Episode:Scientific Approach in The Urantia Book, with Dr. Chris Halvorson/Transcript
This is a transcript of the episode Scientific Approach in The Urantia Book
Transcribed by Brad Garner on 12/16/2020 using machine-learning transcription tool and manual editing. Mildly edited for readability.
Ann (A): Good morning, good evening, wherever you are on the planet. Welcome to our maiden voyage of Symmetry of Soul. This is Ann Garner and my co-hosts, Doctor Chris Halvorson and James Woodward. Good morning, gentlemen.
James (J): Good morning Ann.
Chris (C): Hi there Ann!
A: Yes, our maiden voyage. Our hands are on the rudder, main sheets, and the jib. We're out on the high seas of adventure. A voyage of discovery. This is a new broadcast. We’re an offshoot of Cosmic Citizen, which is a marvelous program that's been on the air for over two years.
We're going to begin a series about science. Chris, would you like to explain to us… well, why don't you gentlemen take it away on the science?
C: We're thinking about doing a month here devoted to scientific issues. I thought that I could kick it off here, and we could kick it off with sort of the most basic question that we put in the blurb for the show today: How do the authors of The Urantia Book approach scientific issues?
The first thing I'd say is: initially it's hard for people to comprehend that there could be a book that spans all of human nature and interests and beyond. But that's what The Urantia Book is. And many initially engage it in a very narrow spiritual or religious sense. But it goes vastly beyond that. Right in the book the authors say that the purpose is to “reveal truth and coordinate essential knowledge in order to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception.”
So you definitely have the spiritual perception part. But you notice in that in that last contrast… what is the difference between cosmic consciousness and spiritual consciousness? They're basically begging the question with that statement. You also notice, yes, it does say to reveal truth, but it doesn't say merely spiritual truth. They mean all truth. And you can initially get that sense just by the fact that they also say “and coordinate essential knowledge.” The word science literally means knowledge.
A: If we looked it up in the dictionary, right?
C: If you look up the etymology of the word science, it literally means knowledge. And what they're trying to do is to pick up the beginning that was initiated 2000 years ago with the fourth epochal revelation, which was meant to awaken our spiritual consciousness in a much fuller way than mankind had ever engaged it.
We're all born having to have our material eye open to some degree, as we live in a material domain. It's pretty hard not to recognize this in some fashion, so that you don't stub your toe endlessly on the matter all about you. But the revelators want you to get both of your eyes wide open, material and spiritual, to begin to get a three-dimensional depth perception in your view of reality. That's the difference between cosmic consciousness and mere spiritual consciousness. Cosmic consciousness is the awareness you have when you have both eyes open and you've begun to blend those together into a harmony.
In regard to truth: truth fundamentally is the flow that that relates facts and goodness either from facts to goodness or from goodness to facts. In order to reveal truth, in the context of having an awakened awareness of goodness—having that spiritual eye open—you need a solid connection to facts. Because you can't connect goodness to figment and have truth!
So the revelation also spends a lot of time coordinating essential knowledge; trying to establish a true science so that we can combine that with a true religion (which they are also encouraging us to go beyond where we have been and establish a true religion in our mind), and then to bring those together into a true philosophy so that we have a full, three-faceted cosmic perspective of science, philosophy, and religion.
It's in that overall perspective that, in the little blurb’s teaser response I gave to that question, like I said it's the purpose to reveal truth, not to reveal facts. And one can note that if you're aware of science at all, there's lots and lots of facts in science. Now, you always need more facts to keep expanding science. But the biggest issue in play in current science is not a lack of facts to think about. The problem is truth.
A: So the problem is not the facts, it’s the truth of the facts? You can have facts but still not have truth… facts versus truth?
C: Right. Fact versus truth. What's the difference? First of all: you can obey truth. You can't obey a fact. Truth is that cosmic flow through those facts that you're trying to discover. You're trying to discover how a given fact that you come up against—how that fits into the big picture. And it does so in a dynamic fashion. The universe is not a static equilibrium, it's a dynamic equilibrium. There's a flow through that fact that connects it to everything else. And you can follow that flow. You can obey that truth.
So the big issue that's been in play in science, especially for the last 100 years, is a retrogressive movement away from truth. You find that you discover these facts and you can always connect the dots. You can always create a “understanding.” You can associate those facts points with your ability to rationalize facts, to connect the dots.
