© 1988 Charles E. Hansen
© 1991 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
| The Urantia Book and Religious Studies | Spring 1991 — First Issue — Index | The Urantia Book and Modern Science: Harmony or Discord? |
This article is a condensation of a chapter from a forthcoming book which will define the abbreviated references. We hope to review the book after it is published.
We frequently encounter the proposition that God runs the universe with love. This may sound good to many of us; but, in scientific terms, to suggest that love is the logical foundation of all reality would seem a bit much. In fact, love has little basis in scientific theory of any sort. Currently, love is not even the backbone of any major school of philosophy. Even in the religion of love, Christianity, love seems to frequently sit “second pew” behind issues such as “economic and social justice” or other concerns of doctrine and theology, much of which seem far removed from the simple example of love set by its founder.
The small hold that love does have seems to be bound up in our innermost subjective experiences: those with our intimate few family and friends, and our personal relationship with divinity, whatever it may be. Love is not without its private and public advocates, but in the wider scope of things, love seems to be without much foundation. One modern psychologist suggests that “love may be like a crutch, impeding the development of the new social forms so important for the development of a better and more satisfying human condition…” (SOL, p. 51) To such thinkers “love” is simply a superfluous hangover of our family and tribal evolutionary development — an emotion that must gradually diminish in importance as greater social organizations unfold. Doctors now recommend, for example, that working parents get their children into day-care before extensive bonding of love takes place-it makes “separation” less stressful.
Even in the religion of love, Christianity, love seems to frequently sit “second pew” behind issues such as “economic and social justice” or other concerns of doctrine and theology, much of which seem far removed from the simple example of love set by its founder.
This does not suggest that parents are cold-hearted, but only that they are dealing with the practicalities of modern life in a professional and scientific manner. Even in these more intimate matters we tend to follow the lead of scientific thinking much more that we usually realize. And although we all welcome the experience of love, the cold fact is that love has no demonstrated scientific or logical foundation in our civilization. As one thinker expresses it: “it would be a mad romantic [to propose that] love can be the energy of the social order” — the major influence of social, business, economic, and political organization. (ANAJ, p. 59) As another summarizes the case: “the value of love has yet to be demonstrated.” (SOL, p. 27) And without a foundation of scientific usefulness, love is, as Jesus seems to have expressed it, “the stone the builders have rejected.”
Science is the search for logical foundations, the search for consistent or unchanging principles, the search for “foundation stones,” so to speak, that underlie our life experiences. Science is, as Einstein defined it, “methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experience.” (I&O, p. 50) Since love seems to be a “sensual” experience, something we actually can discern by our senses, it would also seem that love could be scientifically studied to see if we can find in it any such“regulative connections,”consistent causes, or “logical foundations.” The key to such a scientific study of love would be to find a way of observing love as we actually experience it rather than trying to bring it into the laboratory, killing it, and dissecting it. Perhaps it could be observed in “everyday life” where it seems to occur; and perhaps would meet scientific standards, for, as Einstein observed: “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.” (I&O, p. 290)
For several years now I have been involved in such a “scientific” study of love, and I would like to share some of the findings with you. The first thing an observer notices about love in everyday life is that it is something that seems to occur between an individual and another person or object. And it can only be observed if some action takes place between the two. I am not saying that love consists only in action, but that love manifests itself only in action. This is akin to saying “Love without works is dead,” which, of course, is nothing new. But what is somewhat “new” is that the actions of love can be classified into a limited number of distinctly separate categories; there are only so many ways to love someone or something.
This means that regardless of what goes on mentally or emotionally, and there is a lot of mental and emotional processing involved in love, the actions of love occur in certain clearly definable and consistent patterns; patterns which I term love’s action elements. These action elements form the major expressive component of love termed care; and behind care with its action elements there are many other mental components and elements crucial to love: respect with its elements such as recognition and admiration; knowledge with its elements such as patience, humility and forgiveness; and responsibility with its elements such as trust and loyalty. But regardless of all of the mental elements vital to love, it all gets down to action. Actions are the only things by which we can observe the experience of love in a scientific manner.
