Chapter 1: Possibilities
The great beyond, looking for answers, and revelation from God
[ Index | (i) Background: 1 / 2 / 3 | (ii) Problem: 4 / 5 / 6 | (iii) Solution: 7 / 8 / 9 ]
The purpose of this book is to provide a careful consideration of Christian revelation. In Part (i) we shall consider some important background. In Part (ii) we shall consider the problem that Christian revelation describes. And in Part (iii) we shall consider the solution to that problem.
In Part (i) we shall begin here in Chapter 1 by stepping back to discuss general possibilities concerning revelation. In Chapter 2 we shall consider various misconceptions. And in Chapter 3 we shall explore something of what it means to give careful consideration to the evidence.
1A. The great beyond
Flatland, Realland and Hyperland
We begin with a thought-provoking analogy:
“You and I live in an apparently three-dimensional world. Yet to someone from a fourth dimension, our universe – the world we see, hear and touch – is merely the three-dimensional “surface” of a vast, four-dimensional sea. For those of us unable to visualise an existence beyond our own, let alone even begin to understand it, we must approach the four-dimensional world of hyperspace indirectly, by way of analogy.”
“The two-dimensional world of Flatland can be thought of as having a thickness equal to the diameter of one of its fundamental particles. These particles float on the smooth surface of a liquid. They obey two-dimensional laws. The inhabitants of Flatland, who are made up of these particles, can barely conceive of a third direction perpendicular to the two they know. It is completely beyond their experience. We, however, who live in three-dimensional space, can see every particle of Flatland. We see inside its “houses”, and inside the “body” of every Flatlander. We can touch every particle of their world without passing our finger through their space, yet if we were to lift a Flatlander out of a locked Flatland room, it would seem to him a miracle.”
“In an analogous way, our 3-D world floats on the quiet surface of a gigantic hyper-ocean. The 4-D thickness of our world is approximately the diameter of a fundamental particle. These particles obey 3-D laws, and the surface of the “sea” from which they are made is the world in which it appears that we live, and from which we cannot escape, at least not by our own efforts.”
Such is the message, more or less, of the Reverend Slade, in Martin Gardner’s The Church of the Fourth Dimension. Slade goes on to ask, “What lies outside the sea’s surface? The wholly other world of God! No longer is theology embarrassed by the contradiction between God’s immanence and transcendence. Hyperspace touches every point of 3-D space. God is closer to us than our breathing. He can see every portion of our world, and touch every particle without moving a finger through our space. We cannot escape his presence, and yet the Kingdom of God is all but completely “outside” of 3-D space, in a direction in which we cannot even point.”
Flatlanders as described above could barely conceive that a third dimension existed. A ball passing through Flatland would appear as a tiny growing circle, reaching a maximum size before shrinking and disappearing without trace. Other objects would produce more complicated growing and shrinking shapes. A mundane event to those of us in the 3-D world that we might call Realland would seem other-worldly and mysterious to Flatlanders. Even if the people of Flatland could surmise the existence of a third dimension, they could not gain access to it or find out much about it.
As Gardner suggests, we can, by analogy, envisage an analogous fourth spatial dimension, that we might call Hyperland. A 4-D world such as Hyperland would be to Reallanders much as Realland would be to Flatlanders: inaccessible and barely conceivable. A hypersphere passing through Realland would appear as a tiny growing sphere, reaching a maximum size before shrinking and disappearing without trace. It is hard for Reallanders to comprehend the idea of an irregular hypershape, but if such an object were to pass through Realland we would expect it to look even stranger than the appearance of a hypersphere. We should note too that the chance of an entity from Hyperland accidentally entering Realland would actually be very small, given that Hyperland is vastly bigger than Realland in much the same way as Realland is vastly bigger than Flatland. The extent of this difference in size is perhaps most easily understood by noting that every point in Flatland is billions of miles from almost all of the rest of the Realland universe.
In the world of Flatland, we might suppose that there are some Flatlanders who, for whatever reason, do not believe that there can be anything beyond the two dimensions of their own world. These Flatlanders do not believe that there exists anything beyond what they can experience in their familiar 2-D way. Those of us in Realland, who can in principle observe every fundamental particle in Flatland, might chuckle and think, “What do they know?!” And if the Flatlanders were to insist that there could be nothing beyond Flatland, we would regard them as dogmatic and narrow-minded. We might reasonably ask them why they believe what they do. What observation in Flatland could ever show that there was no third dimension, or indeed nothing else beyond their two dimensions?