But how do you know if that particular way of connecting the dots is true? Because there's many ways that you can connect the dots. You can rationalize anything. You can always connect dots; you can always connect them in a lot of ways. How do you know what the correct way is? How do you know which understanding is a true understanding? Which understanding conforms with the cosmos?
In that context, the revelators are trying to get us to rediscover the word cosmos that the Greeks coined—the true meaning of it. Because we need to rediscover why the Greeks coined that. Why did they coin a word that means both harmony and universe equally? So that intensively it means universal harmony, and extensively it means harmonious universe? It means much more than just universe, especially in the sense that we use that word today, in a very simplistic way. The Greeks were taking the audacious assumption that there was a universal harmony that they could attempt to discover and strike step with. It's not just a collection of atoms that you might simplistically call a universe in the modern sense of that word. It's more in the true sense of the word universe, as “one turning.” It's a dynamic flow about a central nucleus of truth.
So this unraveling that's been occurring for 100 years in science needs some assistance. And that's why the revelators spend as much time as they do trying to give us what we need to bring a true understanding back to scientific facts. Because you need that not just for the sake of science, you need it for the sake of religion and philosophy and everything else. It's impossible to have a true religion without a true science and vice versa. You need something that is in full conformity to the cosmos, that reflects its full character.
A: The greatest struggle for me was going back and trying to get science out of the Bible. And for me, that continues to be a great struggle for me. What you just said is so true. And James, do you have some input there as far as when you have people calling in as when they were calling into the Foundation… did they struggle with that?
J: Certainly that was one of the key questions that people used to ask. And the best way to really coordinate it is what Chris touched on, beautifully, in his opening remarks there. And I want to go into what he called the two-dimensional vision and then three-dimensional. Because approaching this topic, it's really important for us to realize what Chris was talking about there.
The Urantia Book presents this harmony of what they call the triunity of functional reality, which they present in a series of triunities, beginning with Father, Son, Spirit and working all the way through the book in mind, body, spirit; and truth, beauty, goodness; and especially science, religion, and philosophy as it relates to this topic. And in fact the important things that they say about science are almost always coordinated by inclusion in this in this triunity of including religion and philosophy as imperative to our understanding. Here's a great quote from page 1105: “Reason is the method of science. Faith is the method of religion. Logic is the attempted technique of philosophy. Revelation compensates for the absence of the morontia viewpoint by providing a technique for achieving unity in the comprehension of the reality and relationships of matter and spirit by the mediation of mind. And true revelation never renders science unnatural, religion unreasonable, or philosophy illogical.”
So they give us these three and then they throw in this wildcard about morontia and tell us, over and over, that it's really impossible for us to understand the science, religion, philosophy unity without the added insight of morontia; and that metaphysics is our aborted attempt to do so in which it fails miserably. So just keep in mind as we go through this whole month that we're always looking at this in a in a triune manner and revelation compensates for this lack of morontia mota that we have.
C: You mentioned that difference between two-dimensional and three-dimensional perspective. Visualize where mankind has been pretty much for all of human history. They've been in a horizontal plane. Their viewpoint is fundamentally two-dimensional. And there's an endless argument that goes on because there's a circle in that plane and we argue about which is the correct direction to go around the circle.
Is it what a lot of analytic-minded individuals that often become scientists argue? That you rationalize first, and then you believe your rationalizations? So you go that direction around the circle? Or is it the other way around the circle that many, who aren't so analytically inventive, argued for millennia? That you believe first, and then you rationalize your beliefs?
The revelation is here to say that neither is correct. You need to lift yourself up out of that tail-chasing state of going around that circle. No matter which way you go around the circle in the plane, you're a flatlander. You're a two-dimensional phenomenon in the cosmos and hence you're not real. You need to strike step with the three-dimensional character of the cosmos. You need to elevate mere rationalization up to a logical conformity to the cosmos. Things have to be more than reasoned. They need to be correctly reasoned. And you need to lift mere belief up into conformity with the cosmos.
You want to have true faith. Faith that reflects a personal recognition that the universe is “mind made and personality managed.” And that anchors a conformity with the cosmos so that your beliefs are informed by your faith, and your rational thought is informed by a logical pretext.
