for proof but that is not the world that we live in.

QED, I assure you, your challenging what is offered in the UB could under no condition, be construed as a “sin”. It is you obligation to see what is true. Period. If the UB does not seem to “ring-you-truth-bells”, its absolutely okay! The UB is not here to “prove” anything. I know, for one of a pure scientific persuasion, that is a cardinal “sin”. The UB simply offers an overview of the universe,(and beyond), and a framework we can grasp. Is it “true”? I’d say for us, yes, but only for a little while. It brings us a picture as clear as we are able to comprehend. The UB says that it should be sufficient for maybe a thousand years, and by that time, we will be ready and able for yet a larger picture. There are two choices; 1) Try to grasp the mind blowing overview of God, the universes He created, and the administration in place to make sure that universe unfolds per plans. Or 2) Allow skepticism to steal that view, because it cannot yet be verified by our limited intellects, from our very limited perspective. The good news is, it is ultimately not important that you should understand that overview! Its there for those who are uncomfortable in what can feel like a run away world, teetering on being obliterated by the next rogue asteroid. Knowing there is a massive administration overseeing it all, can allow us to focus on our personal growth. If it helps, great! If it does not, then ignore it, by all means.

Bro Dave

[QED]

There are two choices; 1) Try to grasp the mind blowing overview of God, the universes He created, and the administration in place to make sure that universe unfolds per plans. Or 2) Allow skepticism to steal that view, because it cannot yet be verified by our limited intellects, from our very limited perspective.

What worries me here is that behind the conviction in (1), there lies an even stronger conviction -- that the world is obviously created. Let's call this (0)

I agree that if we were to start out from the position of having sure knowledge that the world was created then what you say in (1) might be reasonable. This is because a created universe would indeed imply a plan and people would be entitled to use their imagination and instinct to second guess the motives and mechanisms etc.

Of course there's a big problem with this. The foundational conviction (0) is not as safe as it used to be. It used to be safe before the principles of Self Organizing Systems were uncovered. But now there are known to be natural, logical, inevitable processes at work at all scales in the cosmos and these are rapidly stepping-in to account for the variety of living and non-living structures in the universe.

At this point we might start playing a shell game whereby the creationists next move would be to say "Aha! But these SO Systems are the very methods employed by the creator to do his bidding" -- well, yes I suppose they might be. But the point has already been conceded: (0) is no longer the certainty it used to be -- because SO Systems might also be exactly what they look like -- the product of inevitable logic. This possibility means that it is dangerous for you to categorically state that there are only two options. You need to add a third:

3)Try to grasp the mind blowing overview of the universes as it unfolds according to the inevitable logic that persistent structures will massively outnumber those that fail to persist.

[CJK]

My friend, unlike the "created-in-a-bar-on-a-bet" psuedo religion Scientology, the Urantia Books only purpose, is to recompile what mankind has previously been given, and to share a bit more as we are able to assimilate it. My purpose is to make it visible. If you have the curiosity and the grit in you gut to investigate it, great. If you do not, it really does not matter at all. Your choice.

You're right. It really does not matter at all. Your beliefs are just as pseudo as Scientology's. If you feel you can build yourself somewhat of a foundation out of it, that is great, as long as you do not try to unequivocally pass it off as an objective truth.

... the Urantia Books only purpose, is to recompile what mankind has previously been given, and to share a bit more as we are able to assimilate it.

What has mankind previously been given, and with this ' knowledge of the divine', what can we substantially achieve?

[CJK]

Having never been a Scientologist, I don't know what critical issues led you to your conclusions, but I would be interested to know.

Subliminal euphanisms.

In any, case, I suspect, if you made your decision upon reason and logic, that you then examined the "content" of the teachings and found them wanting, rather than making your decision based upon a priori judgments or stereotypes.

Priori judgements are not bad, until you use them in anything other than critical thought.

I have come to the sound conclusion that logic and reason are not traits in the Cult of Jesus and Scientology alike. The only premise neccesary is the basis in superstition.

[Rob]

Priori judgements are not bad, until you use them in anything other than critical thought.

When you take a priori judements and then reach conclusions based upon them without confirming if they are in fact true, this is a stereotype; an unvalidated conclusion. You do it below. You assume a conclusion without having one iota of information as to whether it is true or not, which at least with regards to the teachings of the Urantia Book, it is not, yet you assume it is based upon a stereotype, thereby contradicting your own claims.

I have come to the sound conclusion that logic and reason are not traits in the Cult of Jesus and Scientology alike. The only premise neccesary is the basis in superstition.

