|
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:
1.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.
2. 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.
3. 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." [101:5.8] 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." [1:2.5] They also say, "In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions." [103:7.2]
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." [169:4.3]
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." [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.
|
|