What fundamentally distinguishes something that's merely rational from something that is logical, in the in the true sense of that word? I want to really tease the definition of those two words apart. Most fundamentally, if you have any intelligence you can start at a given initial assumption and rationally step forward. A implies B implies C and, you know, you won't be messing up any of those deductive steps. You know, that two plus two is four and not five. So you don't make that mistake, in some deductive reasoning chain. But the question that remains unanswered, no matter how brilliant you are at making a perfect chain of rationalization, is: how do you know what the correct initial assumption is? How do you know where to start? How do you know what assumption conforms with the cosmos?
Fundamentally, the revelation is here to give us a better set of initial assumptions so that we aren't stuck in this mode where, at best, we pick an assumption, try it for a few centuries, finally decide it comes up inadequate, and then finally convince ourselves to stop intensely believing it no matter how long we've been believing it, and start over again with a new initial assumption. This is a very tedious, wasteful process that the revelators are trying to help us with. They’re saying, “Try these initial assumptions, see if they work better for you.”
It's certainly one of the main reasons why I recognize that the revelation is what it claims to be—a revelation. Because when you try the initial assumptions that they suggest you find they work so much better than any initial assumption that anyone has ever thought of. They allow you to answer questions that mankind long ago decided were unanswerable because they tried endless initial assumptions and couldn't get anywhere! And not only are some of those fundamental questions answerable, but they're trivially answerable, they’re self-evident, once you start with the correct perspective—establish a truer relationship to reality to the cosmos!
J: I assume you’re speaking about these a priori assumptions of science, philosophy, and religion that are outlined, in paper 16 on page 191 and 192. Are you speaking about causation, duty, and worship?
C: Well, those are the three objective domains that you need to engage. Like you're pointing out, you have a threefold functional actuality to reality that you need to be able to engage. If all we had was mere subjective mind, it would be impossible to engage the universe objectively, especially in a threefold objectivity. Because that cannot occur with mere subjective mind, we are given, by grace alone, a gift. A gift that allows us to engage that threefold objective actuality of reality.
There are three cosmic intuitions that are the fundamental core of a ministry that we're given by grace called the Holy Spirit. Those three cosmic intuitions are logical acumen, moral discrimination, and spiritual insight. This is where they introduce the three cosmic intuitions, in paper 16 section 6. Those three domains allow you to have a reality response to this threefold nature so that, if you're exposed to an initial assumption that conforms to the cosmos, you'll get a reality response relative to it. It will ring real in your mind.
For instance, that first intuition, that logical acumen, that’s what allows us to be able to distinguish fact from figment. Facts and figments are a certain type of form in the mind, a thing-like form, and subjectively you can't tell them apart. For instance in your dreams, there's all kinds of figment forms that seem completely viable in that subjective domain of your dream. But objectively you go, “No. That's not a part of reality. That's not actually a fact. That's a figment.” How can you do that? Your subjective mind can't distinguish. But the first cosmic intuition that you have access to can. We're all given an initial relationship with these three cosmic intuitions. Especially the first one; it’s what we call common sense.
But have you taken a delight in expanding your relationship with those?
A: I discover every day that there's a lot of people that don't walk in common sense. They don’t take on wisdom. I'm startled with that. They don't learn from the experiences. They don't think things through. They just react. Some people in fundamentalist religions, with that narrow mindset… they throw common sense out the window when it comes to saying, “Well, you know, that doesn't make sense anymore, according to our knowledge.” How do you deal with people that, as you say, are flatlanders? (I love that parable, and also love the parable of the cave. Where you’re only seeing the shadows.)
C: Well it's very, very difficult. Let me just point out how difficult of a state we’ve existed in, here on this benighted sphere. Right after they introduce the three cosmic intuitions in paper 16 section 6, they tell us how natural they come to anyone who has engaged reflective consciousness at all. They conclude with the statement, “but it is sad to record that so few persons on Urantia take delight in cultivating these qualities of courageous and independent cosmic thinking.”
“It is sad to record...” Few things sum up the state of the world more pithily more than that sentence. As you were saying, it is so common that when you engage someone, they’re functioning in an elaborate rationalization domain that has very little connection to the objective cosmos. I mean, if they're not psychologically insane, it is a fully rational domain. If you jump in, you can follow all the lines in it, and all the dots are connected. But it's not a correct reasoning. It's not true. It doesn't conform to the cosmos. And it's sad to record that so few people have even that little measure of objectivity where you can step back from that little rationalization scheme that you've created and you can say things, like with the first cosmic intuition, “Okay, yes, it's associative. It's rational. But it's not causal. And that’s obvious to me.” And someone says, “Well, how is that obvious?” And you say, “Well, it's self evident.”
