tas,
What you presented about Andromeda and the “one million years ago” issue, has opened my eyes. Now I get it.
Thank you.
Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.
The Cosmology of Light & Life
50 posts · 9 participants · started Jul 6, 2017, 3:32 PM
By this question you seem to imply the book does not reflect something that is eternally true about the universe.
I must have phrased things confusingly, then, because I believe there is something eternally true in the cosmology the Book presents. I agree with you that the genuineness of religious truth is determined in an entirely personal way. Since there is, as yet, no commonly recognized scientific evidence which supports the cosmology presented in the Book, it would seem that the essential truth of the scientific view it presents can only be discerned based upon faith, a purely personal experience.
While many believe that the religious and scientific viewpoints fundamentally contradict one another, these teachings tell us that they are reconciled in the unity of a higher truth.
My confidence in the presentations in the UB do not require that the incomplete cosmology regarding science be defended or accepted as is given. However, I am amused by those who display such earnest faith and confidence in modern science when it conflicts or contradicts the UB….as it also inherently conflicts and contradicts prior and current ‘knowledge’ and ‘facts’. I’m unsure that the Andromeda example will hold water…or not much longer. I think the scientific method to be sound but in its soundness it constantly and relentlessly requires whole new theories to “explain” observable phenomena. New observation techniques deliver ever more phenomena to explain and forever requires changes to prior and current theory.
As to how quickly light from Andromeda got here….I wonder can anyone tell us the speed of light in space and not within a controlled vacuum? If so….you are the first on Urantia to do so. What’s the distance of a light year? How is that determined? How is it affected in space? We know it can be slowed…can it also be accelerated by factors and forces unknown to modern, mortal science?
Just because cosmology will require revision and no unearned knowledge has been included does not necessarily ‘prove’ anything at all that modern science currently theorizes or claims as fact. Patience and time will reveal the unity of the managed universes of time and the accuracy of our world’s history. Until then I will let the scientific method continue to discover all that it does not yet understand and discover ever more observed phenomena to confound science and demand new possibilities for the forces of such a managed system of reality.
But one thing is certain, science will come to determine that the current claim of 2.5 million light years in distance is inaccurate. I don’t know by how much and it certainly may not be one million…..but unless there is nothing but vacuum between here and there, it’s also not 2.5 mm. Or I doubt that very much as many scientists doubt the accuracy of the speed of light in actual space and time. What are the factors of distortion over such distances? We are just beginning to discover those.
No biggie to me…but we should be cautious how much we depend upon current scientific conclusions or theories for much…as the method cares nothing for today’s beliefs or theories. I have a feeling that science is revealing and has revealed much that is provided us in the UB.
The topic however is about the cosmology of L&L and its inclusion in the Papers. A rather thrilling and inspirational perspective on the eternal adventure and the reality of evolutionary perfecting over time. Thanks to all, very interesting.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
George Park wrote: . . . it would seem that the essential truth of the scientific view it presents can only be discerned based upon faith, a purely personal experience.
The “essential truth of the scientific view” is a view from outward looking within and involves accepted and well-defined methods of science. Faith is a view from inward looking outward. We will never put faith under a microscope. Nor can we put love under a microscope. Faith and love are purely personal experiences. I think *belief* is an act of one’s mind. People believe or disbelieve according to their preferences and predilections.
103:7.6 [. . .] Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.
We’re supposed to have *faith* to ourselves. (99:5.7 )
Since there is, as yet, no commonly recognized scientific evidence which supports the cosmology presented in the Book. . . .
I’m not a scientist. I consume science from various media sound-bites. Sooner or later the commonly recognized scientific evidence supporting the cosmology in the book will be overridden by new findings. What then? Will students of the future dismiss the cosmology in book due its archaic information?
.
But at the time of the indicting of the revelation, the revelators informed us of this:
88:6.8 [. . .] Today, Urantia is in the twilight zone of this intellectual evolution. One half the world is grasping eagerly for the light of truth and the facts of scientific discovery, while the other half languishes in the arms of ancient superstition and but thinly disguised magic.
One day astronomers will discover these space levels, and then we will know exactly where Paradise is located in the universe. Nowhere else is there found the idea that the Supreme Being is physically limited to the evolving grand universe, which encompasses the central and superuniverse space levels.
