Faint
Well-Known Member
If you don't know what this is, the Urantia Book is "a spiritual and philosophical tome that discusses God, science, religion, history, and destiny". There is of course a religion based on it (which seems unavoidable considering the popularity ofother, Tom Cruise-supported works by science fiction writers and alien-based movies such as "E.T.", "Star Wars", and "Star Trek").
Anyway, I haven't seen much talk of this book on RF, so I thought I'd start a thread to debate it's validity...although it's highly likely I'll be talking to myself on this.
In Paper 101, "The Real Nature of Religion," it is written:
"We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired."
It makes no sense that celestial beings could inspire a human to write truthfully about historic facts and supernatural (religious) truths but they could not manage to convey the relatively simple scientific truths that were discovered only a few years later by modern researchers. This passage is clearly the authors attempt at a disclaimer it is as if to say if its later discovered that I dont know what Im talking about, well then, its trueI dont know what Im talking aboutand therefore I do know what Im talking about. Clever, but transparent. Its similar to the common liars ruse in which, when pressed on his lie the liar will admit to some, seemingly insignificant fallacy sacrificing a little face so that the rest of his story is hopefully believed.
More criticisms of the science in the book (source: wikipedia)
Anyway, I haven't seen much talk of this book on RF, so I thought I'd start a thread to debate it's validity...although it's highly likely I'll be talking to myself on this.
In Paper 101, "The Real Nature of Religion," it is written:
"We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired."
It makes no sense that celestial beings could inspire a human to write truthfully about historic facts and supernatural (religious) truths but they could not manage to convey the relatively simple scientific truths that were discovered only a few years later by modern researchers. This passage is clearly the authors attempt at a disclaimer it is as if to say if its later discovered that I dont know what Im talking about, well then, its trueI dont know what Im talking aboutand therefore I do know what Im talking about. Clever, but transparent. Its similar to the common liars ruse in which, when pressed on his lie the liar will admit to some, seemingly insignificant fallacy sacrificing a little face so that the rest of his story is hopefully believed.
More criticisms of the science in the book (source: wikipedia)
- The formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis. Though popular in the early part of the 20th century, by the early 1940s it was discarded by Henry Russell's argument that it was incompatible with the angular momentum of planets such as Jupiter. The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.
- A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.
- Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species. The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries but was short-lived and is not now supported.
- According to The Urantia Book, colored human races originated suddenly in one generation and in one family, producing brothers and sisters that variously turned blue, yellow, red, green, orange, and indigo when exposed to sunlight. Their offspring favored the parent color subsequently. Later, Adam and Eve produced a violet race. In the book's account, the superior races were violet, blue, yellow, and red, and the other three were inferior. The green and orange races were driven to extinction, and the rest mixed over time. Modern evolutionary theory does not support the account. (Although Rainbow Bright cartoons do!Faint)
- The book repeats the idea prevalent at the time of its origin that one side of the planet Mercury always faces the sun due to tidal locking. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered that Mercury actually rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun. (celestial beings should have easily been able to figure out whether or not Mercury rotates being in outer space and all.Faint)
- The book says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April of 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806. (You can google these dates if you care.Faint)
- The book can be interpreted as saying that sunlight is "highly heated and agitated electrons." Solar radiation consists of photons, however, not electrons. [It is] odd that the term "photon" is not used in the book. It was coined in 1926.