Why do we have the word “self evident?” Is that delusional? Do we just wish that some things are self-evident, and our favorite thoughts we declare to be self-evident? And if others can't see it they're stupid? Or is there a truth behind the coinage of that word? Is it true that some things are commonly self-evident? If each of us took delight in cultivating having both eyes open more and having a truer view of the cosmos, we would be more on the same page. We wouldn't have to argue back and forth about something. I could say, “That's self evident, isn't it?” And the other person would say, “Yeah!”
Think about how Jesus was walking along. Those vignettes where he just passes by a person without engaging them. Why? Fundamentally, it's because the essentials are not self-evident to that individual yet. They're really not functioning as a person. They're still playing around on those lower animal-origin roots of their mind. They haven't engaged that measure of God-likeness from their personality that allows you to see through these windows of the three cosmic intuitions and allows things to be self-evident.
I mean, if it isn't trivially self-evident to you that there's a God, what am I going to say? Of all the things in reality, nothing is more trivially self evident than the fact of God. If that's not obvious, what am I going to say that could possibly get you to see?
A: When I come across atheists, I just stand there and I just look around and say, “Well, how did this all get here?” And you know a pure atheist will say, “It’s just an accident out here. We're just a random accident.” I don't know how anybody honestly could believe that there's no causation.
When you look at the atom for example. Could you describe the atom? How perfect is the atom?
C: Well, the atom is a microcosm world that's a lot like a eukaryotic cell. Both of those are microscopic domains that, not that many years ago, we had utterly no concept of. You go back 150 years, and we just had utterly no concept. If you actually zoom in on a cell or zoom in on a material structure, there's a whole universe down in there! It was initially invisible.
For instance, in terms of causality. If you think that a living is composed of just little sacks of goo—little cells and some sort of organic goo in them—then okay. Maybe you can kind of close your eyes mostly, and imagine that it all just happened accidentally somehow. But when you actually zoom in and look what's really there, it's trivially self-evident that it's not an accident. It is so incredibly complex and obviously engineered. No one walks up to a couch in their living room and says, “Wow, I wonder what weird accident of nature created this? It sure was a lucky thing that the seams all came together like they did and it has the integrity so that I can sit on it.” No one thinks that! It's obviously engineered and built! But we take something a trillion times more complex and we're supposed to just believe it just happened by random accident.
I often point out that old analogy of saying that a tornado went through the junkyard and left a washing machine behind. It's so much worse than that! It didn't leave a washing machine behind. It went through the junkyard and left the entire Maytag factory behind. Functioning! Is that self-evidently not possible? Is that not self-evident?
And the same is with the atom. The more you zoom in on the microcosm of just what appears to be the merely material—set living things aside—it's incredibly precise and complex, and in many ways, inscrutable. If you have any cosmic consciousness, just the mere fact that when you zoom in and it has such order and symmetry and pattern that you want to use the word beautiful, should give you pause.
There is no beauty without personality. If you see beauty way down in the depths of some material structure, then a personal hand has touched that. The universe is mind-made and personality-managed. Period.
J: I like that analogy. We can assume that Doctor Chris is not a mechanist.
A: We do have a caller. Let me bring them in.
Lou: I wanted to offer some comments on, and hear Doctor Halvorson’s insights into, how the book does not share (from a scientific point of view) unearned knowledge with us. And yet they have no compunctions whatsoever in telling us exactly where to dig in terms of archeology and paleontology and geology for certain fossil samples or remnants of former civilizations. It seems to be that the fossil record is already a matter in fact of history. But unearned knowledge is a matter, in fact, of the future. And they seem to make that distinction there.
Yet, they're always giving us hints like, “Oh, there are certain forms of energy that are as yet undiscovered on Urantia” and things like that. They don't really tell you much more than that. But one of the big things on, say, the History Channel or the Discovery Channel—these cosmic universe shows—is the expanding universe and the incredible speeds with which today's astrophysicists have calculated the rate at which other things moving away from us. And I have literally copied these guys names down, found their university email addresses, and sent them the paper called “space respiration.” It talks about the distortions in our measurements of the speeds that these astrophysicists are coming up with.
Also in terms of science, I think the papers called calcium “the wanderer of space” when it talks about this roller coaster ride electrons are taking. I think there's probably no more detailed paper in the book about the nuts and bolts, the nitty gritty, of what's actually going on there on a molecular level. Your comments, Doctor Chris?