I wonder, though, if our astronomers will ever know ‘exactly where Paradise is located in the universe’ – during their mortal lives? We are told that Paradise has no location in space.
11:2.10 (120.2) It appears to us that the First Source and Center has concentrated all absolute potential for cosmic reality in Paradise as a part of his technique of self-liberation from infinity limitations, as a means of making possible subinfinite, even time-space, creation. But it does not follow that Paradise is time-space limited just because the universe of universes discloses these qualities. Paradise exists without time and has no location in space.
0:4.12 (7.10) The Isle of Paradise — Paradise not otherwise qualified — is the Absolute of the material-gravity control of the First Source and Center. Paradise is motionless, being the only stationary thing in the universe of universes. The Isle of Paradise has a universe location but no position in space. This eternal Isle is the actual source of the physical universes — past, present, and future. The nuclear Isle of Light is a Deity derivative, but it is hardly Deity; neither are the material creations a part of Deity; they are a consequence.
I wonder, though, if our astronomers will ever know ‘exactly where Paradise is located in the universe’ – during their mortal lives? We are told that Paradise has no location in space.
It is true that we are told Paradise does not exist in space. But we are also told “The Isle of Paradise has a universe location.” It is outside of the time and space of the master universe, but it still has a location relative to the largest physical structures in the master universe; it is located at the center of the concentrically arranged space levels of the master universe. We will never be able to directly observe Paradise or the central universe, because Havona is concealed behind the wall of dark gravity bodies encircling the central creation. But astronomers will, one day, identify the superuniverse and outer space levels, and the common center of these concentrically arranged structures will reveal the location of Paradise. At least it will to those who trust in the truth of these teachings, which tell us Paradise is located at this common universal center of revolution.
It seems impossible to us that there should be no space or time at the center of the master universe, all of which exists in space and time. We cannot really imagine that space is not infinite in extent, yet “there are physical limits to the material universe.” (12:0.3) We cannot really understand how there can be anything real in the absence of space and time. “But it does not follow that Paradise is time-space limited just because the universe of universes discloses these qualities.” (11:2.10) It is not strange, really, that we should find it so difficult to conceive of these things. After all, the Isle of Paradise is one of the Seven Absolutes of Infinity.
Sooner or later the commonly recognized scientific evidence supporting the cosmology in the book will be overridden by new findings. What then? Will students of the future dismiss the cosmology in book due its archaic information?
As far as I’m aware, there is currently no commonly recognized scientific evidence which supports the cosmology of Light and Life. For this reason, what the Book says about how the universe is organized is considered pure fantasy by more than a few, such as the science writer Martin Gardner. Its “fantastic” cosmology already raises grave doubts in the minds of many about the authenticity of its claim to be a revelation. How could a supposed revelation contain such a ridiculous cosmology? Your “What then?” is actually happening right now, it seems to me. No wonder students of the Book are so hesitant to bring up its cosmology, when it is so very easy for the scientifically inclined to dismiss it as an absurd fairytale.
But if the cosmology in the Book is essentially true, there will come a time when scientific discovery begins to produce hard empirical evidence that the galaxies of the universe are concentrated in concentrically arranged rings. What then will be the response of the world, I wonder, to the Book which predicted this long before anyone could have possibly known it?
In the not-distant future, new telescopes will reveal to the wondering gaze of Urantian astronomers no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space. (12:2.3)
This was written in 1934, when only tens of thousands of galaxies were catalogued. Due to remarkable technological advances over just the last 20 years, hundreds of millions of galaxies have now been identified and catalogued. We are “in the not-distant future” they wrote about more than 80 years ago. What if hard evidence for the existence of various space levels has already been obtained? What if their discovery is just waiting for someone to look for them in this sudden overabundance of new observations?
No wonder students of the Book are so hesitant to bring up its cosmology, when it is so very easy for the scientifically inclined to dismiss it as an absurd fairytale.
There are a few like you who are scientifically inclined (interested in the cosmology of the book) who also are interested in the other parts of the book. The upcoming Scientific Symposium is the fourth event focused on the subject. I think the reason most students of the book are hesitant to bring it up is related to the paucity of knowledge of most students of what is currently known about the structure of the universe/s, both macro-knowledge as well as micro/nano. We are not schooled in the subject. Don’t you think naysayers are part and parcel of our society? Perhaps naysayers about the book will give reason for people to discover the book for themselves. Who knows?
