|
All Our Cosmologies Are Erroneous!!
Meaning of "cosmology"
What is the real meaning of the word "cosmology?" Currently it is used almost exclusively as relating to the physics and astronomy of the universe. But this exclusivity is quite recent. The "Oxford Companion to Philosophy1" of 1995 describes cosmology in these terms, "Traditionally a branch of metaphysics dealing with features of the world as a whole, though the term can be used synonymously with speculative philosophy in its widest sense."
The meaning of cosmology was widely known in the early part of this century in its relation to the theistic arguments of Thomas Aquinas that became known as the "cosmological argument." Many believed that this argument constituted a complete proof of the existence of God. Put crudely, the argument followed the line that everything must have a cause, hence giving rise to an infinite regression that could only terminate with something that is uncaused. This something is "First Cause" or "Uncaused Cause" or alternatively, "God."
The truth of the "cosmological argument" was embraced by many well known philosophers and theologians including even Bertrand Russel in his early career. It is the subject of a recent book, "The Cosmological Argument" by William Rowe2. "Cosmology" is derived from the Greek word kosmos, to which Hartrampf's Vocabularies of 1929 gave the meaning as "harmony," while The Concise Oxford Dictionary (revised edition of 1929) gave it as the "sum total of experience."
When the Urantia Papers were received in 1934/5, the general usage of "cosmology" in the English-speaking world would appear to have been reasonably described by the phrase, "the sum total of experience including experience of the universe as a whole." The revelators use the term "universe frame" in this same sense.
"Universe frame" equals "cosmology"
"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. 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. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree." (1260)
When does our intellect cease to evolve and become complete? Since a Divine Counselor who has many times been in the presence of the Universal Father freely states, "we do not know," (87, 104, 107, etc.), the answer to that question must be "never." Logically, it follows that the universe frame in which each of us thinks will always be erroneous to a greater or lesser degree. This conclusion must apply to all created beings, a statement confirmed in the Papers in a different context where we are informed that infallibility is possessed only by those of creator status. (1768)
Universe frames and cosmologies are always erroneous
None of the revelators were of creator status. Hence, just as our cosmology must always be a part of the "universe frame" in which we think, so must the cosmology of the authors of the Urantia Papers have been part of their "universe frame." It follows, therefore, that the cosmology of the Urantia Papers must be erroneous to some degree. Fundamentalists please note that this conclusion derives directly from the revelators own statements and is quite independent of the ambiguous phrasing of the mandate.
Urantia Book science as universe frame
What was the purpose of including science materials in the cosmology in the Papers? It certainly was not for our enlightenment, for the mandate (1109) informs us that the imparting of unearned knowledge is proscribed. Surely then it was for the purpose of giving us a temporary but more realistic universe frame in which to think, a frame that would be useful for many generations to come. However, we can be sure it was not to give us a plethora of new knowledge of a scientific nature that would demonstrate the credentials of the revelators. The Papers tell us that the "miracle" pathway to God mostly ends in a dismal debacle--and making sense of science is a task we need to do for ourselves.
Prior to the revelators description of the heavenly hierarchy and our universe careers, the only things we knew for certain about an afterlife were given to us by Jesus. These were that, "in my Father's house there are many mansions" and, in heaven, we "are not taken or given in marriage but are as the angels." The revelation banished our ignorance, thereby providing us with a whole new conceptual outlook for the meaning of creature life, its purpose and its goals.
Most Urantia Book science is from outmoded text books of early 1900's period
However, because virtually all the early readers of the Papers lacked in the dual acquisition
|
|
