\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[margin=2cm]{geometry}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{multicol}

\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{tikz}
\newenvironment{Figure} % for in multicols; see http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/12289/23992
    {\par\medskip\noindent\minipage{\linewidth}}
    {\endminipage\par\medskip}

\title{Discussion paragraph\\\large{Rethinking Fundamental Theology, chap. 4}}
\author{Camil Staps}
\date{September 24, 2015}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{multicols}{2}
    O'Collins does not make a distinction as such between collective and individual revelation, so let's define here: \textbf{Individual revelation} is the revelation of something to one person, while \textbf{collective revelation} is the revelation of something to a group.

    These are accurate notions to describe the Jewish idea of historical revelation to the people of Israel, but also Christian perspectives that consider a common faith. The definitions are meant to provide a framework to help us understand the difference between, for example, historical revelation and revelation in prayer.
    
    With these definitions, we will then proceed to see if an ultimate understanding of God in one of these schemes is possible. We want to show that it's \emph{not} possible, because that is Christian teaching (see e.g. Is.~55:8-9).

    \bigskip

    It should be noted that collective revelation, if administrated properly, is a progress of universal growth towards a better understanding of the thing revealed. This `proper administration' could for example be accomplished by writing down particular revelations (in that sense, science utilises collective revelation). Individual revelation however relates to personal (rather than universal) growth. Every person participates in such a process, so a multitude of such processes exists at a certain moment -- these processes are finite in time and always start at zero.

    In a scheme of individual revelation, there can easily exist some ultimate understanding, but it would be reasonable to assume no person could ever reach that understanding, because individual revelation is always finite. But to say that collective revelation, being ever-evolving, would never reach some ultimate understanding, would only be possible if we (1) reject the idea of an extreme, that is, assume infinite deepness to explore, or (2) require an entirely different type of understanding\footnote{Note that both explanations are compatible with Is.~55:8-9.}: if after all there would be an extreme of the same type, an ever-growing understanding would eventually reach that point. 

    \bigskip

    To further explore these two possibilities, we should first have a closer look at the interaction between individual and collective revelation. Individual revelation can be a resource to collective revelation, when new and communicated. This is the obvious and only way in which collective understanding can grow. When individual revelation occurs, the full understanding as experienced by the individual may be incorporated into the collective understanding.

    On the other hand, a collective understanding may be beneficial to a personal process. Collective revelation is an abstract entity, not fully understood by anyone, and this implies that to begin to understand something which was already included in the collective understanding may be a form of personal revelation. As an example you could take reading about revelation to others. As in science we may work with things we don't fully understand, but that `somehow work', we can also use bits and pieces of collective understanding to gain some new revelation. We then use parts of the collective understanding as black boxes, anonymous building blocks.

    \begin{Figure}
        \centering
        \begin{tikzpicture}[every node/.style={anchor=west}]
            \draw[color=red] (0.1,0.8) rectangle (0.7,1.4); 
            \draw[fill] (0,0) rectangle (0.8,0.8);
            \node (newrev) at (1,1.1) {$\leftarrow$ New understanding using the black box};
            \node (blackbox) at (1,0.4) {$\leftarrow$ Black box from collective understanding};
        \end{tikzpicture}
        \captionof{figure}{Individual understanding using collective understanding.}
    \end{Figure}

    We saw that collective understanding can grow only from communicated individual revelation. This does however not mean that it needs to be understood before communication. For example, we find the Creator, the Word and the Spirit in Genesis 1, long before the notion of the Trinity existed. We thus see two ways new individual experiences can contribute to a collective understanding: first, they can be completely new, and second, they can be a new, more refined understanding of a previously not entirely understood experience. In terms of boxes, this is either adding a new (possibly empty) box in the void of non-understanding, or filling in (part of) an already existing box.
    
    \begin{Figure}
        \begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
            \centering
            \begin{tikzpicture}
                \draw[color=red] (0.6,-0.2) rectangle (1.0,0.2);
                \draw (0.0,0.0) rectangle (0.4,0.4);
                \draw (0.0,0.4) rectangle (0.4,0.6);
                \draw (-0.2,0.2) rectangle (0.0,0.6);
                \draw (0.4,0.2) rectangle (0.8,0.6);
                \draw (0.4,0.0) rectangle (0.6,0.2);
                \draw (0.0,-0.2) rectangle (0.2,0.0);
                \draw (0.2,-0.2) rectangle (0.6,0.0);
            \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
            \centering
            \begin{tikzpicture}[declare function={r(\x)=0.75*\x-2;}]
                \begin{axis}[domain=0.05:0.35,xmin=-0.2,xmax=0.8,ymin=-0.2,ymax=0.6,axis lines=none,clip mode=individual,clip=false,width=0.7\linewidth]
                    % random dots, see http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/145972/23992
                    \addplot[red,only marks,mark=*,samples=10,mark size=0.5]{0.2+0.15*rand};
                    \draw (axis cs:0.0,0.0) rectangle  (axis cs:0.4,0.4);
                    \draw (axis cs:0.0,0.4) rectangle  (axis cs:0.4,0.6);
                    \draw (axis cs:-0.2,0.2) rectangle (axis cs:0.0,0.6);
                    \draw (axis cs:0.4,0.2) rectangle  (axis cs:0.8,0.6);
                    \draw (axis cs:0.4,0.0) rectangle  (axis cs:0.6,0.2);
                    \draw (axis cs:0.0,-0.2) rectangle (axis cs:0.2,0.0);
                    \draw (axis cs:0.2,-0.2) rectangle (axis cs:0.6,0.0);
                \end{axis}
            \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{minipage}
        \captionof{figure}{New collective understanding vs. exploring existing understanding.}
    \end{Figure}

    \bigskip

    We can now reconsider the two options to argue we can never reach full understanding, even in the scheme of collective revelation.

    First, there was the option to reject the idea of the extreme. This would be similar to saying we can always add new boxes, or zoom further in to find things we don't understand yet. This would be a mathematical approach: using known definitions we can expand our knowledge.

    Second, there was the option to require an entirely different type of understanding. Here, we could say that at some point we may fill the void with boxes that are completely understood, but there is some other field in which we cannot understand anything.

    Both approaches have pros and cons. Clearly, we can understand \emph{something} of God, so in the second option understanding of God would exist on at least two different levels, not all reachable for humans. This notion of different levels is ill-defined and has to remain so, because it isn't understandable. However, we do not require God to be in some sense infinite.

    The first option however \emph{does} require the space of our understanding to be infinite in either the plane or the depth. Is it accurate to talk about God as an entity with an infinite amount of attributes? But, this first option does allow for never-ending growth.

    I do not intend to argue one of these options, but only list them as possible options.
\end{multicols}

\end{document}