.
But students do get what’s in the book that pertains to the personal. The Jesus apers seem to be everyone’s favorite part, though a few weeks ago my study group studied the Foreward over several weeks, and one reader said the Foreword was her favorite part of the book! Others are interested in its cosmology. I am stimulated by the science parts of the book. I do think, however, the real messages of the book are relevant and significant to the scientist, as a person, not the future obsolescence of its cosmology.
195:7.18 Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.102:6.10 Organic evolution is a fact; purposive or progressive evolution is a truth which makes consistent the otherwise contradictory phenomena of the ever-ascending achievements of evolution. The higher any scientist progresses in his chosen science, the more will he abandon the theories of materialistic fact in favor of the cosmic truth of the dominance of the Supreme Mind. Materialism cheapens human life; the gospel of Jesus tremendously enhances and supernally exalts every mortal. Mortal existence must be visualized as consisting in the intriguing and fascinating experience of the realization of the reality of the meeting of the human upreach and the divine and saving downreach.We are “in the not-distant future” they wrote about more than 80 years ago.
Can you interpret for us “in the not-distant future”? Thank you George.
We are not schooled in the subject (of cosmology).
I suspect there is much more behind the little attention generally given to cosmology. The concept of the universe presented by modern science is the ugliest and most repulsive cosmology imaginable, because it is purely materialistic. Who can work up any enthusiasm for a nihilistic cosmology which describes a universe that is without purpose, value, or meaning of any kind? The very first thing anyone who looks into this cosmology encounters is the absolute unqualified assertion that there is no center to the universe. There is a reason for the insistence of this assertion which goes back to a decision made at the very beginning of modern cosmology.
Prior to Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of space in 1929, everyone thought the universe was eternal and constant in size, even Einstein. Most astronomers estimated it was roughly 300,000 light-years in diameter. Hubble discovered that the more distant a galaxy was, the more redshifted was its light. This redshift in the light of galaxies was interpreted as being caused by the expansion of space. The size of universe suddenly expanded more than a thousand times. This was a thrilling discovery, and The Urantia Book confirms that the phenomenon of space expansion is real.
However, this discovery also greatly troubled certain influential scientists, like Hubble. A straight forward interpretation of the evidence shows that the space of the universe is expanding from a location that is not too far (in cosmic terms) from our location. If space is expanding from some nearby location, this naturally leads to the idea that the universe has a center. If the universe has a center, this becomes a possible location for God in the universe. It was decided that space expansion must be presented in a way which forestalls any idea of the transcendent presence of God in the universe. The best way to do this was to assert, without proof, that space expands from every point in every direction in exactly the same way.
Regardless of all the theoretical smoke and mirrors thrown up by cosmologists and astrophysicists over the intervening decades, the empirical data has not changed in character. The simplest and most straight forward interpretation of it is that space is expanding from some location that is not too far from us. The Book tells us that space is expanding from “just below nether Paradise.”
Sorry if I have run on about this.
Prior to Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of space in 1929, everyone thought the universe was eternal and constant in size, even Einstein. Most astronomers estimated it was roughly 300,000 light-years in diameter. Hubble discovered that the more distant a galaxy was, the more redshifted was its light. This redshift in the light of galaxies was interpreted as being caused by the expansion of space. The size of universe suddenly expanded more than a thousand times. This was a thrilling discovery, and The Urantia Book confirms that the phenomenon of space expansion is real.
However, this discovery also greatly troubled certain influential scientists, like Hubble. A straight forward interpretation of the evidence shows that the space of the universe is expanding from a location that is not too far (in cosmic terms) from our location. If space is expanding from some nearby location, this naturally leads to the idea that the universe has a center. If the universe has a center, this becomes a possible location for God in the universe. It was decided that space expansion must be presented in a way which forestalls any idea of the transcendent presence of God in the universe. The best way to do this was to assert, without proof, that space expands from every point in every direction in exactly the same way.
This is from Wikipedia:
Hubble demonstrated that the redshift of other galaxies is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth (Hubble’s law). This raised the appearance of our galaxy being in the center of an expanding Universe, however, Hubble rejected the findings philosophically:
How interesting. That the findings of science are determined, at least sometimes, philosophically!