C: You can call me just Chris.
A: Listen, when somebody works extremely hard to get a title… I'm from the Deep South and let me tell you, growing up, I couldn't call anyone by their first name. Even my brother and sister. There was an air of respect that sometimes we miss. Pastor. Doctor. That doesn't mean I'm always going to say it, but I think there is a respect for someone who's paid their dues to be given. Not to put you up on a pedestal.
C: I appreciate that. It's just, if we drop into an actual personal interactive mode, I'd like to be Chris the person.
Anyway, that aside, you threw out many different things there. Let's look at one of the over-arcing issues that's in play with the science in the book.
Like you alluded to, they have some very tight revelatory constraints related to facts. They can't give us unearned knowledge—things that we can get our hands on with a minimum of difficulty in the not too distant future. Even in the midst of all of our ignorance, they can't by fiat just by give us those things and short-circuit the normal evolutionary process. But never underestimate the brilliance of the authors in pushing the revelatory mandate to its utmost limits and giving us as much as they can without violating some of these basic constraints.
For instance, if they would like to help us to overcome some of these distortions of our perspective in astronomy, they can do so working within the constraints of our limited knowledge back in 1920s. They didn't attempt to create the fifth epochal revelation until we had a minimum set of facts in play that they could work with. It would have been impossible for them to create the revelation under the constraints of the revelatory mandate even 50 years prior to when they did.
Lou: Perhaps they could not have produced the book until we had developed a language of psychology as well.
C: Yes, there's many, many things. And that's another topic. Notice: coincidentally, a whole number of things that are essential to being able to do what they've done came together just as they did it. Which is the chicken and which is the egg? But that question aside...
They want you to be able to see the picture more objectively. So sometimes they will use the particular number that we had for a given fact at that time. Even if it isn't that precise of a number, the number is not the point; the purpose is not to reveal facts. They'll use that number, in juxtaposition with something else, and if you put the two together you have something that we even currently don't have. They have the wisdom and the intellect to not have the facts limit them to revealing the truth. They often reveal the truth in spite of the limitations of our knowledge.
So you want to always keep that very much in mind. If you go in as a fact finder, uh, you will quickly become an error seeker and an error finder.
A: Because you're looking for it? Is that what you're saying?
C: Well, they tell you right in the beginning that if you approach this from an improper perspective, it is going to have “more or less distortion of meaning” right there in the beginning of the Foreword.
A: We have another caller.
Kermit Anderson: I wanted to comment on the point that Chris was making, a beautiful example of the restriction in their ability to give us facts that we haven't earned and yet the truth of their teaching.
This has to do with the human chromosome number of 46. There are 46 chromosomes in every normal somatic cell. Yet in their discussion of chromosomes (they don't use the term chromosome, they use trait determiners), they imply—and a casual reading of the text would seem to imply—that perhaps the human chromosome number is 48. Which at the time of the writing of the book, it was thought to be.
So here they're taking a concept that was generally accepted: using the number 48. And yet with their careful use of words and their careful structure of explanation, they give us additional information that we didn't even know they gave us until we discovered the chromosome number of 46. We discovered how DNA works, how each chromosome is really two trait determiners. And so this is a beautiful example, I think, of exactly what Chris was saying.
C: There's several examples like that.
Lou: And along those same lines, they say we have 100 elements, and yet our periodic table of elements has more than 100.
C: But if you look carefully, you'll notice that the point that they make is that there are only 100 elements that have any inherent stability. You know, you can make bigger things but they don't have inherent stability.
There's a fact in play that even current nuclear physicists don't appreciate. The fundamental attribute potential stability that you can observe relative to a nucleus, if you create one, it is either stable or it beta decays to a stable nucleus. That beta decay is a process that is gently reforming that nucleus down to a stable shape. But it indicates that there is some potential stability. That it’s like, “Well, okay, this is close, but we just need to rework it a little bit. Okay, now it's stable.” If there’s no beta decay observable relative to a nucleus, it's pointing that it's just fundamentally unstable.
If you look at the isotope chart, at the chart of the nuclides that are dealing with the actual physics of the nucleus as opposed to the chemistry of the electrons (the periodic table), you will notice that beta decay disappears when you pass element 100. Element 100 is the last element that has any fundamental stability. Like they say in the revelation, if you go to the quietest place in the superuniverses, nothing bigger than that one, is stable. It will get broken apart by the environment. Even in the quietest of settings.
