How was it that at the ripe old age of 16 I found myself debating myself about the existence of God?  Perhaps because no one tried to indoctrinate me with their theology--thank goodness. But I occasionally had some incentive (read crisis) that motivated me to seek some help from a higher power.  It occurred to me on one of these occasions that I wasn't sure if I believed in such a being.  How could I pray to someone in whom I didn't believe? After a long internal dialogue, I decided that it was more logical (and much more comforting) to believe in a created universe than in a universe that always existed.  Therefore, a creator existed. Yes, I did have to justify my decision with feeble logic, nevertheless it was for me a leap of faith.

I have always tried to walk the middle path between cynicism and gullibility, but perhaps I tended to lean toward the gullibility side. As a science fiction fan, it was no problem for me to suspend my critical faculties to accept a way out scenario, such as space ships that can travel faster than the speed of light. Perhaps this is why I didn't have a problem with The Urantia Book. I was willing to suspend my judgment about it as I read it. I wasn't confronted with the question of whether I  believed this book until I had been studying it for five years, and someone asked derisively if I  actually believed "that stuff."  After a bit of thought, I said I did.  After five years of study, the book seemed a logical, reasonable and consistent picture of total reality, provided I was able to accept a few basic assumptions like the existence of God. This was my second leap of faith and perhaps an exercise in logic as well. This was the first time I considered the question of the book's authenticity, but not the last.

When I began writing articles about the science of the book in my now extinct journal, Cosmic Reflections, I began to notice what seemed to be errors in the science of the book. I was not too distressed because the authors had said that some of the science in the book would be found in error as our human science advanced. While I was not bothered by the apparent errors, my perspective on the science of the book began to change. I had started out looking for scientific discoveries that validated  the science of the book, but ended up deciding that the science of the book is not totally reliable. Of course, the same can be said of our human science. Nevertheless, where human science has found laws verifiable by the scientific method and consistent in all situations, I feel such laws or ideas are correct. If such well established ideas or laws disagree with The Urantia Book, then I feel justified in concluding that this is one of the erroneous ideas the authors permitted in the book for whatever reason.

The shift in perspective is this: Now I do not disregard human science just because it doesn't agree with The Urantia Book, and I do question the science of the book when it  appears to disagree with adequately verified human science. I must now use my logic and reason to make a judgment  about which is correct. But then there are those times I must either suspend my judgment or provisionally accept The Urantia Book science concepts until more progress is made in human science.

Are there 100 ultimatons in an electron?  I have no reason to disbelieve it, so I will accept it tentatively. Was our solar system formed from material pulled out by the Angona system? Many astronomers would not accept this idea now, but the evidence shows that their theories have flaws as well, so I can provisionally accept the scenario presented in the book pending incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Does Mercury keep the same face to the sun or not as indicated in The Urantia Book? Using several different methods, scientists have verified the fact that Mercury does not keep the same face to the sun, so I relegate this Urantia Book concept to the category of theories disproved by modern science. And so on. Unfortunately, this makes life much more complicated.     

next column>

When I accepted the science concepts in the book as true, I didn't have to go through all this evaluation; life was easier and less complicated. But what of the non-science concepts of the book? Can they be exempted from the logical scrutiny I have given the science of the book?

Martin Gardner's recently published book, The Urantia Cult, challenges the veracity of much of The Urantia Book. During a conversation we had before the book was published, he claimed that its content came from Mr. Kellogg's subconscious and was heavily edited and added to by Dr. Sadler.

While I can't finally disprove this point of view, I find too much truth, beauty and goodness in The Urantia Book to dismiss it as the upwellings of one man's subconscious combined with the tinkerings of a benign but misguided editor. I have seen reasonable comments by others that challenge some of the non-science facts and concepts in the book. I am forced into a provisional acceptance of the book. The book that seemed to offer such clear answers to the major questions of life has become in some ways an enigma to me. But even with the doubts, there is that within me that recognizes the value of this book to our planet and the great spiritual truths it contains.

While researching his book, The Urantia Cult, Martin Gardner invited a number of people to his home so he could interview them; I was one of those people.  He seemed determined to convince me that The Urantia Book is a hoax, that it was not presented in its present form by celestial beings to a group in Chicago.  But he was unable to  convince me that the book is not at least in part a revelation of some sort. I informed him that I am now a pragmatist regarding this book. I judge the book by its value to our world and to individuals, not on the flaws I may see in it.

I can't in all honesty say that all of the book is a revelation. I judge the worth of the book by the effect it has had on my life (inner and outer) and on the lives of other Urantians. I judge it by the vision that it gives us of our possibilities and those of our world in the future. This vision is, in my opinion, unexcelled by any other. And if there is something our troubled world needs now it is a vision of what we and our progeny can do if we align ourselves with the will of our spirit Father. I asked Martin if he thought  that the book would be beneficial or detrimental to those who studied it. He didn't have an answer to that. I do.

My journey with The Urantia Book started with curiosity, moved through a leap of faith to a bit a skepticism and finally to a pragmatic outlook.  Perhaps this is the best relationship I could have with this body of writings. I once worked with a fellow who proclaimed himself agnostic. We often argued about the existence of God. He finally said to me one day, "Why don't you admit it, you believe in God because you made a leap of faith." After a moment of thought, I admitted that he was right. But what of my all but vanished faith in The Urantia Book as completely revelational? My own definition of faith is a trusting relationship between two persons.  As such, faith is appropriate in our relationship with God, but not in our attitude towards a book.  God is the end, The Urantia Book is but one of the means.

Dick Bain