Hi all — and thanks George for this great topic!
Let’s “pause to consider” the difference between (a) a distance to M31, and (b) the motions of “absolutely ultimate” space (118:3.5). The first is something that native science delights to discover; the second is something that is simply not discoverable by any finite technique.
Regarding that distance to M31 (in Andromeda), any reader familiar with astronomy would recognise “almost a million years” as a quote from Hubble (1924-5), and move on. Technically, there should be quotation marks around that phrase. (Think what a difference that little pair of quotation marks would have made.)
But getting back to that “pause to consider“, the point of that statement (which may or may not “stand in need of revision“) was to encourage a contemporary (1935) audience to take a moment to reflect on one of the great revelations of native science, that the entire Milky Way system is merely a pin-prick of light near the center of an unimaginably stupendous expression of our Father’s exuberant endeavor.
Given the first fact of UB cosmology — our Father as first cause — the second central fact is the Isle of Paradise. But if we are to accept Paradise as a universe fact, then we may need to take more seriously what Jesus said that day in Carthage. In a section titled “Discourse on Time and Space”, the authors paraphrase Jesus as saying:
(130:7.7,8) “[…] Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe. The time-space concept of a mind of material origin is destined to undergo successive enlargements as the conscious and conceiving personality ascends the levels of the universes.“
What does this have to do with Paradise? Recall that Paradise is not in the spacetime we can measure. And that geographically, the master universe itself is excavated from some quiescent absolute extent of — or bestowed by — Paradise. And that this master universe, once perfectly eventuated, serves merely as certain transcendental foundations for the primary purposes of our Dad. From paper 106 section 7,
(106:7.8) “At the inconceivably distant future eternity moment of the final completion of the entire master universe, no doubt we will all look back upon its entire history as only the beginning, simply the creation of certain finite and transcendental foundations… “.
As I understand it, what we have in UB cosmology is an appropriate down-grasp responding to our contemporary (1935) capacity to up-reach, a philosophically brilliant mingling of universe fact together with “statements that stand in need of revision.”
How to proceed? Notice that if we accept our loving personal universal Father as the uncaused First Cause of science, and then accept Paradise as his first fact (from the Latin: facio, “I make“), and then assume the need for “master architects” and transcendental “organizers of force”, the we find ourselves poised between, on the one hand, a 1930’s view of the atom, and on the other hand, actual factual revelation about the emergence and evolution of energy within the narrow slice of spacetime we (currently) can measure.
Anyone keeping up with current particle physics will notice how neatly these revelations — about the evolution of energy and force — can serve as an essential (and otherwise unobtainable) missing link in our cosmological theory. Without this missing link, our precocious science has been free to drive western cultural momentum — relentlessly and blindly — into ever smaller and darker corners.
Given the implications of this trend, I believe the revelators had the leeway to provide just enough facts about reality for us to work our way out of this hole. But George, this may require of us that we “lift our game”. For example, the seven space-like dimensions implied by Jesus that day in Carthage (paper 130 section 7) together with “transcendental causation” via force organizers collaborating with Master Architects, plus the absolute flow of emergent energies along “space paths of lessened resistance to motion“, all point to the “Maltese cross” model of the master universe as being a low dimensional projection of something more interesting.
Can we expand our concept-frames to accommodate such things?
PS: currently recording video Part 4-B; link available soon!
Nigel
This is from Wikipedia:
Hubble demonstrated that the redshift of other galaxies is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth (Hubble’s law). This raised the appearance of our galaxy being in the center of an expanding Universe, however, Hubble rejected the findings philosophically:
How interesting. That the findings of science are determined, at least sometimes, philosophically!
It is interesting how philosophical bias can spin the interpretation of empirical facts.
It should be pointed out that space expansion can be mathematically described in two equally valid ways; as expanding from one point in the universe, as the Book describes, or as expanding from every point in the universe, as modern cosmology insists. An honest scientific interpretation of the facts would recognize the validity of both of these interpretations. This recognition does not prove the Book is correct, only that what the Book says is consistent with the facts as they are currently known.