Now, in the noisiness of our local setting here, element 83 is the last one where there's a stable nucleus, a stable isotope. Beyond that, the environment is too noisy and it breaks it apart. That whole picture that I just laid out is revelatory—nonexistent in current physics understanding. But it trivially reforms the picture into something that is directly understandable.
So, I could literally go on for tens of hours with just very basic points that the revelation gives us that allows you to completely begin again and re-understand the current facts—understand them truthfully, have a true understanding of those scientific facts. It's a challenge that is daunting for most individuals who are involved in science because most of their sense of self-worth is tied to a particular rationalization scheme that they've dedicated their life to. Not unlike many so-called religionists.
It's very difficult for someone to have the “courageous and independent cosmic thinking” that would allow you to let go of that inadequate rationalization scheme and grab a hold of a new one. You will not lose any truth in the process. But you do have to let go of the false edifices that humans have constructed upon their observations and the facts at hand.
J: That's beautiful. I’d like to take us back to our the beginning a little bit. All this we’re talking about hinges on a cosmic approach and specifically on a triune approach. So we talked about a priori assumptions of science, religion, and philosophy, and specifically it says that these scientific, moral, and spiritual insights—these cosmic responses—are innate in the cosmic mind, which endows all will creatures. And then directly, specifically in paper 103, page 1141 it says, “Science (knowledge) is founded on the inherent (adjutant spirit) assumption that reason is valid, that the universe can be comprehended. Philosophy (co-ordinate comprehension) is founded on the inherent (spirit of wisdom) assumption that wisdom is valid, that the material universe can be co-ordinated with the spiritual. Religion (the truth of personal spiritual experience) is founded on the inherent (Thought Adjuster) assumption that faith is valid, that God can be known and attained.”
So what they're telling us here is that these things are innate and they are inherent. What Ann brought in earlier, this laziness of mind is right there back, on paper, 16, section 2… what this comes back to is this element of reflective thinking is that that's the key. Accessing these innate endowments is reflective thinking. And it takes time. You have to set yourself apart from the cacophony of what's going on in our culture to access these endowments.
C: Now, the more you develop a solid connection with the cosmos, the less frequently you have to actually go apart from the world. You can begin to walk within the world and not be of the world more.
A: That is so true. I did have a lot of quiet time when I was doing a lot of my business from the phone. When I went out and walked the dog, I was engaged with the neighbors. There were people talking and interacting. Too much isolation can really hurt us.
C: I try to walk in a constant state of worship—of conformity with the logic and moral and true spiritual character of the cosmos. I try not to ever let that leave me. Or me leave it.
J: I agree with all that. For most people, it does take that initial discipline.
C: Yes, it does.
A: Yes. You have to learn how to be alone without being lonely. There's the key. If you're out just to keep yourself from being lonely, you're in trouble. Pierre, thank you for calling in. Would you agree with that?
Pierre Chiconne: I have the same viewpoint. I think it's a fascinating subject. I always bring it back to being. One of the most fantastic things that you could possibly experience is the fact that you're a being. And wrapped around you is this universe that you walk through that is fantastic. So you’re really never alone. Everything that is coming in from all these conceptual realities around you really make up your life. And this life comes from all these beings who have created it and literally trillions of years of evolution to get to this point where you experience just a simple reality, just walking around. It's fantastic, really?
C: Yeah. Think about that being-ness and how that needs to be your beginning. Instead of, “I think, therefore I am,” you need to turn that around. It's, “I am, therefore I think.”
Pierre: Absolutely. The personality, the very central core, the only thing that the Father gives you that is the very essence of why you are.
A: This is incredible. I'm listening to some incredible sage voices, and I'm just blown away. Well, we leave you hopefully wanting to come back next week. It's going to be an exciting month looking forward to it. James, Chris would you like to sign us off?
J: Sure. Let's bring Jesus in. Where in Ramah he's talking to the agent Greek philosopher who was teaching that science and philosophy were sufficient to satisfy the needs of human experience [146:3.1]. Jesus said, among other things, “Where you leave off, we begin.”
C: I encourage everyone join us for the month. We'll see if we can awaken some of the greater truth of the revelation. Some of those parts of the book that you've left untouched.
A: Bye for now!
