Episode:Scientific Approach in The Urantia Book, with Dr. Chris Halvorson

From Symmetry of Soul
Jump to: navigation, search

How do the authors of The Urantia Book approach scientific issues? It is not the purpose of the authors to reveal facts, and current science is not most in need of more facts. What is most needed is a rededication to the pursuit of scientific truth, and the authors of the fifth epochal revelation do give us what we need to bring truth back to our understanding of scientific facts.

Listen to this episode


Notes by Brad

Concerning Science in The Urantia Book...


  • People have trouble imagaining there is a book so expansive as the UB. Many people engage it in a narrow (typically spiritual/religious) sense.
  • Truth is the flow that relates facts and goodness (bidirectional).
    • What is truth?
    • A spiritual awakening gives you an open eye to goodness (God)
    • You also need a strong connection to facts, so that truth can flow
    • You can't connect goodness to FIGMENT and have truth.
  • Truth vs fact
    • Truth is a FLOW, and is something we are seeking to discover.
    • You can obey truth. Not a fact
    • You can follow that flow (truth)


  • Revelators want us
    • combine a TRUE science with a TRUE religion
    • and bring those together into a TRUE philosophy
    • this gives us a full, 3-faceted cosmic perspective.


  • What's up with "science"
    • Retrogressive movement away from truth
    • Presently, we use rationalization to connect dots of our facts (an "understanding")
    • But how to we know any given rationalization is true? The CORRECT way to connect the dots?


  • TRUE meaning of "cosmos"
    • has roots for harmony and universe
  • TRUE meaning of universe: "one turning"
  • Triunities -- there are many, many triunities


  • Our material approach to things is a circle in a horizontial plane
    • "Which way do we proceed around the ciricle?"
      • Analytical approach: rationalize first, then believe your rationalizations
      • versus Believe first, then rationalize your beliefs.
    • Neither of these will do! You need to transcend (enter the 3rd dimenion) the plan you are one.


  • Your rational thought should have a logical pretext.
  • Rational vs. logical
    • With intelligence, you can follow the deductive steps in A->B->C. This is a chain of rationalization.
    • Some people can be brilliant at rationalization.
    • BUT! How do you know where to start from? The initial assumptions?
    • The revelation gives us a better set of initial assumptions.
    • Without revelation, we just pick one set of assumptions, try them for a few centuries, only then to realize it won't work.
    • Revelators: "TRY these assumptions instead. See if they work better for you."


  • These better sets of assumptions work TREMENDSOULY better
    • you find that some questions considered for centuries to be unanswerable, now are.
    • some TRIVIALLY so. The answers are almost self evident in light of these assumptions.
    • e.g., "Why is there evil in the world if there's a God?"
    • If you're exposed to a correct initial assumption, it will ring true in your mind. Holy Spirit's gift, by grace.


  • Mind stores facts and figments
    • When we dream, we CANNOT tell one from the other.
    • When awake, we reject the figments we know don't ring real.
    • 3 cosmic intiutions give us this ability (paper 16)
      • logical insight (causation) aka common sense
      • moral reasioning (duty)
      • spiritual insight (worship)
    • These are EASY to anyone engaging in reflective consciousness.
    • But "it is sad to record" (paper 16)
  • Self-evident: is that "delusion?"
    • Just declare our favorite thoughts true?
    • Or is there TRUTH? Are there things that are self-evident?
  • Nothing in reality is more trivially self evident than the fact that there is a God.


  • But we live on a benighted world and live in a wholly subjective domain, built of elaborate rationalizations.


  • An atom is a bit like a eukaryotic call.
    • Only 150 yrs ago, we had no concept of either of these.
    • The more you zoom in, the more complexity you find.
    • As you zoom into the atom, you find it is intensely complex, if not inscrutable
      • The mere fact you want to use the word beautiful to describe an atom, then pause to consider what that means.
    • And now, atheistic thinking says this is all by accident


  • Revelatory constraints
    • Limited with respect to facts
    • Facts of minimum dificulty, in the not too distant future... they won't give us those.
    • But the revelators are brilliant, and try to push these constraints to their limits.
    • They'll use the number for a fact, that was known at the time. That fact is in error, but they won't let it limit the revealing of truth.


  • "a particular rationalization scheme" == set of assumptions [== paradigm]