By analogy, we might suppose that there are some Reallanders who, for whatever reason, do not believe that there can be anything beyond the three dimensions of their own world. These Reallanders do not believe that there exists anything beyond what they can see, hear and touch in their familiar 3-D way. In their view there is nothing beyond the material world: no supernatural and no paranormal. But might not an inhabitant of 4-D Hyperland, who can in principle observe every fundamental particle in Realland, chuckle and think these particular Reallanders dogmatic and narrow-minded? The fourth dimension of Hyperland lies in a direction in which Reallanders cannot even point. A 4-D observer might reasonably wonder why these Reallanders believe what they do. What observation in Realland could ever show that there was no fourth or higher dimension? Or indeed that there was no “Kingdom of God”? Hyperlanders might reasonably scoff at the naivety of these mere 3-D beings unable to escape what they call Realland.
Scratching the surface?
While it is convenient to use Flatland and Hyperland as illustrations, the question of whether the fourth dimension really is representative of the “Kingdom of God” is another matter. If God does exist, and if there really is a “Kingdom of God”, there is no reason to believe that it could be described merely in terms of four dimensions. Moreover, describing God’s “space” in terms of any number of higher dimensions analogous to our own might itself be rather simplistic. God may have “space” way beyond anything that we can conceive, even by analogy.
And if we can apply this reasoning to God’s space, of which our space is merely a part, then why not also his “time”, or even his “thoughts”? While the Flatland analogy is useful in beginning to approach the question of the possibility of Something or Someone beyond this world, it may barely begin to scratch the surface when it comes to describing God. Our relationship to Flatlanders, however it is defined, is very likely no more than a pale shadow of God’s relationship to us.
But on the basis of the Flatland analogy at least, it seems reasonable to be open to the possibility of Something or Someone beyond the 3-D universe that we experience. An insistence that there are no higher dimensions and no supernatural entities betrays not a rational scientific mind but rather a philosophical commitment to a specific kind of world. Moreover, in the context of scientific theories advocating the existence of multiple dimensions, it seems particularly reasonable to be open to the possibility of realms beyond our own. This is very different from insisting that such realms actually do exist, let alone accepting specific claims about the supernatural or paranormal. But either way, it is reasonable to consider such claims on their merits (or otherwise) while keeping an open mind.
1B. Looking for answers
The need for revelation
The Flatland analogy offers a way to think about the possibility of worlds beyond the 3-D universe that we experience. Flatlanders cannot escape Flatland by themselves. While we could speculate about Flatlanders developing a means of entering Realland, the Flatlanders described in the analogy cannot do so. This may be considered analogous to our own experience. We cannot escape our 3-D existence by ourselves. As Gardner points out, if a 4-D world exists, it lies in a direction in which we cannot even point.
Even if Flatlanders could postulate the existence of the 3-D world of Realland, they could not by themselves find out much (if anything) about it. They would need assistance from outside their world. They would need some sort of revelation, and someone or something from outside their world would have to provide it. We may draw parallels with Reallanders and Hyperland again here. Irrespective of whether a 4-D world could be considered as part of the same physical reality as our own, we cannot access a world that lies in a direction in which we cannot even point. And even if we were to postulate that the exploration of 4-D space from our 3-D world could somehow be made possible, for now at least we need revelation if we are to know anything about a putative 4-D world.
Taking the analogy a step further, we might ask how someone from 3-D Realland could communicate with 2-D Flatlanders. In principle, a Reallander could convey information about Realland to those in Flatland in at least three ways:
(a) by somehow communicating from outside Flatland
(b) by somehow entering Flatland and communicating from within it
(c) by somehow taking one or more Flatlanders out of Flatland to see Realland for themselves.
In the case of (a), a Reallander could perhaps somehow “speak” into Flatland, although we might reasonably wonder what a 3-D voice would sound like in a 2-D world.
In the case of (b), a Reallander might somehow enter Flatland in such a form that he (or she) could communicate with Flatlanders. If retaining a 3-D shape would make this difficult – and it is hard to see how it would not – the Reallander might try to make himself look 2-D, or even somehow “become” 2-D. He might even become a Flatlander, if that were possible, so as to communicate with Flatlanders on level terms. But even if this could be accomplished, we might wonder how the Flatlanders would know that the visitor really was from Realland, and whether they would believe what he claimed about himself and where he came from.
Approach (c), which would involve transporting Flatlanders out of Flatland and into a world to which they cannot even point, looks relatively feasible from a Realland perspective. But even if the chosen Flatlander(s) lived to tell the tale, we might wonder how they could adequately explain the nature of Realland on their return. And even if they could, would their fellow Flatlanders believe them?
We would need to know more about Flatland and its inhabitants to answer these questions in detail. But even if we knew absolutely everything about Flatland, we would still face a daunting challenge in trying to convey the nature of Realland to Flatlanders.
