© 1990 Ken Glasziou
© 1990 ANZURA, Australia & New Zealand Urantia Association
In an interesting letter in the May/June 6-0-6, Tony Rudd brought up the question of proof, giving an example in which he compared the racialism of Hitler and the Nazis with apparent racialism in The URANTIA Book and concluding that Hitler was on the right track in his efforts to breed a super race of Aryans along the lines of the Adamic program to promote the violet race. I was glad to see Tony’s acknowledgement that his conclusions were clearly ridiculous, but this impasse does bring up the vexing question of the precise nature of proof.
The problem is an ancient one, but perhaps more understanding has been gleaned in the last century than during the previous several thousand years. However the quite remarkable work that has accumulated is almost all couched in the obscure language of logicians, in particular mathematical logicians, and since most of us do not like their conclusions anyhow, very little of the results of their work has penetrated even into academic circles. Some of the important names in this outstanding effort are Hilbert, Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Zermelo and Fraenkel, Cantor, Godel, Shannon, and Cohen — and probably many others.
A great deal of the work by these logicians has been concerned with the development of a formalized language that is both precise and adequate for the expression of any mathematical concept. The importance of their work for science is obvious, because mathematics is the very basis of all science and much else besides. However, the results of their work have been devastating for our aspirations to attain to an absolute knowledge of the universe.
The first major crack in what appeared to be watertight sets of axioms basic to mathematics came from the work of Kurt Godel in 1930, who showed that for any consistent axiomatic theory that was adequate to describe elementary arithmetic there will always be statements that can neither be proved nor disproved from its axioms (First Incompleteness Theorem). Worse still Godel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem showed that the notion of consistency is destined to remain forever elusive.
After the initial shock, academia settled down to sweep Godel under the carpet by promoting the notion that incompleteness did not affect ‘real’ problems, and support for this view came when Cantor was able to formulate a very general mathematical framework of set theory that appeared to serve as a foundation for all mathematics. Russell put a fly in the balm by asking embarrassing questions about the set of all sets, but a new Godelian type of catastrophe did not come until 1963 when Paul Cohen did to set theory what Godel had done to the earlier axiomatic systems. No recovery has since been made from the second shock wave, and Cohen’s initial discovery has been followed by the application of his method (method of forcing) to show the undecidability of a great many classical unsolved problems of mathematics. It is now generally agreed that the illness is terminal.
Undoubtedly this exposition is boring to many, probably most, readers. However it is not necessary to digest its content other than to recognize that even the finest mathematical and logical brains among us have not been able to provide rigorous proof of even the axioms of simple arithmetic. Hence the lesson for all of us is that we are exceedingly naive about what constitutes proof, and we very much need to hone our critical faculties in regard to what we accept as fact, or the opinions we promote to others as conclusively proven facts — a point which Tony’s letter has made a compelling appeal. The URANTIA Book has provided us with much wisdom on this topic. The papers arrived at a time when our mathematicians considered that their discipline was the most rigorous of all, but Paper 103 gave scant heed to their pride by referring to ‘the approximations of mathematics’. The same Paper tells us that,
“In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved, both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the morontia level, the postulates of both science and religion are capable of partial proof by mota logic (elsewhere we are told that mota logic is beyond comprehension). On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved”. UB 103:7.10
This Paper also reminds us of our need for searching and fearless self-criticism, and a greater awareness of the incompleteness and evolutionary status of our knowledge. It also makes the comment that we are often too self-confident and dogmatic.
We might note from the above quote that both science and religion are ‘predicated on assumptions’ which, though sometimes almost infinitely less rigorous, are nevertheless kin to the axioms of mathematical logic. Behind any opinion that we put forward, there is always a set of unstated assumptions (axioms) upon which the validity of our opinion is dependent. The recognition by Tony of the ridiculousness of his 'conclusive proof that the racial policies stated by Hitler in 'Mein Kamp? were a forerunner of the truths of The URANTIA Book is perhaps due to his own appreciation that there were different sets of ‘axioms’ underlying the racial policies by Hitler and those proposed in The URANTIA Book.
The brain behind Hitler’s concept of the master race was that of his own favourite philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Here is a sample of Nietzsche’s writings: “The will for power is will for mastery, and the most important mastery is that of man over man. The will for power knows no bonds which prescribe what is permitted; for it, everything is good which springs from power and increases power; everything is bad which springs from weakness and weakens power. All the brutality of trampling down those who may be in the way, all the unfettering of the primitive beast in human nature, are the right and duty of the strong.” From this kind of assumption sprang the atrocities of the concentration camps, and the brutal extermination of millions upon millions of ‘inferior’ people. In contrast stand the assumptions behind the racial policies of Michael that will eventually herald in the age of light and life on Urantia. The philosophy behind these assumptions may be gleaned from Michael’s ordination sermon to the twelve (Paper 104), described in The URANTIA Book as ‘a master philosophy of life’. Here we may perceive a vastly different set of assumptions based not on might and power, but on service, selflessness, and love — concepts labelled by Nietzsche as weakness, hence despicable.
The URANTIA Book claims to be the Fifth Epochal Revelation. It is up to us as individuals to assess our own attitude to that claim. I, personally, accept it without reservation. However even those who do likewise must still differentiate between those parts of the book that are authoritative revelation and other parts that have been given to us to help coordinate our present endowment of knowledge, which is, of course, somewhat elementary and partial.
Much of the science component of the book is merely a coordinating statement of the status of scientific knowledge as it stood in the early 1930’s and much of the science that we find in the book has since been superceded. Some, however, is both prophetic and extraordinary. The URANTIA Book does not specifically differentiate its revelatory passages, and it is incumbent upon us, as individuals, to recognize revelatory authority when we see it. For example, when the book attributes Michael himself, the statement that our souls have not had previous existences, I cannot conceive how I can do other than accept it as revelatory knowledge. Hence I, personally, must accept it as such or else I must reject the claim of the book to be revelatory. In such an instance, proof is not involved. But though I can find a thousand or more intellectual arguments to support the revelatory claim of the book, in the final analysis, acceptance is not dependent upon that elusive entity we have termed 'proof but it is an act of faith contingent upon my personal experience of the God who is my Father, and his Son who is my Creator and my Master — and yet also my brother.
The URANTIA Book informs us that we all have the necessary gifts to lift us above and beyond the confusion of our materialistically-dominated thought processes because of certain inherent assumptions that are integrated into the human mind as gifted to us via the mind circuits of the Infinite Spirit. From the adjutant mind spirits, we humans receive the inherent knowledge that:
Again this is revelation, proof is irrelevant. Our willingness to accept these gifts and to believe them has the direct result that we live lives motivated by truth and dominated by love (UB 103:9.9). And this is the personal journey that Tony has referred to at the conclusion of his absorbing letter.
Ken Glasziou
Maleny, Queensland