So our first lesson in the mathematics of love begins with: “How do I love you? Let me count the ways.” And if we do count the ways, we find (so far) that there are only ten ways we can express love regardless of how much we may love someone-eleven ways if we include a zero-action element. Keep in mind that these elements can be combined or mixed in any particular instance of love.
First, we can express love by paying attention to another; this is called attentiveness.
Second, we can express love by listening. And here listening is defined as conscious assimilation of all sensory data by ears, eyes, touch, smell, or whatever. Students of Jesus will recognize that he always listened first to those he loved: “What is it that you seek?” “What is it that I should do unto you?”
Third, we can express love by thanking — something as simple as “Thank you.”
Fourth, we can express love by encouraging. Encouraging means to “spur on” or to “inspire” as when we send someone a card. Or it may take on the form of simply being present. Jesus “I will be with you always” is a form of encouraging, as is his suggestion to visit the sick, the widowed, the orphaned, and the prisoner.
Fifth, we can express love by praising — by expressions intended to commend or approve. At its highest intensities praising becomes glorification or worship.
Sixth, we can express love by comforting. Comforting traditionally means “consolation” to someone in distress; but here comforting is used in its more expanded meaning, that of “providing or increasing contentment or security”; usually by means of direct physiological contact, that is, by direct touch or by tool. This is more along the lines of the use of the term when we refer to a comfortable chair. Most touch associated with love falls in this element, including that of a sexual nature, or even that of the casual handshake. One also may “comfort” inanimate objects, as a sculptor may with clay or a musician may do with an instrument, or as any workman doing any task may do whenever a tool or a product is touched.
Seventh, we can express love by assisting. Assisting is direct energy expenditure made in alignment with another’s effort, such as “lending the helping hand” to help someone change a tire.
Eighth, we can express love by sharing. Sharing is a temporary or permanent transfer of direct or invested energy to another with some reciprocal arrangement usually implied. When you share your lawn mower with your neighbor you expect to get it back. When you share your ice-cream cone you expect the sharee might do the same with his or her ice-cream cone next time, and so on. Lending is a form of sharing, even when, as Jesus suggests, you sometimes lend expecting nothing in return. But even if you do not expect a return, sharing always allows for a reciprocal.
Ninth, we can express love by contributing. Contributing is a permanent transfer of direct or invested energy with no reciprocity intended. In fact, the ultimate contributing is performed in secret, as Jesus suggests, making reciprocity impossible. We also, of course, contribute many things to those who know where they are coming from, especially to children, with no direct, immediate reciprocity intended.
Tenth, we can express love by protecting. Protecting is the direction of action or energy so as to oppose potential or immediate threats. There are both “passive” and “active” modes of protecting; but we should keep in mind that the same individual who suggests that one “turn the other cheek” was speaking of a “smite from one’s neighbor” not a battle ax swung at one’s head; and that the same Jesus appears to have warned us to always be ready to “sell our garment and buy a sword.” Protection is a crucial action element of love, even if not always recognized as such.
Finally, we can express love toward another by not doing anything, by simply “letting them alone”. But this can be an element of love in the fullest sense.
So these are the ten action elements of love: attentiveness, listening, thanking, encouraging, praising, comforting, assisting, sharing, contributing, and protecting. Usually, several of these elements are involved in any particular “event” of love, and occasionally one deliberately “leaves someone alone” or opts for love’s zero-action element.
Without the intent-to-please, love simply does not seem to occur. But with the intent-to-please, any of the preceding action elements, even the zero-action element, falls within love’s domain. Jesus describes it perfectly with his statement: "I do always those things that please the Father.”
