represented as being factual, it was deemed not copyrightable. See id.
Arica differs from the instant case in two significant respects. First, Plaintiffs have never claimed it to be a scientifically verifiable fact that the Voice who spoke to Schucman was the voice of Jesus. Indeed, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Defendants, only demonstrates that Plaintiffs have stated on many occasions their belief that it was Jesus who dictated the Course to Schucman. Admittedly, in the murky depths of epistemology, the distinction between an assertion of fact and an assertion of belief disappears. In a court of law, however, where common sense, aided by the rules of evidence (not analytic philosophy), must be employed in order for judgments to be made at all, the distinction is significant. Plaintiffs' statements of belief that Jesus dictated the Course to Schucman do not make the Course a factual work. A claim based on science is of a different order than a claim based on faith, the rather recent protestations of the historians and philosophers of science notwithstanding.
Moreover, even if it could be established as a "fact" that Jesus dictated the Course to Schucman, it would not make the material in the Course factual. Much of the Course is prescriptive
33