But modern science is dominated by the philosophy of materialism, which prevents such an honest assessment. It must insist that the universe cannot be expanding from a universal center, and it does so unrelentingly in the strongest possible terms. This possible interpretation must be delegitimized at all costs, in their view. There cannot be a center to the universe for materialists, because this would imply a pre-existing order, which opens up the possibility of the transcendent presence of God in the universe, something they utterly reject on the basis of their beliefs.
Hi Nigel – You raise some very good points. For those who may not be aware, Nigel is doing some ground-breaking work in cosmology in the areas of dark matter and energy evolution. Can you post the links here to the excellent videos you have already produced?
I have pondered Jesus’ “Discourse on Time and Space” many times, and have to admit that I still come away with little understanding of what he really means by “achiev(ing) identity in a seven-dimensional universe.” I simply can’t imagine what this attainment of the Ultimate level of reality is like following our sojourn on Paradise when we become seventh stage spirits. I cannot really grasp how “circular simultaneity (will) increasingly displace the onetime consciousness of the linear sequence of events.” (130:7.5) Are the inhabitants of worlds entering the era of Light & Life able to conceive of such things? I really don’t know, but I am inclined to doubt they “see” a seven-dimensional universe.
On the other hand, I find it possible to conceive of Paradise as being at the absolute center of the master universe, since all of the galaxies of creation are held in orbital revolution about the central Isle by the absolute gravity of Paradise. I can also imagine the two absolute motions space respiration and universal revolution of the space levels, since these occur relative to Paradise, which is the one absolutely stationary point in the universe. And I think I understand what our teachers mean when they talk about absolute direction in the universe.
These differences in dimensions (i.e. of Paradise), taken in connection with its stationary status and the greater out-pressure of force-energy at the north end of the Isle, make it possible to establish absolute direction in the master universe. (11:2.3)
Paradise does not exist in space, yet the dimensions of Paradise “establish absolute direction in the master universe.” If Paradise is outside of space, how can it have dimensions which can be measured? How can these nonspatial dimensions define direction in the space of the master universe?
But the concept of distance, even absolute distance, has very much meaning as it may be applied to relative locations on Paradise. Paradise is nonspatial; hence its areas are absolute and therefore serviceable in many ways beyond the concept of mortal mind. (11:2.11)
We see no difference between distance and space, but apparently Paradise exists in a place where there is no space but distance is still real. What can this possibly mean?
We are told there are absolute places, motions, and directions in the master universe. But are these really absolute things or are they relative distortions of the truth which the authors are forced to give us, because we are unable to grasp the truth? Is Paradise really one of the Seven Absolutes of Infinity located at the absolute center of the universe? Or is this merely a relative truth, conceptual scaffolding which will be taken down sometime in the future and replaced by the real absolute truth?
We all know the direct course to pursue to find the Universal Father. You are not able to comprehend much about the divine residence because of its remoteness from you and the immensity of the intervening space, but those who are able to comprehend the meaning of these enormous distances know God’s location and residence just as certainly and literally as you know the location of New York, London, Rome, or Singapore, cities definitely and geographically located on Urantia…. Provided with all the necessities for the journey, it is just as possible to find the personal presence of God at the center of all things as to find distant cities on your own planet. (11:1.3)
Is the Perfector of Wisdom speaking figuratively, metaphorically, or poetically when he says “We all know” the location of Paradise in the universe? Or is he being straight forward when he says it is “just as possible to find the personal presence of God at the center of all things as to find distant cities on your own planet”? Going back to the original question, on the worlds which finally enter into the era of Light & Life, does everyone on these worlds already know the direction and distance to the Eternal Isle?
George…here’s hoping you and Nigel both “run on”!! Hahahahaha……
Well….no one has commented on my question regarding the phrase “not inspired”. Seems a rather crucial definition regarding the topic. Does not-inspired mean fictional? Or not factual? Or does it mean the opposite?
I have always presumed not-inspired means factual and empirically-evidentiary. In other words, not one’s opinion or said with any lack of knowledge….a factual presentation of reality – as limited by the disclosures on its restrictions/limits in presentation by the authors. The text is obviously incomplete…how many volumes would be required for all facts known by the authors?
We’ll find out one day!!
Enjoying the discussion very much…and I’m no science-guy.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Well….no one has commented on my question regarding the phrase “not inspired”. Seems a rather crucial definition regarding the topic.
Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by: (101:4.5)
The fact that cosmological statements in the Book are “never inspired” has always bothered me, as well, Bradly. Many of the things they tell us about the physical universe are revelations which no human has ever before dreamed of or imagined. So what are they trying to tell us by making such a very specific point about these statements not being inspired?
A decade ago, I went through the Book and collected every statement I could find on the physical structure of the universe. I thought it should be possible to put all of these pieces together to form a whole, like a puzzle. Instead, I ran head-on into something long-time Urantia student Dick Bain had already discovered. In a 2006 paper titled “A Tale of Two Orvontons”** Dick clearly identifies the presence of at least two different conceptions of Orvonton. One set of statements seems consistent with Orvonton being as small as our Milky Way galaxy. Another set seems consistent with Orvonton being much, much larger than the Milky Way. Dick makes a very compelling case that all of the cosmological statements about Orvonton in the Book do not give a single consistent picture of its size and structure. I have come to think that this is what “not inspired” means; that is, these cosmological statements do not form a single wholly consistent truth.
And then I noticed a couple of statements about the presence of multiple cosmologies in the Book, one of which has already been referenced in this thread.
Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented. (101:4.1)
Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. (102:1.3)
There were, in fact, two different “transient” cosmologies present when the Book was indited in 1934. In the two centuries prior to the 1930s, a universal consensus had emerged that the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe, which was believed to be eternal and roughly 300,000 light-years in diameter. Hubble discovered space expansion in 1929, which suddenly increased the size of the universe more than a thousand fold and gave it a beginning in time, instead of being eternal. But it was not until Sir Arthur Eddington published The Expanding Universe in 1933 that the public first began to hear about this discovery. The American astronomer Alan Sandage called the discovery of space expansion the “second Copernican revolution.” Although this is a fair assessment, like the first it took more than a decade before this discovery made its way into the general consciousness of the intellectual elites. It is was not until a 1948 article in Time magazine that this discovery made it into the popular mainstream of thought.
It appears the revelators incorporated aspects of both of these very different evolutionary cosmologies. However, they also included purely revealed cosmological concepts, such as the space levels of the master universe, the absolute status of the Isle of Paradise, and the phenomenon of space respiration. These eternal truths should not be discounted because they appear to keep company with certain obsolete concepts of evolutionary cosmology.
** http://urantia-book.org/archive/newsletters/spiritual_fellowship_journal/SpringSummer-06.pdf
Postscript to the above:
The distance to Andromeda given in the Book of “almost one million” light-years is just one example (or appears to be) of the presence of obsolete cosmological ideas the authors warn us about. Readers have responded in several ways to this. Some think the currently measured distance of 2.5 million light-years means that scientific cosmology must be incorrect; scientific knowledge can be disregarded whenever it conflicts with whatever is in the text. Others think that one million light-years is an example of: “our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision;” cosmological statements in the text can be disregarded whenever they conflict with anything astronomers assert about the universe. This and other errors lead some to reject all of the cosmological statements in the Book as probably untrue (Martin Gardner). Others have concluded that these cosmological statements are irrelevant to the spiritual purpose of the Book and should be ignored (Meredith Sprunger).
There is really no danger that the cosmological statements in the Book will make anyone feel compelled to believe that it is an epochal revelation. Rather, it seems it will require quite a lot of work to separate the cosmology of Light & Life from the “obsolete ideas regarding the material world” which belong to evolutionary cosmologies. While this may be disappointing to those of us who would really like know this now, it is apparently an unavoidable consequence of the limitations placed upon the revelators by a higher and more far-seeing wisdom.
The example of the distance to Andromeda given in the Book of “almost one million” light-years is just one example (or appears to be) of the presence of obsolete cosmological ideas the authors warn us about. Readers have responded in several ways to this. Some think the currently measured distance of 2.5 million light-years means that scientific cosmology must be incorrect; scientific knowledge can be disregarded whenever it conflicts with whatever is in the text. Others think that one million light-years is an example of: “our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision;” cosmological statements in the text can be disregarded whenever they conflict with anything astronomers assert about the universe. This and other errors lead some to reject all of the cosmological statements in the Book as probably untrue (Martin Gardner). Others have concluded that these cosmological statements are irrelevant to the spiritual purpose of the Book and should be ignored (Meredith Sprunger).
