No broadband?
Instead of reading pages online, open the ones you want in quick succession. Then go offline, call them up with the "History" button (Explorer] or Ctrl+H [Netscape], and read at your leisure

Why is the power and influence of traditional religion weakening in the 21st century? Various studies indicate that a majority is still religious to a considerable degree. And yet in the West churches are rapidly emptying. Many look elsewhere for inspiration. While few have time to work it out for themselves, one reason for ineffectiveness of traditional answers may be that perceptions of truth have changed radically.

Imagine yourself in a large enclosed space, perhaps something like a giant London Millennium Dome. Instead of being saucer-shaped this Dome is spherical.

You are at the very centre of the sphere. The space around you swarms with life. Nearby spaces have no visible life, and others are too far away to be seen in any detail. You can't see out of the sphere. It seems to have neither doors nor windows. The overall impression is of elegant complexity. It's almost as though someone has designed the sphere.

Your measurements indicate that the sphere is inflating. By now its inner surface is so far away that the light from them takes some 13.7 billion years to reach you. The glow from its outer reaches is so faint that you have to use your most powerful telescopes and other instruments to see it.

It should be evident by now that I'm using a simple analogy to envisage the universe of which we and our world are part. Two important aspects of the universe are comparatively recent discoveries:

1. All the evidence so far is that the universe began when some sort of primal substance exploded (from nothing, as far as we can tell) in the so-called Big Bang. This has two implications:

• We can't know anything before that point, because that is when space-time came into being. We are creatures of space/time. Without it we could not exist. And therefore
• the universe, though apparently expanding, has no "outside" since the space-time continuum (there is no space without time and no time without space) requires that there has to be a "before" if there is to be an "outside".

2. The universe is an unbounded system (that is, a closed system without an "outside") which consists of multiple sub-systems, each open to all the other systems. Each human being is an open sub-system, as is our world, our solar system and the galaxy. Every sub-system interacts with every other sub-system in many different ways. 

A feature of systems is a natural tendency towards homeostasis - a steady state in which the system operates without interference. When one system acts upon another, homeostasis is upset. The impacted system is changed. If the disturbance is minor, the system adjusts towards homeostasis once more. A major disruption can cause the system to cease functioning; or if the system is already not functioning well, it may cease functioning after only a relatively minor disturbance. In humans we call this "death". In organisations and other social systems it's called "collapse".

If the spherical space with which we began remains intact, all its systems continue interacting with each other in a stately and almost infinite dance. But if something - such as revelation - "punctures" the envelope, every system within the sphere is disturbed and inevitably changed. If the interference is momentary, the stately dance will continue (we suppose) but in a new form, since the dynamics of the interacting sub-systems will have been irrevocably changed by the injection of a new element.

Revelation is generally thought of as a disclosure by God, as distinct from "discovery" by us, of some command or wish of the divine for the natural order - of which we, of course, are part. Though it should be said that a well-respected and well-argued recent standpoint presented by H R Niebuhr [1] holds that revelation can be understood as an event which so influences the imagination of an entire community that it forever changes the way that community perceives and interprets the world around it.

Revelation as disclosure could of course be of information of some sort, or perhaps some sort of direct or hands-on intervention in the normal processes of some sub-system of the universe. 

One source describes revelation as the disclosure of "... hidden aspects of the character or purposes of God, of humanity in its relationship with God and of what is to occur in the future through the providence of God." John Hick calls this "prepositional revelation" - "a body of religious truths capable of being expressed in propositions." This is a type of truth which cannot be arrived at by humans without input from God.

All traditional renderings of the concept of revelation, however, seem to depend upon an unspoken assumption - that what is revealed is not available to us in any way whatsoever in the natural order. That is, revelation is from other-than the universe; from God to the natural order; a type of information which is not available to us through our experience of the natural. Because of this we can trust revealed information completely.

A number of reasons are given for revelation. They all have to do with the inability of humans to conceptualise God. To know God as personal in any way therefore requires a disclosure of God's nature. But if God is completely "other" than the universe, how can we understand such disclosures? Some suggest that revelation is always in the form of symbols, analogies or parables which require interpretation in human terms (perhaps the visions of Ezekiel in the Old Testament are like this). If so, then revelation always comes to us indirectly through other people and through metaphors of various kinds.

A certain Paul D'Holbach protested in 1770 that revelation must, if salvation is in any way to hang upon it, be available to all. He asked,

What kind of revelation is it which cannot be understood? If only one man were incapable of understanding it, that circumstance alone would be sufficient to convict God of injustice.