But even the zero-action element of love is made up of something very vital. And this something we can always sense, or discern, when love is present: it is what I term the intent-to please. Some might wish to term it goodwill, but it is actually not a general notion as goodwill is usually considered to be. It is more directly tied to our needs sturcture. The intent-to-please is a very specific assertion toward another person or object. To help clarify this, I point out that your pet dog probably does not possess a conception of goodwill toward you, yet the intent-to-please can be discerned in its actions. This example does not trivialize the intent-to-please but rather demonstrates that its existence probably extends deeper in reality than we might suspect. When incorporated into action, it occurs right at the “impulse to action” and becomes a recognizable part of it. It becomes embodied within the action itself. Without the intent-to-please, love simply does not seem to occur. But with the intent-to-please, any of the preceding action elements, even the zero-action element, falls within love’s domain. Jesus describes it perfectly with his statement: “I do always those things that please the Father.” The intent-to-please becomes loves common element. It must be there every time all the time, whether direct action is taken or not.
I stress that the pleasing aspect of the intent-to-please should not be confused with simple pleasure, any more than a parent pleases the child by offering the pleasure of perpetual icecream cones. In mathematical language, the intent-to-please is a higher order integration than pleasure or pain; that is, it includes a much greater spectrum of information. Even that which is painful, like a good athletic workout, can be pleasing. And that which is pleasurable can be far from pleasing, especially in retrospect.
Now this may all seem quite simple, and it is, but let us look at what has been accomplished. From all of the reported experiences related to love, out of all of the countless actions that humans use to express love toward one another, or toward anything, we have reduced love’s possible expressions to just ten simple categories (or eleven, counting love’s zero-action element.) In so doing, we have achieved what science first attempts to achieve when it focuses on any phenomenon. We have recognized some underlying consistencies in love’s everyday experience. And this is far from trivial, for what we now have is a format of eleven action elements, including a zeroaction element, which define love’s expression whenever and however it may occur — whether the individuals and/or objects involved are young or old, of the present era or of the ancient past; regardless of geographic location; and regardless of the language, or educational or cultural context. In any situation, the general association of these ten action elements, with the ever-necessary common element, the intent-to-please, can be recognized as love, or what I call the system of love.
True, some of these elements may take on countless different expressions and many different forms. Some may even be couched in ignorance — such as the attempts by early physicians to comfort patients by bleeding them. Nevertheless, the observed presence of the action elements of attentiveness, listening, thanking, encouraging, praising, comforting, assisting, sharing, contributing, and protecting directed from one person toward another means only one thing. It means love-so long as the intent-to-please is there also. As already mentioned, there are other mental components and elements of love which are necessary, but if science is to deal with love, it must deal primarily with observables, the simplest of which have just been summarized as love’s action elements.
Each action element of love constitutes a real energy expression, a real “energy event” that has a certain sense, a certain direction, and an amount or magnitude of energy. In mathematical terms, such an energyevent is termed a vector.
These observable action elements of love, and the discernible intent-to-please, can now be looked at from a more logical or mathematical perspective. The mathematical perspective is not so much concerned with numbers, as it is concerned with the search for “relationships of relationships,” as one mathematician (von Neumann) explains it.
Each action element of love constitutes a real energy expression, a real “energy event” that has a certain sense, a certain direction, and an amount or magnitude of energy. In mathematical terms, such an energy event is termed a vector. A whole event of love may embody many such vectors, but let us keep it simple here.
Let us first take a closer look at a vector, an “energy event” embodying sense, direction, and magnitude, and see just how accurately this mathematical language fits the action elements of love.
The sense of a vector means just what it says: you can “sense” when someone’s action is listening, or when someone’s action is thanking, or sharing, or protecting, and so on. Similarly, you can sense whether, within the very core of the action impulse, there is an “intent-to-please.” It is vital to keep in mind that any vector that may constitute love can have a sense which is clearly not of love. There can be a loving thank-you or a very spiteful thank-you; there can be a sharing out of love or sharing out of fear, assisting out of love or assisting out of fear or coercion, and so on — the same general profile of an energy event but with an entirely different “sense.”
The direction of a vector also means just what it says; you can direct the energy of any action element at yourself, for example, or toward another person or object.
The greatest relative magnitude of a vector of love is also described by Jesus; “to lay down one’s life for a friend.”
