The Theology of Flatland (God and the 4th Dimension)

Last semester at school, I was required to take a lower level math course that I had no desire to sit through. For the most part, my dread and hesitancy were both justified, but for one brief, shining week or two, the math class covered the topic of the 4th Dimension. Part of that study involved reading Flatland, a wonderful book by Edwin A. Abbott that tells the story of a 2-dimensional being experiencing the higher realities of the 3rd dimension, as we see it. Truly fascinating stuff, I would encourage anyone and everyone to read it.

Everyone else in the class seemed to hate this topic. Perhaps it was too cerebral for them (though how any of them could prefer to discuss modular arithmetic or statistics instead of dimensional theory is beyond me), but my colleagues were relieved when the topic was over and we were assigned a paper, detailing our thoughts and reactions to Flatland. Perhaps it was because I was in a particularly theological mood that semester, but I tackled it from a perspective of how the idea of the 4th dimension pertains to varying models of God's existence. It was philosophically satisfying as well.

This is the paper that I wrote. I feel confident enough in my writing and reasoning that I can share it with you all without too much trepidation. I hope you enjoy it, and I hope this gives you something extra to think about when the subject of God's existence or Flatland or dimensional theory crops up.

And with that said, spoilers. You have been warned.

"At first glance, Flatland appears to have little to do with theology. The given history of that 2-dimensional plane is fueled by satire, the plot points are written in terms of geometrical proofs and the overall goal of the work seems to be to get the reader to think in terms of 0-4 dimensions (or even 0-nth dimensions). Yet the book has themes that transcend the field of mathematics to which it is traditionally bound, especially in the second half when the main figure, A. Square, receives a revelation from a Sphere who comes in the name of a “Gospel of the 3^rd Dimension.” Such terms as “Gospel,” “converts” or “Apostle” imply deeper religious meanings which can give the book added context (62). By no means is this a book with ideological content that is exclusive to the field of mathematics.

This shift towards theology begins in the second half of the book and persists until the end, from the arrival of the visiting Sphere to A. Square's imprisonment. The book's first sign of theological awareness is the point in the story when the Sphere pulls Square out of Flatland and into Spaceland, where Square is overcome with wonder and awe that leads him to initially make the assumption that he now sees things as God does. “Behold, I am become as a God. For the wise men in our country say that to see all things, or as they express it, omnividence, is the attribute of God alone” (66). The Sphere is quick to rebuke him, responding that if omnividence is the attribute of God, then even the crudest and most immoral of Spacelanders must be divine, at which point divinity becomes a joke. Qualities like mercy and love are betters indicators of divinity, according to him.

In this case, Omnividence is a thinly veiled term for omniscience, which was platonically thought to be one of the attributes of a perfectly rational and aloof God. In this platonic theological model, God is seen as being above the possibility of being affected by anything, even feelings. This preference of the intellectual over the emotional is reflected in Flatland's attitude towards women, who are depicted as being irrational and overly-emotional. The Sphere's answer is a dismissal of the platonic model, with its uncaring and purely rational God. Furthermore, it is a refutation of A. Square's gnostic presumption that knowledge, power, and perception are signs of godliness.

It is worth briefly noting that the King of Pointland is another example of the platonic theological model and its inadequacies. As described by the Sphere, this non-dimensional being is completely self encapsulated and utterly indivisible, since he is a universe unto himself: “He is himself his own World, his own Universe; of any other than himself he can form no conception; he knows not Length, nor Breadth, nor Height, for he has had no experience of them; he has no cognizance even of the number Two; nor has he a thought of Plurality; for he is himself his One and All, being really Nothing” (75). The Greek world associated plurality and divisibility with the physical, which was mortal, sinful, and prone to decay. Conversely, singleness and indivisibility were associated with the spirit, which was divine, rational, and eternal. What this implied for them was a God who was a single unit unto himself, so completely transcendent that he could only be aware of himself. This platonic God was, for the Greeks, the highest being, a position that is contested by the example of the King of Pointland, who while being utterly singular is also at the lowest possible level of existence. How pitiful it would be if God were so wrapped up in himself that he could not even be aware of anything other than himself! Creation itself would then be impossible, since creation, by definition, implies a creator and a creation, which is a plurality. By way of this comparison between the non-dimensional and the platonic, we can apply geometry to theology; if God is to be worthy of his name, he cannot possibly be non-dimensional and ignorant of plurality like the King of Pointland, and consequently, he cannot be like the God that the Greeks envisioned.

Also worthy of mention is how Square's initial conviction that Spaceland is the ultimate reality is analogous to the way many people imagine they may feel about the prospect of meeting intelligent extraterrestrials or experiencing the 4^th Dimension firsthand. The rash assumption is often made that upon find ourselves capable of such transcendence, God becomes irrelevant. It may seem a disappointment for a Flatlander to experience the 3^rd Dimension and not find God there (as was the case when Square first assumed that omnividence was Godly and then realized his error), but this does not mean that God is not out there in a yet higher dimension. The day may come when human beings discover a way to travel to the most distant stars or experience the 4^th Dimension for themselves, and they may find no God waiting for them. But this should not be discouraging. How disappointing it would be to learn that God is merely 4^th Dimensional, and not at a level of existence infinitely greater than that. Whatever dimensions we eventually travel to and regardless of what beings we meet, it would be theologically advisable for us to remember that God is the Great Other, of whom we can as of yet see but little. Square's inability to look upward did not discount the possibility of upward direction; our inability to look in God's direction does not discount the possibility of his existence. No matter how many dimensions we travel to, we will not find God with our own eyes, but he will still be present. Until we meet face to face, he will remain Nth Dimensional.

All of this is to say that our finitude as human beings affects how we think of God and also how we are unable to see him. Our platonic models yield only the pitiful King of Pointland and unfeeling rationality, and no matter how hard we try, we do not have eyes capable of seeing beyond the fog of our imposed dimensions. No matter what incredible strides we make in terms of spatial or dimensional capability, the one true and all encompassing answer is beyond achieving on our own strength. But in spite of all this, we have heard God speak to us, though we could not see him. We did not have to rip through dimensional barriers to find the truth; the truth came to us. When God decided that the time was right for us to see him with our limited, 3-Dimensional eyes, he stepped down into our dimension as the Incarnation, so he could preach a Gospel of a Kingdom, the Dimension of Heaven."

Feedback/comments are welcomed and encouraged. I'd love to hear what you think of all this.

Until next time, this is the Idiot, signing out.