|
particularly in its spiritual cosmology, from all traditional religious positions. Gardner again fails to discuss the spiritual truths presented by The Urantia Book with which he may disagree.
The Faulty Generalization Fallacy. Gardner cites the absurd dietary beliefs and practices of Dr. John Kellogg, Vern Grimsley's deceptive pronouncements, the strange visions of Joe Pope, and the controversial beliefs of the channeling movement, and implies that these reflect the content of Urantia Book teachings--for there are none!
The Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy. Gardner analyzes and uses the scientific errors in The Urantia Book to depreciate its value even though the authors clearly state that the science and cosmology of the book are not inspired and will soon need to be updated. He also notes that human sources were used, which he labels as plagiarism, and thereby implies that the spiritual quality of the book is equally erroneous and human.
As we mentioned earlier, the authors of The Urantia Book clearly state that they have used human sources and why they are using them. The use of these human sources is often handled in such a way as to arrive at a position differing from that of the human author. To accuse the superhuman authors of plagiarism is a bit far fetched, as they are not concealing the use of human sources and they deliberately avoided reference to specific human personalities--they do not want any St. Peter or St. Paul connected with the Fifth Epochal Revelation. This, in my judgment, is certainly a wise decision. There is very little in The Urantia Book which would support Urantia Book fundamentalism! Nonetheless, revelation always gives rise to fundamentalists.
Ad Hominem Fallacy. Since Gardner is apparently not interested in grappling with the spiritual content of Urantia Book teachings, he attacks the activities of people he assumes are associated with its origin or who are Urantia Book readers: Seventh-day Adventists, the atypical people in the Urantia movement, as well as Dr. Sadler. He quotes Harry Loose (so far as I know, no one in the Urantia movement has ever heard of him except Harold Sherman) as saying, "The truth is that Sadler is mentally unsound. A paranoid with a religeo-power complex--feverishly grasping for greater just-ification for greater jurisdiction of the mentalities of the many." (Gardner's p.149) "Sherman was convinced," Gardner writes, "that after Lena died Sadler became paranoid, his mind 'perverse and deranged.' Both he and his son Bill, Sherman wrote, 'will lie and frame anybody and [do] anything to accomplish their purposes.'" (p. 150). Gardner's personal opinion is a little more reserved, "Although I do not question Sadler's honesty and sincerity, I am convinced that he fell victim in his declining years to delusions of self-importance and grandeur of the sort that occasionally descend on the elderly." (p. 403)
Anyone who knew Dr. Sadler will recognize that these statements are ridiculous. Dr. Sadler was an exceptionally well balanced, rational individual. He did not express his opinion about an issue unless asked. He deliberately removed himself from leadership responsibilities in the Urantia Foundation and the Urantia Brotherhood and did not try to influence their decisions. He did everything he could to prevent his name from being associated with The Urantia Book. I was amazed at his ability to remove himself from leadership influence and allow younger people to assume responsibility without his interference. He was also a very competent leader and I assume he could be autocratic with anyone who wanted to alter the content of The Urantia Book. Christy (Emma Christiansen, a member of the contact commission that received the Urantia Papers) told me that Harold Sherman wanted to enter material on extrasensory perception in the book and was categorically refused.
Even though I think that Martin Gardner's book contains many things which I think are erroneous and his evaluations with which I disagree, it is the first extensively researched public record of events surrounding the origin of The Urantia Book written by a person who is a skilled debunker and does everything possible to undermine credibility in its teachings. It is important in an open society to have such criticism available, and it helps prevent a cult mentality in the Urantia movement. The high spiritual quality of the Fifth Epochal Revelation will survive such attacks much as the spiritual truths of the Fourth Epochal Revelation survived the persecutions of the early Christian community.
A critical approach to The Urantia Book
We should encourage a critical approach to The Urantia Book. Since it purports to be the Fifth Epochal Revelation authored by supermortal personalities, it is important to have a clear understanding of the philosophical criteria of truth necessary in evaluating such claim. First of all, claim or authority is not a philosophical criterion of truth. Secondly, knowing the origin and authorship of a book may give some insights, but it is not a philosophical criterion of truth. Whether supermortals or human beings wrote the book, it must be evaluated by the quality of its content, not by what it claims, or who may have written it.
The central objective in evaluating The Urantia Book is to assess the quality of its spiritual truth and insight. This must be done by individuals using their total capacity to evaluate its philosophic coherence and experiential spiritual relevance. Is the spiritual quality and are the insights of the book inferior to, equal with, or superior to our traditional sources of spiritual truth? During this period of testing, a consensus will gradually evolve regarding its quality. If the general opinion is negative, the book will fade away into obscurity. If the consensus is
|
|