And the magnitude of a vector also means just what it says; but it is a relative energy amount, not one we can measure precisely in absolute terms. Jesus makes this clear when he observed of the widow’s last mite going into the donation box, “She has given more than all the rest.” The greatest relative magnitude of a vector of love is also described by Jesus; “to lay down one’s life for a friend.” There is no more energy that one can give, and the direction is totally aimed at another. Jesus thus defines the maximum magnitude for a vector of love’s action. Whether such a maximum vector might be one of assisting, or protecting, or some combination involving love’s other vectors, we would usually term this high magnitude of love devotion. Right beneath it would be the level of nurturing, and below that consideration, then kindness, and finally, love’s vector of least magnitude, that of courtesy. I will not elaborate on these various magnitudes, but this simply shows how all of the language fits, and stresses that love’s action elements can be observed across a wide range of magnitudes appropriate to various situations. A simple, courteous thank-you is an appropriate magnitude of love in some instances, just as a devoted sacrifice of self may be an appropriate magnitude in another instance.
By the way, if vectors and love seem a strange mix of language, keep in mind that it was Jesus who first used the concept that any mathematician will instantly recognize as the language of vectors: “Give and it will be given back to you… for with the measure you mete it shall be measured back to you again.” Jesus is speaking about the general sense, direction, and magnitude of love’s “energy events.”
When we mention science or mathematics, however, we do not normally think of Jesus, but of someone like Albert Einstein, generally considered the greatest scientist of our times. Einstein set in place an entirely new framework by which observation of the universe — and everything within it — can be conducted. We usually term this framework Relativity Theory. Unfortunately, his framework has been somewhat misunderstood by most of us. His essential Principle of Relativity is not even close to what cultural or moral relativism has come to mean — the justification of various opinions and diverse perspectives. Einstein used the term relativity to mean “Seek and you will find”, not “Just look and you will see.” For Einstein, relativity described the search for, and validation of, the invariants, the constants, the things that do not change, the things that are “absolute and reliable despite the apparent confusions, illusions and contradictions” that occur with changes in, or diversity of, perspective. (EU, p. 2) His was the search for the basic principles whose objectivity can be demonstrated regardless of the perspective or viewpoint of the observer.
It would be helpful to note here that Quantum Theory is sometimes cited as a rebuttal of Einstein’s basic framework of relativity, but this is not so. Although the two theories do not merge perfectly, the fact is that Einstein helped lay the foundation of Quantum Theory, and it is an error to suggest that he rejected it. He was, however, critical of it. His fundamental argument with Quantum Theory was that its probabilistic nature, its foundation of chance, could not be the ultimate logical foundation of reality. Thus his famous statement: “God does not play dice with the Universe.”
Einstein’s kind of thinking is so profound that, as one fellow scientist observed as early as 1936, “In him philosophy, logic, theology, physics, and mathematics become reunited.” (IQOM, p. 33) Einstein held that consistent principles that do not change must underlie the whole of reality and must be objectively describable… preferably in the language of mathematics.
By finding that love manifests in terms of a consistent, objectively describable set of action elements that can further be defined as vectors, we have taken the first step in finding something about love that does not seem to change even as our perspective changes. We have taken a small step along Einstein’s route. Thanking will always appear locally as something unique, but any observer should have little trouble defining it as a thanking vector regardless of the perspective of culture, time, or situation. With its intent-to-please, no one could misinterpret a thank-you of love for a vicious thank-you whose intent was to harm. So a thanking vector, just like a praising vector, a comforting vector, an assisting vector, or a sharing vector, has its unique consistent language of sense, direction, and magnitude regardless of the perspective of the observer or the particular context of the event. This unique, consistent, underlying language of vectors is the most universal of all language, that of mathematics — the ultimate language of science.
Anything that demonstrates consistency, or an unchanging nature irrespective of the viewpoint, is said, in mathematical terms, to possess symmetry. The great breakthrough of Einstein was to realize that the laws of nature, specifically the laws of physics, had to be symmetrical for the known universe; they had to be experienced everywhere the same, unchanging and equally applicable. Since Einstein’s demonstration of symmetry at the foundation of physics, modern physicists have found over and over again that symmetry holds the keys to the laws and operation of the universe. Modern physics has become essentially a search for ever greater symmetry, ultimately expected to be found in one fundamental principle, much as Einstein predicted, a principle that is unchanging, invariant, and constant under all circumstances regardless of the perspective of the observer. Einstein held that such a principle would extend far beyond the realm of physics to include all of life — including intelligence and human personality.
