© 2005 Dick Bain
© 2005 The Brotherhood of Man Library
If we were showing The Urantia Book to someone for the first time, could we convince that person that the major concepts are logical and believable? Why do some people believe something like The Urantia Book, and others reject it? Does logic dictate what we believe? Why is one person a skeptic and another a fundamentalist?
¶ Total acceptance vs. skepticism
I observe that people have differing levels of tolerance for uncertainty. Those with the least tolerance wish to have a source of truth they feel is complete and infallible. This characteristic may lead such folks to seek a guru or join a community of like-minded people. The in-group mentality may then strongly reinforce the person’s belief in the holy book, religion, or “ism” embraced by the group. And then there are those at the other end of the spectrum.
Some people seem to be natural born skeptics; they take nothing for granted, and nothing is exempt from questioning. They are often quite well educated; many of those who labor in the fields of science and engineering fall in this category. These are the sorts of persons the authors of The Urantia Book had in mind when they said, “If such a metamorphosis could not be seen, a scientist would be inclined to deny the possibility of developing a butterfly out of a caterpillar.” [UB 42:9.4] These persons may feel that all religion is a product of culture and has no basis in reality, or like Karl Marx they may feel that religion is “the opiate of the masses.” Fortunately, most of us fall somewhere between the two extremes of total gullibility and total skepticism. Many of us can believe without giving up our ability to question and we generally retain the flexibility to examine our beliefs as we mature and adjust them if we find a better alternative. In addition to our need to believe and our critical thinking abilities, we also bring both our culture and our inherited tendencies to our study of The Urantia Book, and these help determine whether or not we will believe the concepts presented in the book.
¶ Influences on Beliefs
What we believe is strongly influenced by who we are, and who we are is shaped by both heredity and environment. A few researchers have decided that we are apparently born with the need to believe in a transcendent being such as God. [1] According to the authors of The Urantia Book, we are also born with a need for a meaningful structure: “If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates.” [UB 115:1.1] We are also born with a need for social acceptance. The nurture side of the equation is just as powerful in shaping us as is the nature side. Our initial impression of the world comes from our relationship with our parents. Later on, friends, authority figures, and others share their culture with us and we are indelibly marked by these influences. But these aren’t the only influences.
The authors of The Urantia Book tell us that the Spirit of Truth works in our minds to help us discern spiritual truth. If we all have this marvelous helper working within us, why don’t we all believe the book? Is the problem with us, or the book? I think that there are a number of reasons that some people reject the book. One obvious reason is the bundle of preconceived notions and beliefs we bring to our study of it. If we are Christians, we might reject anything that disagrees with any part of the Bible or Christian theology. At the other extreme, we might reject the book because it seems too Christian. I recall showing The Urantia Book to a minister and theology professor who had left his mainline Christian church to join a Unity church after he retired. He said that he didn’t want to read the book because he had long ago rejected some Christian theology and didn’t want to revisit that decision. Others might be frightened by the size or content of the book. These are people who may also be frightened when someone starts talking about the vastness of the universe; they are frightened by the immensity of it all. But are there some logical reasons not to believe the book?
Let’s be honest. Some of the ideas in The Urantia Book seem rather strange when we are first exposed to them. Some have said that it’s a bit hard to swallow the idea of fandors, or people having invisible children, or all the colored races originating in one family, or the complex spiritual administration in charge of the universe. A person once told me that he couldn’t believe that heaven was so organized; he apparently believed that God did all the work himself. Other people may be put off by some inaccuracies in the science concepts in the book. The authors addressed this problem: “Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.” [UB 101:4.1]
¶ Belief and Logic
The authors of The Urantia Book tell us that belief is more a function of mind than of spirit. When we believe The Urantia Book, we decide to accept its concepts and historical presentations as true. But belief isn’t the same as logic. We tend to believe that which we find logical, but not everything we believe is necessarily logical. In fact, beliefs may totally fly in the face of logic. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, but that they aren’t amenable to logical analysis. This doesn’t mean that we have to abandon logic; it is a powerful tool. Shouldn’t logic support our beliefs whenever possible?