By analogy, we can begin to see some of the issues for ourselves as 3-D beings. Three primary implications of the Flatland analogy deserve particular emphasis. Firstly, if there exists Someone or Something beyond our 3-D universe, we need revelation to discover Him/Her/It. Secondly, it is hard to envisage how any amount of meditation, human wisdom, or even scientific progress could lead to us discovering such a Someone or Something by ourselves. He/She/It must take the initiative. And thirdly, if this Someone or Something was to take the initiative, it would necessarily be on His/Her/Its terms, and we would almost certainly not fully understand Him/Her/It and what He/She/It was trying to convey. Our minds are still striving to comprehend 3-D reality, let alone anything beyond it.
From analogy to reality?
In the context of the Flatland analogy, it is reasonable to consider how Someone or Something beyond our 3-D world might take the initiative and communicate with us.
Someone or Something from a world beyond our own might communicate with people in our 3-D world through visions or voices, or even through having an “out-of-body” experience. This would be analogous to someone in Realland showing video or audio clips to Flatlanders, either within or outside Flatland.
Someone or Something from a world beyond our own could manipulate matter within our 3-D world in lots of different ways. We might not notice immediately, or even at all, especially if the manipulation was done at the molecular level. If we did notice, the result would appear miraculous. This would be analogous to someone in Realland moving 2-D objects around within Flatland, or perhaps out of Flatland and back in again.
Someone or Something from a world beyond our own could enter our 3-D world. This could result in the appearance of what we might call an angel, a demon, a spirit, or even God. This would be analogous to someone or something in Realland somehow entering Flatland.
In the light of the Flatland analogy, if a world beyond our own exists, revelatory events such as those described above are rather less unlikely than we might otherwise think. From a 4-D perspective, the above examples of what Reallanders might call the supernatural or the miraculous would be ordinary. Yet from a 3-D perspective they would be bewildering, if not terrifying.
Using the Flatland analogy, we can at least begin to consider how Someone or Something from beyond our world might communicate with us. If a higher dimension exists – and the Flatland analogy suggests that we should be cautious in dismissing such a possibility – then what might at first seem improbable could actually be quite plausible.
That said, if we are to entertain the idea of a “Kingdom of God” as more than a theoretical possibility, it is reasonable to expect some evidence for its existence. It is fair to ask whether any supernatural entities, let alone Someone or Something that could be called God, have shown themselves. Given the fertile imagination of human beings, and noting that the human mind can be gullible as well as sceptical, we would want to be sure that such phenomena really were supernatural.
In the discussion that follows, we shall depart from analogy, and explore evidence for the reality – or otherwise – of revelation from God.
1C. Revelation from God
A speaking God
As we shall see, it is foundational to the Christian view of the world that God does exist, and that he communicates with human beings. According to Christian revelation, God has spoken to men and women through visions, voices, messengers and miraculous events. It is not always clear exactly how these things happen, but, as we have discussed in the context of the Flatland analogy, we could hardly expect it to be so.
It is likely that the writer of part of the Bible had such modes of communication in mind when writing these words: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways…” (Hebrews 1:1). In the Old Testament, God spoke to his people through prophets, i.e. people who speak God’s message. And he did so in various ways, such as visions, voices, messengers, and miraculous events.
But the events of the Old Testament, if indeed they are actual events, are only the warm-up act. It is amazing enough that God spoke to people through prophets, but what is even more remarkable is the claim that “in these last days [God] has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:2). According to the Bible, God’s ultimate revelation comes not through the prophets but through one particular person: Jesus Christ.
A written record
The accounts of Christian revelation are recorded in the Bible, a book that is sometimes referred to as “Scripture” or “the Scriptures”. The Bible – literally “the Book” – contains the foundational documents of Christianity. There are 66 of these in total, and they vary greatly in length. Some are no more than a single page long. Others are the length of short books.
The Bible was written over a period of around 1500 years by around 40 different authors from a wide variety of backgrounds. The first part of the Bible – the Old Testament – was written over a period of more than a thousand years, and it was completed long before the birth of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament was the “Bible” that Jesus read. The second part of the Bible – the New Testament – was written within a period of a hundred or so years of Jesus’ time on earth. And the internal testimony of the Bible is that behind these 66 “books” written over many centuries lies a coherent narrative inspired by God himself.
Of course just because a book says that it contains revelation from God does not necessarily mean that it actually does. But if there were a book that really did contain the revelation from God, we would surely expect it to say so in one way or another. And as we have seen from the Flatland discussion, the notion of revelation from Someone or Something from beyond our world is at least plausible.
It is thus reasonable to give serious consideration to a book such as the Bible. It has certainly stood the test of time. Moreover, many thinking people – as well as some not-so-thinking people – believe that the Bible really does contain revelation from God, and that its message is of unparalleled importance for each and every one of us.
Next chapter (Chapter 2)
Outline of whole book for reference
Part (i): Background
Part (ii): Problem
Part (iii): Solution
Main index with additional outline structure
The Big Reveal homepage (or search Substack for “The Big Reveal”)
Text © The Big Reveal 2024