Coincident with Einstein’s Relativity Theory and the search for such symmetry, a new branch of mathematics has evolved and has proven to be specifically geared for defining the presence of symmetry in complex phenomena. This mathematics is called the Theory of Groups. Sounds simple enough, but as one mathematician described it, it is “a super mathematics in which the operations are as unknown as the quantities they operate on and [in which] a super-mathematician does not know what he is doing when he performs these operations.” (TTOG, p. 1559) Fortuneately this can also be stated in plain English: it enables one to take a collection of vectors that seem to operate as a system, like the “system of love,” and test it for invariance under all possible transformations, that is, for all possible manifestations or conditions and from all possible perspectives. If the action elements of love with their common element can pass this test, if they possess the “group” property, then we are no longer talking about simple consistency of these elements among various cultures, timespans, and contexts; we are reaching far deeper into some type of fundamental symmetry that emerges from the very nature of whatever love is. And this would mean that love is not simply a subjective experience, but is profoundly, objectively real.
Modern physics has become essentially a search for ever greater symmetry, ultimately expected to be found in one fundamental principle. . Einstein held that such a principle would extend far beyond the realm of physics to include all of life- including intelligence and human personality.
How does love perform under this test of relativity, the test of group theory?
The first test of a group is to see if its elements, when combined or mixed, stay within the group. If we combine or mix the vectors of love, such as thanking and listening, for example, or if we combine attentiveness and protecting, or assisting and contributing, or any other of these action vectors, can we stay within the domain of love or do we generate something else, something outside of love? The answer is that any combination, or mix of the action elements, or vectors of love, remains within the group defined as love. This holds for even its zero-action element, which is also a vector — it has love’s sense and direction, but with zero-magnitude.
The second test of a group is a little more complex: We must see if the rule of combination of elements is associative. This means: If you send someone a gift (contributing) with a thank-you note (thanking) and then have them over for dinner (sharing), is the result different than if you change the manner of combination slightly by sending them a gift, then inviting them over to your home, then thanking them, and then having them for dinner? The answer is no. There is no essential difference: the message stays the same as you combine one element with any combination of other elements. Love’s vectors can be arranged in any combinations, without changing the love content itself.
The third test for a group is to see if the system of love contains an identical member or common element such that, if it is combined with listening, let us say, then the result remains that of listening, or, when combined with assisting, the result is still assisting. The intent-to-please is just such an identical member. It also might be considered the zero-action (zero-magnitude) vector and its embodiment does not change the essence of an action vector. It also works either way; you can combine the intent-to-please with thanking or combine thanking with the intent-to-please. In each case it makes no difference. No matter how you add the intent-to-please, like yeast in bread, it permeates the whole “energy event.”
The fourth and final test for a group is to see if there exists a reciprocal for each of the elements such that, when combined with the element itself, the result is the identical member, or the common element. As the system of love necessarily includes both a subject and object, this would mean that if you gave someone a book for Christmas, an act of contributing, and if they just happened to give you a copy of the exact same book, a perfect reciprocal, then while the vectors of contributing exactly canceled each other in terms of energy, the intentto-please survives and is experienced in perfect condition. There is no vector of love that does not have such a possible reciprocal and from whose combination the intent-to-please does not survive unscathed.