Beliefs, like birds, come in many varieties. But not all beliefs can be analyzed with logic. I would categorize beliefs and their relation to logic as follows:
- Irrational beliefs: If you believe that you have a horn growing out of the middle of your forehead, and you obviously don’t, most people would say that belief is irrational and illogical. No amount of logic will convince people that you actually have a horn growing out of your forehead. You probably need some time on a psychiatrist’s couch.
- Non-rational beliefs: If I say, “I have experienced God in my inner life,” this is not a statement that can be analyzed with logic to determine its truthfulness or lack thereof. This is true of most subjective experiences.
- Rational beliefs: These beliefs can be supported by logic. If I say that I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe, we can apply logic and discuss the reasons we there might or might not be intelligent life elsewhere. I can point out, as I do later in this article, that there seem to be planets around most stars, and that life has been found in many difficult environments, and therefore life elsewhere in the universe seems very likely.
But even a belief that can be supported with logic can be a minefield for discussion.
Belief is such a personal thing, so colored by our histories and personalities; beliefs often evoke strong emotions. If I attack your belief, I may be attacking something you learned at your mother’s knee, and by implication attacking your mother. Perhaps asking if The Urantia Book is believable isn’t the best question to ask. Maybe it would be better to ask questions that engage the logical parts of our minds: Do reasonable, normal people find The Urantia Book credible and logical? But before we can discuss the credibility of The Urantia Book, there is a preliminary matter we need to settle.
¶ Premises Needed for Debate
When philosophers sit down to debate, there are some premises called a priori concepts or first principles that all must agree upon. These first principles are accepted without debate to provide a starting point for discussion. As the authors of the Urantia Papers express it, “Both science and religion start out with the assumption of certain generally accepted bases for logical deductions.” [UB 101:5.5] The existence of God is a first principle on which we need to agree. The authors state, “The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction.” [UB 1:2.7] They also say, “In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions.” [UB 103:7.10]
I suggest that the precepts with which we need to agree to begin a discussion about The Urantia Book are these: first, the existence of God; second, a God who is a personal being with whom we can have a personal relationship; and third, a God who is also the ground of all being, as theologian Paul Tillich defined God. Note that the existence and goodness of God was always assumed in Jesus teachings. “He never asked men to believe in his Father; he took it for granted they did.” [UB 169:4.2]
As the authors of The Urantia Book tell us, “How can the finite mind of man achieve a logical, true, and corresponding unity of thought? This universe-knowing state of mind can be had only by conceiving that the quantitative fact and the qualitative value have a common causation in the Paradise Father.” [UB 133:5.8] If we do not accept these fundamental ideas, then there is hardly any basis for discussion. If we do, then we can debate the reasonableness of some ideas and concepts in The Urantia Book.
¶ The Logic of Some Major Concepts in The Urantia Book
If God is a personal being with whom we can have a relationship, then what sort of relationship is it? The authors of The Urantia Book and most of us I think would agree that love is the most meaningful and profound of relationships between two persons. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that God’s greatest aspect is love, and that as Jesus portrayed him, God loves us as would a father love his children. And because God is at the highest level of reality and we are at the lowest level, is it not logical that God would find a way to bridge that gap? Of course, we do have the ministry of the descending sons and children of the Infinite Spirit, but God chooses to minister to us directly. He has the ultimate way to bridge that gap; he has sent a very part of himself to dwell in us, to be with us as we struggle with life’s challenges, and if we will accept it, to guide us, even finally into the presence of God himself. He has sent us himself as a Thought Adjuster. Therefore, I find the existence and ministry of Thought Adjusters both reasonable and logical. But what of all the other types of spiritual beings and all those different levels? Is all that logical?