You obviously are unaware of what the Urantia Book has to say about the role of reason and logic in human experience, and opperate with the same mindset as one who reaches conclusions based upon unvalidated stereotypes. In other words, you operate from prejudicial views and a self-chosen form of ignorance based upon stereotypes. One does not have to be a religionist to do this, as your comments above prove conclusively by living example

Reason is the method of science. (1106.1)

The objects of science are identical with those of magic. Mankind is progressing from magic to science, not by meditation and reason, but rather through long experience, gradually and painfully. Man is gradually backing into the truth, beginning in error, progressing in error, and finally attaining the threshold of truth. Only with the arrival of the scientific method has he faced forward. But primitive man had to experiment or perish. (970.10)

Reason is the understanding technique of the sciences. (1136)

Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic. (1138.4)

But logic can never succeed in harmonizing the findings of science and the insights of religion unless both the scientific and the religious aspects of a personality are truth dominated, sincerely desirous of following the truth wherever it may lead regardless of the conclusions which it may reach. (1138.3)

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)

Logic is valid in the material world, and mathematics is reliable when limited in its application to physical things; but neither is to be regarded as wholly dependable or infallible when applied to life problems. Life embraces phenomena which are not wholly material. Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true, for the ten men could not so do it; they would get in one another's way so badly that the work would be greatly delayed. (1476.7)

Physical certainty consists in the logic of science; moral certainty, in the wisdom of philosophy; spiritual certainty, in the truth of genuine religious experience. (2094.4)

You exhibit clearly the nature of your own "preconceived opinions, settled ideas, and long-standing prejudices." After all, you have reached your conclusions with regards to the Urantia Book's teachings regarding the relationship between reason and logic and its role in human knowlege without even making the least effort to even determine what it actually says, as the above shows conclusively based upon evidence and not stereotypes.

[Curious]

I'm not sure I'm following here, but if you are suggesting the UB is a piece of fluff, I can assure you, it will challenge everything you can bring to bear. If your feeling particularly mentally frisky, you might want to try a read of the Forward. Normally, I steer folks away from it, because it is really a summation of the entire book, and not the introduction that eases one into what is to follow. Then again, you may be quite happy with the marathon you are currently running, and do not need any further challenges. Either way, I can guarantee you will not become either fat or lazy in an attempt digest what the UB has to offer!



Bro Dave

I have taken you up on your offer and read the foreword of the UB. It seems to me nothing short of deliberate obfuscation in an attempt to persuade the reader that it holds some significance. The language used appears more an attempt to mystify than demystify and ( to my mind ) is comparable to dressing a lemon in sequins to disguise the fact that it's a lemon. I am aware that my take on the UB may be due entirely to my own inability to fully grasp the concepts involved owing to my seriously limited human intellect but am aware that this is also what the author intended me to believe was the case.

[Curious]

Reason is the method of science. (1106.1)
...
Reason is the understanding technique of the sciences. (1136)
...
Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic. (1138.4)

But logic can never succeed in harmonizing the findings of science and the insights of religion unless both the scientific and the religious aspects of a personality are truth dominated, sincerely desirous of following the truth wherever it may lead regardless of the conclusions which it may reach. (1138.3)

... The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic. (1138.5)

Reason and logic???

Logic is valid in the material world, and mathematics is reliable when limited in its application to physical things; but neither is to be regarded as wholly dependable or infallible when applied to life problems. Life embraces phenomena which are not wholly material. Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true, for the ten men could not so do it; they would get in one another's way so badly that the work would be greatly delayed. (1476.7)

Arithmetic says no such thing, neither does arithmetic state that if it takes 2 men 1 hour to dig a hole, then it takes 1 man 1 hour to dig half a hole. Arithmetic also does not say that if you can pick 100 apples from a tree in 1 hour, a thousand people could pick 1 million apples in 10 hours from the same tree. This is not sound mathematics as mathematics takes into account relationships. This is an example of the misapplication of arithmetic, not of its ineffectiveness. I wonder how these cosmic authors manage to hop from one planet to the next given their apparent ignorance of basic maths.

[CJK]

When you take a priori judements and then reach conclusions based upon them without confirming if they are in fact true, this is a stereotype; an unvalidated conclusion. You do it below. You assume a conclusion without having one iota of information as to whether it is true or not, which at least with regards to the teachings of the Urantia Book, it is not, yet you assume it is based upon a stereotype, thereby contradicting your own claims.

CJK wrote:
I have come to the sound conclusion that logic and reason are not traits in the Cult of Jesus and Scientology alike. The only premise neccesary is the basis in superstition.

...and opperate with the same mindset as one who reaches conclusions based upon unvalidated stereotypes. In other words, you operate from prejudicial views and a self-chosen form of ignorance based upon stereotypes.

You can make blanket statements all you like, but that does not say anything about the validity of my perceptions. If they are so fallible as you say, how is it errant to see logic and reason as unexistent in superstitious eyewash like a book authored by 'celestial beings'?

You obviously are unaware of what the Urantia Book has to say about the role of reason and logic in human experience

You are obviously unaware the book did not invent the concepts of truth and reason, much like the Cult of Jesus was not first to conceive of love for your neighbor, etc.

It is you whom have made a grave 'prejudgement'. You assume that when someone says they are speaking for God (or whatever the Urantia Book defines God as), it must be true.

You exhibit clearly the nature of your own "preconceived opinions, settled ideas, and long-standing prejudices." After all, you have reached your conclusions with regards to the Urantia Book's teachings regarding the relationship between reason and logic and its role in human knowlege without even making the least effort to even determine what it actually says, as the above shows conclusively based upon evidence and not stereotypes.

Like I've said, truth and reason did not originate from the Urantia Book.

Therefore, by Occam's Razor, we can demystify it's contents.

You are going to have to tell me the substantial meaning of the 'celestial beings' whom have allegedly authored the book before you speak for it's validity. Until then, it remains supertition, not fact.