What all this means is that love seems to satisfy the mathematical or logical conditions of group theory, and it therefore must possess an inner symmetry: love remains invariant, unchanging under all conditions and from all perspectivesregardless of place, time, culture, language, age of those involved, or context of the immediate situation. And even more revealing, its most unchanging element is its common element, the intent-to-please. However we express love in any particular event, and in any of its manifestations, whether listening, thanking, sharing, protecting, or any combination of these or love’s other action elements, the intent-to-please remains completely invariant — much as Jesus suggested with his statement, “I do always the things that please…”
Actually, this means much more than simply finding symmetry, something that does not change regardless of how we look at it. Why is symmetry so important to an Einstein or to any modern mathematician or physicist? It is not because symmetry always seems simple, elegant, or even beautiful, as well as unchanging. Science has different interests. “Science is swayed only by efficient causes”, the American philosopher and scientist Charles S. Peirce has reminded us. Science is interested in what works, and in what works with the least energy expenditure-efficiency. So here we find the reason scientists pursue symmetry; that which is inherently symmetrical is inherently efficient. Symmetry and efficiency are somehow related in the universe. The sphere, or globe, for example, is symmetrical from any perspective and is perfectly invariant in relation to its center. It is also the most efficient use of energy-matter to provide the minimum surface area and/or the maximum volume.
So, by finding an inherent symmetry within the system of love and by demonstrating this symmetry in the mathematical language of group theory, something most significant has been accomplished. We have crossed over the line of looking at love as something that is just simple, elegant, even beautiful. We have crossed over into the world of science itself, the world of efficiency. As another well known mathematician observed, “…if and whenever you ascertain the group of all the transformations that leave invariant some specified object or objects of thought, you thereby define perfectly some actual (or potential) branch of science…" (TGC, p. 1546) We have just defined such a group of all possible transformations consisting of the action elements of love with its common always unchanging element, the intent-to-please. Indeed, we have defined the New Science of Love.
The language of love, then, is not only that of looking and feeling nice, it is the language of the “easier yoke and the lighter burden”-across the board of purposeful human activity, precisely as suggested by Jesus.
Will this change things? I believe it will. If we were just demonstrating that love looked and felt nice, it would be of little significance. But we have done more than that. This “new science” means that love’s inherent symmetry is most probably linked to the paths of highest efficiency for needsfilling human action. The language of love, then, is not only that of looking and feeling nice, it is the language of the “easier yoke and the lighter burden” — across the board of purposeful human activity, precisely as suggested by Jesus.
Indeed, this should change things, for it constitutes a scientific basis for all the human and social sciences. The group of love’s vectors provides a format which should demonstrate the most efficient profile of any interaction of information and exchange of energy in all of its forms among humans. There is no other known invariant principle that can presently demonstrate such symmetry, with its implied efficiency, for the full range of purposeful human action-across time, place, culture and situation. I add here that from this work it has been possible to soundly demonstrate the actual linkage between efficiency and love in measurable, needs-filling human activity, which I cannot go into here in any depth. But I will say that if you study the Japanese, you will see the emergent results of love’s symmetry reflected in the raw efficiency of their entire social order-their psychology, their sociology, their business, their economics, their justice, and even their government. I do not mean to suggest that the Japanese are perfect, but the embodiment of love’s elements in their entire culture-simply loving one another-is such that it now puts any other society on this planet almost to shame. And with love’s gentle efficiency, they are busily inheriting the Earth, much as Jesus predicted.
Nevertheless, when all the logic and evidence is weighed, it means that the system of love, actually a group in mathematical terms, defines a unique logical foundation for all of the human and social sciences, psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, all of which, unless they can find a fundamental principle of symmetry and efficiency of their own, must eventually bow to the symmetry and inherent efficiency of love. For humans will ultimately take the easier way, the most consistent, simplest, and most efficient path in everything they do,in all of their “energy events.” And the logical foundation of moral philosophy must bow to the same path. So the long sought for objective basis of morality appears to be found here also, exactly as suggested by Jesus.
And there is more. For ages now, humanity has searched for a principle that might unite both the natural and human sciences, as well as philosophy and religion. Following Einstein’s lead, such a principle would have to reflect the ultimate symmetry and efficiency. In this quest, we sometimes like to separate human experience from the rest of reality, to search for principles that apply to science but not to humans, or to humans but not science. Actually, Einstein with his “unprecedented universality” finally ruined this game whether we recognize it yet or not. There is only one reality according to Einstein, much as Jesus seems to have observed, one continuum, alpha to omega. This means that the energy events of human action, the vectors of love, for instance, fall within reality, not outside of it. So what we have encountered is a group composed of real vectors, not imaginary ones, and this means that love is a manifestation of an invariant that must penetrate all of reality. At the core of love’s symmetry, then, resides its unchanging common element, the invariant intent-to-please, which must penetrate all of reality as we experience it.