One might consider that the statements made in the UB are correct and then when compared to today’s scientific cosmology, we should ask why is there a difference. The first thing which comes to mind is that today’s science indicates that there is a “Halo” around the Andromeda Galaxy which extends out to about 1 million light years from its visual point, and assuming that they have taken this in account, would assume that light would travel slower through this “Halo” therefore compensating for it? If based on this information, their assumptions are incorrect and where light may travel faster then calculated or compensated for (because of the increased temperature, and the hot gases) , they might need to alter their opinions as to the actual distance, we are from Andromeda. If so, then what has been indicated in the UB would be correct, thereby needing to present a reason for the error, and if confirm-able could change today’s science enough to make many other differences.
Andromeda Galaxy is surrounded by a large and massive halo of hot gas that is estimated to contain half the mass of the stars in the galaxy. The nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our Milky Way galaxy. Simulations of galaxies indicate the halo formed at the same time as the Andromeda Galaxy. The halo is enriched in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, formed from supernovae and its properties are the expected on a galaxy that lies in the “green valley” of the Galaxy color–magnitude diagram (see below). The supernovae erupt in Andromeda Galaxy’s star-filled disk and eject these heavier elements into space. Over Andromeda Galaxy’s lifetime, nearly half of the heavy elements made by its stars have been ejected far beyond the galaxy’s 200,000-light-year-diameter stellar disk.
Bradley wrote:
“Don’t mean to quibble and I am really enjoying the topic! But the “not inspired” issue is perplexing…or so it is to me.”
George wrote:
“The fact that cosmological statements in the Book are “never inspired” has always bothered me, as well, Bradly. Many of the things they tell us about the physical universe are revelations which no human has ever before dreamed of or imagined. So what are they trying to tell us by making such a very specific point about these statements not being inspired?”
I was curious to be more grounded about the definition and looked it up with the nearest dictionary I have on-hand (Oxford). When used as an adjective, the word “inspired” means:
“of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse”
That would seem to be a good fit for how we see The Urantia Book overall. The more common use of the word “inspired” is a little different, it’s as a verb (“she inspired them to do their best”).
There’s another place where The Urantia Book interestingly speaks about inspired writings. While the book says that the cosmology is not inspired, here are some comments it makes about words that are taken as “inspired”:
“To become fetishes, words had to be considered inspired, and the invocation of supposed divinely inspired writings led directly to the establishment of the *authority* of the church, while the evolution of civil forms led to the fruition of the *authority* of the state. (88:2.10)”
I think the natural default inclination for a reader who recognizes the overall extraordinary quality of The Urantia Book would be to assume the cosmology also is of the same extraordinary quality. But the book instead goes to significant lengths to emphasize that its cosmology is “not inspired“, using italics and repeating itself (“cosmology is never inspired”), and telling us “let it be clear”. When they are telling us the cosmology is not inspired, it seems clear to me they want us to not see it as authoritative and not to let ourselves fetishize it.
From the dictionary definition, to be “not inspired” would mean the cosmology is not of extraordinary quality, and not as if arising from some external creative impulse. Considering they tell us “within a few short years” many of their statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision, I would have to agree that those statements aren’t of extraordinary quality really. While the religious truths can be seen as inspired and of extraordinary quality, to me the cosmology isn’t.
Now, what to take from the cosmology though. There is a lot of important value still I think. Take a look at this essay from C.S. Louis if you have a little time, “Religion and Rocketry” (it’s pasted as a blog post but is his essay):
https://scientificintegrity.blogspot.com/2010/04/religion-and-rocketry-by-cs-lewis.html
It captures such an interesting moment in time. CS Lewis is the writer known for the Narnia books, the Screwtape Letters, and one of the most famous pieces of Christian apologetics last century, “Mere Christianity”. Here is this top creative religious mind thinking through the cosmologic implications of the Christian faith, only years after The Urantia Book was published. The essay is originally from 1958.
Nevermind whether the exact shape or dimensions or other details of cosmology in The Urantia Book are precisely taken as literal, but you can’t help but marvel at how much further the UB takes us from the evolutionary understandings of the time it was indited, to let us much more effortlessly see the modern physical universe with spiritual eyes.
[Your post got lodged in the spam folder. Sorry for that. Moderator-1]
