On the Significance of Eschatology

In most Western religions and sects there is a general story of a paradise either beyond the grave and/or (as in the study of eschatology) at the end of history. There are variations here and there in the various Christian sects, as well as between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. What I wish to deal with here is the meaning of heaven in the most general sense, leaving specifics aside, as well as the meaning of the end-of-world or end-of-history eschatology, also in the most general sense.

Basically, heaven is a place with no suffering and no death. As a literal concept, it is, quite simply, impossible. Perhaps not logically impossible, but impossible in the practical sense. Heaven is supposed to be a place of no suffering, no injustice and infinite life--in a kind of perfect, static utopia that never evolves or progresses. I will attempt to convince the reader that this is practically impossible in the following paragraphs.

I used to belong to a Protestant church, and once heard a woman say how much she'll like to play the piano once she got to heaven. She never could learn the piano here on earth (apparently she didn't have any aptitude for it), and so was looking forward to playing it in heaven. Now, of course this is a very crude conception of heaven, even a vulgar one, but it is actually not that different from what heaven must be according to the not-quite-vulgar interpretations of the religion. For instance, failure, especially failure at something we dearly struggle and sacrifice for, is painful. Very painful, and very full of despair. So there must not be failure in heaven. If there is no failure, neither is there chance for failure. If there is no chance for failure, why ought we to struggle? So the woman in my church was probably right--in heaven she'd be able to play the piano without having to struggle at it at all; for struggle means there is a chance of failure, failure means pain, and there is no pain in heaven. Hence, anyone who wishes to play the piano or violin; who wants to run a marathon; who wants to write a genius novel or poem, will just go to it and do it just like that. No struggle at it, no failure possible, and no one not able to do anything they care to do.

Of course, this turns out like an alchemist's greatest dream--we can suddenly make gold by mixing something commonplace like hot water and honey, and so gold fills the market and becomes worthless. Anyone can sit down and write a genius novel or poem, anyone can play piano like Bach; no one has to work hard at any of these things, nor is anyone ever unable to do them. The consequent is that all these things become completely worthless. And the most anguishing thing about it would be that we cannot fail at any of them we try; unless, of course, we will ourselves to fail as our aim, and even then failing is no better than succeeding, since we willed to fail. It is the anguish of a kind of omnipotence: whatever we wish for is there at the snap of a finger, which could only lead to despair, and a desire for the hard life as it is on earth, with all its suffering--for at least we would be striving and struggling, instead of a state where there is zero resistance to every desire. And to compound the anguish of this state of omnipotence, it lasts for infinite time, without change or progress. We shall go on and on forever in this state, perhaps, without history transforming; for we have reached the final state for both history and humanity, and live "with God and the angels" in some hell wherein whatever we wish for we get at the snap of a finger. This unhappy paradise goes on and on forever, death impossible.

Of course, according to what we know of human life, and how the human psyche works, this would be an absolute hell. It would be like living in a world that says "Yes" to everything we request, and gives it to us that instant. There would be no chance of failure at any endeavor, nor necessity to work and suffer for any object (since necessity to work implies the possibility of not succeeding without hard enough work); and to top it off an infinite horizon where death is impossible for us. This would be not heaven, but hell.

But then, perhaps there are some humans who could delight in such a state, but they are not the kind who one normally thinks would end up there, according to the religions. Only those who can find lasting contentment (or at least numbness) in the animal pleasures of sex, food and drugs could possibly tolerate such a state. The ones who would gladly live on skid row with a needle in the arm several times a day might be able to tolerate such a state of zero resistance to any desire, that lasts infinite time. Perhaps heaven would eventually reduce us all to such a decrepit life, since any pleasure found in things like study, intellectual pursuits, music, the arts, and even things like politics, sports, and hunting require the chance of failure and the consequent possibility of struggle for them to be of any value. A shot of heroin is enjoyed whether one struggles for it or not; it is my opinion that if ever any heaven were actually instituted supernaturally, we would all eventually devolve into anguish or find our only pleasures in such animal appetites. The bodily pleasures of sex, food, drugs and the like are the only things that seem to have any value at all if they are given to everyone in as much quantity as any would wish. But this is not usually the picture of heaven that the religions put forward, so we may safely pass over such a scheme.