Now it is the nature of the intent-to-please to be only persuasive; there is no coercion possible in this invariant. Its pure attraction could be said to include an absolute persuasion toward efficiency. It was Einstein who revealed that gravity, whose law sets the general conditions “which regulate physical phenomena” of the energy-related or natural sciences (Whitehead), is actually not a force at all, but is more of a persuasion toward paths of highest efficiency. So here, we encounter the first merging of a principle that offers to unite hard science with the invariant we have just defined. In fact, just such a principle was proposed almost a century ago by a man who is increasingly recognized as one of America’s greatest thinkers, Charles Peirce. A scientist, philosopher, and mathematician, he termed the merging principle of all science, philosophy, and religion, evolutionary love. Although too ill to complete his writings, in an apparent reference to this integration, he stated that his proof would be “surprisingly simple”, that it would change our understanding of Natural Laws and “free will”, and that it would change certain matters of religious faith into logical conviction. Unfortunately, he left us before demonstrating his philosophy in rigorous logic. But it seems that the merging of all science, philosophy, and religion cannot be far from this. Love, with its absolute persuasion toward efficiency, demonstrates an objective basis with which gravity, as well as all human needs-fulfilling experiences, including values, morality, and aesthetics, seem to align. And while it does not define God, of course, or prove that He exists, it can be said to reflect a most friendly, if not loving nature, penetrating all of reality. Indeed, it seems Reality does intend to please with an invariant as constant as the speed of light and as pervasive as gravity. Perhaps Einstein’s great intuition foretold this solution when he stated; “There is only one important question for scientists, namely, Is the universe friendly?” (John Kiley, NR, Apr. 24 87, p. 39, Poem YES)
As Alfred North Whitehead observed in 1925: “We are entering upon an age of reconstruction in religion, in science, and in political thought. Such ages, if they are to avoid mere ignorant oscillation between extremes must seek truth in its ultimate depths. There can be no vision of this depth of truth apart from a philosophy which takes full account of those ultimate abstractions whose interconnections it is the business of mathematics to explore.” (S&MW, p. 39)
Accordingly, the mathematics of love sets the logical foundation in place by which construction of a new age may begin. Love, of course, cannot be understood as simply a matter of mathematics, of vectors. It is understandable only in terms of the whole personality — from which the vectors of attentiveness, listening, thanking, encouraging and the rest emanate. The wholeness of love must find its understanding in the role model of personalities who love. And unbeknownst to many of us, Einstein himself referred to Jesus and his teachings as the ultimate model for humans to follow. (TWAISI, p. 111) America’s greatest scientific philosophers, Charles Peirce and Alfred North Whitehead, reached the same conclusion. (ITPOCSP, p. 462) It has long been recognized that religions tend to center on the loving, role model personality of their founders. By adding the scientific foundation to what these personalities have demonstrated, we only clarify their essence. But this also means that from the perspective of science, philosophy, and religion, the stone the builders have rejected is soon due to be recognized as the cornerstone, assisted by a language which the builders cannot ignore: the universal language of science — mathematics, the mathematics of love.
The author notes that the invariant defined by the Mathematics of Love appears to be that specifically defined on UB 12:7.1 of The Urantia Book: “There is operative throughout all time and space and with regard to all reality of whatever nature an inexorable and impersonal law [invariant principle] which is equivalent to the function of a cosmic providence.”
Copyright © 1988, Charles E. Hansen. All rights reserved.
Charles Hansen is an economist and businessman with a special interest in human performance, productivity, creativity, and innovation. In addition to publishing various papers in these areas, he is completing a book entitled The Technology of Love.
| The Urantia Book and Religious Studies | Spring 1991 — First Issue — Index | The Urantia Book and Modern Science: Harmony or Discord? |