To which the Church at large would no doubt respond that it is the calling of those who do understand, and who are set aside by Christians as their pastors, to reformulate God's revelation so that anyone disadvantaged in this way can understand. Thus interpretation of God's revelation is a primary task of the Church. The Roman Catholic tradition proclaims that one man alone, namely their Bishop of Rome, has the final say in such matters of interpretation.

There are two possible media for revelation:

1. God may impact directly on our thoughts. We know that thoughts are electrochemical events in the tissue of the brain. So presumably disclosure of God comes through God's direct action on these events in the brain. When God manipulates the physical structure of our brains, the mental constructs of our minds are also altered - either (presumably) unconsciously or with our awareness. These thoughts are then conveyed by us to others by some means.
   
   Thus individuals, either directly or through sacred writings, become the indirect sources of new awareness or information from God. They can then be perceived as the authority for the veracity of the revelation. This is the medium closest to the traditional understanding of revelation.

2. God may be revealed through the medium of events. We may experience a realisation or understanding through such events, and in that way acquire new knowledge. William Temple thought that history is "... the intercourse of mind and event." 
   
   Richard Niebuhr wrote that revelation is "... that special occasion which provides us with an image by means of which all the occasions of personal and common life become intelligible." For Paul Tillich, revelation is encounter with the divine, the "... self-giving of the absolutely hidden, which by the very fact of its self-giving emerges from its concealment."
   
   Strictly speaking, this understanding of revelation undercuts the traditional idea of revelation, since all normal experience is of the natural universe. Only if the experience is directly of that which is not the natural order can it be said to be truly revelatory.

The prepositional concept of revelation has as its main vehicle the Bible. It is thought of as a collection of books containing revealed truths which have been written down (i.e. in prepositions) for subsequent generations. The First Vatican Council said of the books of the Bible that they were written down "... as a result of the prompting of the Holy Spirit" and therefore "... have God for their author." A latter-day evangelist, Billy Graham, has said, "The Bible is a book written by God through thirty secretaries."

Revelation as God's self-revealing acts through the natural order has been the more popular Christian doctrine in the 20th century. Proponents of this view talk about "salvation history" (heilsgeschichte). By this appears to be meant a particular vein or current of history which, because it is perceived as God's revelation, is described and interpreted in a particular way. That is, it's not necessarily miraculous because it's God being revealed. Nor is it necessarily obvious to everyone. Indeed, it requires "faith" to be perceived and interpreted adequately. 

William Temple's classic rendering of this equation was that in heilsgeschichte ("salvation history")"... there is event and appreciation, and in the coincidence of these the revelation consists." I take this to mean that events occur and that we notice and interpret them, only then appreciating that they are God's revelation to us. So if a famine cripples and nation and causes many deaths, we can read this as God's revelation to us. Or if humanity arrives at a new insight into the way nature works and derives great benefit from that insight, I suppose that this also is God's revelation. We can, presumably, also look back at past events and draw our conclusions from the tides and currents of history.

In the "events-revelation" model, the Bible loses its divine inspiration and becomes instead essentially a memoir of God's activities in the world. Its many different writers are those who have observed events as "salvation history" and recorded them in writing. Christian teachings are, in this view, not infallible revelations from God (though they might also be that) but human attempts to understand God-initiated events. 

It seems to me that this latter position has been forced by what seems to be, in terms of contemporary knowledge, an untenable position - that God continuously acts in history by directing and manipulating events in history. Nevertheless, revelation as intervention by God in historical events persists through the device of being moved a step away from communicating prepositions to becoming the stimulation of "faith" in the individual (but not, for some reason, in all individuals). Faith in turn enables perception and appreciation of "salvation history".

If one accepts that revelation comes from God through individuals, then one must also accept that things can be irrefutably true without supporting evidence. However, if one person experiences a revelation, then others should ideally have the identical experience. The alternative is that God speaks only to a few, who would consequently have the absolute power of absolute knowledge direct from the divine source. If this is how revelation comes to us, then there is essentially no difference between individual and group revelation. God can communicate the same message to many just as easily as to the few. Those outside the chosen group have no external means of verification, just as the individual who misses out on revelation has no way of telling if another's claim to having received revelation is genuine. 

If revelation comes through an event, on the other hand, the meaning of that event is open to differing interpretations. In addition there will always be those who hold that the event is not revelatory. Who is to demonstrate that they are incorrect?

Stepping back from the details of how revelation might happen, it becomes apparent that it is the possibility of revelation which is at issue, not the method. For if revelation is unlikely or impossible, there is little point in wondering how it might happen. So we must ask, given the way we understand the universe today, is revelation a tenable theory? The matter is of some importance because the traditional theological systems of Christianity, Judaism and Islam depend upon revelation.