How is it that “Heaven” can be so organized with all sorts of beings and so many levels of progress for us? If God does not personally do everything that gets done in the universe, then obviously someone else has to do it. I like to think of God as the ultimate executive; he delegates both as much responsibility and as much authority as he is able to others. And at each level of the spiritual universe of beings, this is the ideal pattern for keeping the whole enterprise moving in the direction of God’s ultimate vision for the universe. If there were only one inhabited planet as most people used to believe, then things could be much simpler. But now that over 120 planets have been discovered orbiting other stars, it is evident that many, perhaps even the majority of stars have a planet in orbit around them. With at least 200 billion stars in our galaxy, it is hard to believe that ours is the only planet with intelligent life. In fact, I think that it is the ultimate of geocentric arrogance to believe that this vast universe was created just to support one small, inhabited planet out on the edge of a great galaxy, which is only one of perhaps 100 billion other galaxies. It seems logical to me that not just the earth but also the entire universe is intended by God to be occupied; otherwise, why make it so expansive? If there are as many inhabited planets as the authors tell us there are, then there is needed a vast organization with numerous types of spirit workers to oversee this huge enterprise. There are a lot of beings to be kept track of, guided, and educated, not just in their material existence, but also in the rest of their universe career. So to me, all those personalities and levels of progress make sense. But progress in the next life implies that there is a next life. Is the idea of personality survival reasonable and logical?
The authors of The Urantia Book inform us, “Nature does not afford ground for logical belief in human-personality survival.” [UB 101:2.9] Is survival of some aspect of ourselves a reasonable idea? Many cultures have a concept similar to that of a soul, and many have a concept of survival beyond this life. As the authors tell us, this is not something for which anyone can offer any sort of reliable proof. But is it illogical? As I observe our lives, it seems to me that most of us are an unfinished product when we leave here. This earthly experience seems to be a preparation for another step forward on another level. Another thought I’ve had is that if we accept the reality of a personal, loving God, then he would want to have his spirit children continue progressing until they have achieved their potential. Furthermore, it seems unfair to many people that lives are shortened by disease, accident or war—especially the lives of children. Then in the spirit of fairness and justice, it seems reasonable and logical to me that there is a next life where we can continue our progress and make up for opportunities lost in this life.
The Urantia Book has a great deal to say about our path of progression in the next phase of our eternal life, the morontia career. The authors speak of a great many levels through which we progress on our journey to Paradise. This idea of incremental progress does not seem to be a part of orthodox Christian theology. The traditional idea is that we die and either go to Heaven or Hell. If we make it to Heaven, we are instantly made perfect, regardless of our status at the time we made our transition. But consider: That is nothing like the lives we lead here. We progress in steps from one grade to the next higher one in school, or we progress from apprentice to skilled worker to master craftsperson in our work. We do not expect a first grader to solve complex trigonometric problems, nor do we expect a beginner to perform at the level of an athlete with years of training. It seems logical for us to have the chance to progress at a measured pace, to learn to walk before we are required to fly. Another reason I can see for the intervening morontia life is the comfort factor.
When we awake on the mansion worlds, we will have a body and mind that are far advanced from the ones we have here, but they will retain some familiar features. For instance, we will still eat food and communicate with speech. Since we retain some idea of who we were and what we were, it seems like a good idea to make our transition to the next life somewhat familiar. That way, we will find similarity to our previous lives and have a less traumatic experience. It seems to me that this scheme of small transitions from one level to another reflects divine wisdom and is both reasonable and logical.
¶ Dealing With Problematic Details
There are a great number of other areas that could be examined for reasonableness and logic, but hopefully the examples given are adequate to suggest that the major ideas in The Urantia Book are both reasonable and logical if we accept the existence of a loving, personal God. And because the major concepts in the book are logical and reasonable, many open-minded people will find much of the book believable. Of course we need to be honest with those to whom we introduce the book. There are things in The Urantia Book that appeared to be correct at the time the papers were printed but have since been discovered to be outdated or erroneous, particularly in the area of science.
When we introduce people to The Urantia Book, we need to avoid setting up unrealistic expectations. If we lead folks to expect a revelation that is perfect in all respects, we may set them up to reject the book and set ourselves up for disappointment. But we can certainly promote the major concepts in the book as reasonable and logical. Problems with some details of the book do not invalidate its great spiritual insights or its potential to uplift the spiritual status of our lives and that of our world. And after all, neither our eternal destiny nor our faith relationship with our spirit Father hinge upon total belief in a book or having absolute truth.
Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. [UB 101:1.1]
All quotes are from The Urantia Book except as noted. The numbers in brackets represent [Paper:Section.Paragraph]
¶ External links
- Article in Innerface International: https://urantia-book.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol12_3/page14.html
¶ Notes
Hamer, Dean, “The God Gene: How faith is Hardwired into Our Genes,” ( Doubleday) ↩︎