I can envisage three main ways of perceiving reality (the universe):

1. It may be an unbounded system, having no "outside" or "before". It is therefore a closed system. Or, if it is not closed, any revelatory interventions by God into it can't be observed, since those interventions can only be in terms of the universe itself. There is therefore no way of telling natural and revealed information apart.

2. It consists of two parts or compartments - one (the universe) to which we have access, and the other (the supernatural) beyond our direct access. This is a dualist universe, perhaps most effectively stated by Plato and his many successors.

3. It is a continuum, rather like the electromagnetic spectrum, of which we can be aware of only part (just as we can only see a tiny part of the electromagnetic wavelength spread). Thus, given new perceptual ability, some humans may be able to perceive what others can't.

The latter two possibilities allow revelation in the sense that an invisible truth might be able to penetrate normal space-time; or information from one part of a spectrum might be encoded so that it is available to the space-time part. A question remains how anyone receiving such revelation is to distinguish it from normal information and demonstrate to others not receiving it that it is God's revelation. I have not found a satisfactory answer to this question.

The first possibility also allows revelation - but only in the sense that the space-time continuum is altered by some unknown entity of which we can, by definition, know nothing (which is the traditional teaching about God). But if the continuum is altered, then the entire fabric of the universe is altered by each intervention, since its interlocking sub-systems are all interdependent - even if only to a tiny degree. All knowledge comes in, and is retained in, some material form (even if that form is alteration of electro-chemical brain circuits). To reveal knowledge from "outside" the universe is therefore to alter the material structure of the universe.

If the structure of all things is changed from time to time (or continuously) by revelatory interventions, it seems to me that unsustainable consequences follow.

There are, of course, many aspects of truth. But broadly speaking there are two main dimensions. One is what we normally call subjective truth. This is available only to the individual. It can be stated but not verified. If I say, "I have been told by God to stand on my head," you may see me standing on my head as a result of what I call revelation, but you have no way of verifying that God has indeed spoken to me.

The other dimension is normally called objective. If I say, "God has told me that the world will end on Thursday," the rest of humankind has only to wait until midnight on Thursday to verify the accuracy of the revelation. But its inaccuracy doesn't demonstrate that God didn't speak to me, only that if God did speak to me, God was incorrect.

The fabric of all modern analytical knowledge - from mathematics and physics to archeology and geology - is based upon the continuity of cause and effect. We now know that we can't always predict exactly which effect will proceed from a cause (as Newtonians once thought). Rather, the continuity of cause and effect at its most basic level is not determined but probable. 

For example, if I use the most accurate measurements and methods available to calculate the position of Venus in the night sky, it will be in that position - but not exactly. There will always be a small degree of error. I can therefore only predict its probable position even though in theory my calculations are exact. I don't know exactly what effect will result from any cause. But I do know that every cause will have an effect.

The system which is the universe consists of sub-systems which maintain themselves (whether entropic or negentropic) through the cause-effect process. If revelation happens, the natural systems of cause and effect upon which all our modern knowledge is based, is rendered an illusion. If God, for example, does protect us from drought or cause rain to fall to end a drought, then all our knowledge of weather systems is pointless. We can never predict what might happen, nor can we know what did happen. If God injects any knowledge into the human system of knowledge which has been, as it were, carved out of the multiple cause-and-effect systems which we call our world, then we can never know what is true and what isn't.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam claim to be historical religions. That is, their truth depends on events which actually happened. We are able, they say, to track actual events in the past which really happened. History depends upon cause and effect for its efficacy as a means to knowledge. 

We have to assume, for example, that Adolf Hitler decided to invade Russia during the Second World War. That decision (a cause, albeit one among many in this instance) led to a long chain of events which we can broadly trace down to present times. But if God intervenes, either with prepositions (direct into our brains, thus influencing or even stimulating decisions) or through events (by forcing Hitler's hand in some way) then history becomes an impossible discipline since we cannot know which causes were part of the natural cause-effect chain and which were due to God's direct action.

This argument, or others similar to it, has made the religious concept of revelation extremely difficult to sustain. It's not as though most people think revelation through in these terms, in my opinion. It's rather that, although the concept of revelation seems attractive on the surface, many people instinctively recognise that life's not like that. They are accustomed to testing information for its truth with little or no resort to authority as such. I may accept the authority of scientists that bosons exist. But I am always (at least in theory) open to the possibility that they don't exist. I may accept that God led Hitler to defeat, but so much other data indicates otherwise (unless revelation is always hidden and therefore irrelevant) that the likelihood is slight.

In short, if we receive information of any sort from God via revelation that information can't be doubted. Hence religious claims to absolute truth [2]. But more and more people no longer see truth as absolute. Truth for them is essentially provisional.

______________________________________________
[1] In The Meaning of Revelation
[2] For a chain of thought which claims this, see Dominus Iesus

[Home] [Back]