What we have dealt with thus far is the very general picture of eschatology--in some religions not really eschatology at all--of the heaven that awaits us either at the end of history, or after the personal grave, or both. This sort of thinking began with the eschatology of the Jewish prophets, who first conceived of heaven as the end of history, a paradise on the earth that sits at the end of the world, God's reign on earth. This began with the prophets such as Isaiah, who predicted that God's reign would begin with the coming to the world of the messiah. Whether there would be resurrections of all the people who'd lived before, or whether only those who were born at the time of God's reign would live in the heaven on earth that the messiah would institute, is a matter for debate. In any case, eschatology is conceived as the end of history, where God will finally have his kingdom, all the difficulties of humanity solved, and finally a static, eternal paradise will be instituted under God.

It is my opinion that such eschatology myths function in human consciousness only insofar as they remain unfulfilled. I believe it would invalidate the meaning they have to human beings were they to become established, clear fact. The following considerations are a defense and explanation of this idea.

There are some people who are interested in proving the existence of the Sasquatch, or Bigfoot, and other such fantastic tales (fill in any paranormal idea you want here, whether it be telepathy, aliens, or the Loch Ness Monster). The Sasquatch is believed by the people who study its legend as a primate similar to an orangutan, and somewhat similar to man, who is yet to be verified as existing. It is my opinion that were it to be proven as established fact that the Sasquatch lives and exists--say, someone captures a live one--the very people so interested in it now would lose all interest. In the mid-20th century it was not yet established that there existed giant squid in the deep oceans. But sometime in the last 20 years zoologists found undeniable proof of it--scars on whales from battles with it, as well as pieces of the giant squid found in whale stomachs. For a long time the giant squid was a thing of legend--a sea monster found in fantastic accounts by sailors from centuries past. But now it is just an animal; there is just one more animal for zoologists to classify, the giant squid being accepted as living in the deep oceans, one more among the millions of species on Earth. There is no more mystery in it; it is not some fantastic "sea monster" at all; it is just an animal like a horse or zebra.

The same thing would happen were we to capture a Sasquatch: he would be just one among so many dozens of primates, a species of ape among the crowd of others. Certainly now zoologists will take a greater interest in him, but those to whom the Sasquatch study is now filled with mysterious legend would totally lose interest in him. He is just a species of ape; there is nothing mysterious about one more species of ape being discovered; it is just another animal, no more mysterious or legendary than a gorilla. To the people now so anxious to verify the Sasquatch, he is now filled with awe, and to find him would be akin to discovering something supernatural. But after he is found, he's just another animal, no more interesting than a chimpanzee; another primate will simply have been found.

The very attractiveness the legend of the Sasquatch has for those who care about it now is the fact that it is an unknown, an idea of faith, something mysterious. It is the very fact that it is unverified that the Sasquatch is attractive; people put faith in him because he is unknown and unverified. To establish his existence as fact would destroy his meaning for all who want to believe in that fact of his existence; it is impossible to have faith in an established fact, and it is equally impossible to feel mystery in something that is plain and irrefutable.

To change paranormal mysteries now, if aliens ever did come to Earth, we would eventually accept them as much as we now accept the existence of African pigmies. Perhaps in ancient Greece it was possible to feel mysterious faith in legends of a race of tiny people--African pigmies--but now if anyone wants to see a pigmy he just has to look them up on the Internet and read about these very real African people. If aliens ever land on earth and hold conferences with presidents, no one will feel any especial mystery in their arrival once it sinks into human consciousness; and those who currently find such awe and mystery in the idea of aliens would find that awe and mystery utterly ruined by the plain and open fact of their presence. There is no possibility of fervent, awe-filled faith in a religion that is totally factual and clearly true; in the same way there is no possibility of mystery and wonder and awe at aliens that anybody may see if he cares to--should they finally land--just like anybody can now see an African pigmy on the Internet.

So this is my thesis: that end of history eschatology, God making himself known to the world finally, humans living among angels in the reign of God, is valid and true to the human heart only insofar as it is never actually manifested. Were God to come out of the shadows, make himself plain, and rule over the world, God and angels being clear facts as much as gorillas and pigmies are now, religion would lose the meaning it has for the human heart. There would be neither mystery nor awe nor faith in these things as men feel them now. These eschatologies such as those in the Western religions have meaning for human beings only insofar as they never come true. But if the Rapture should come, and should we see angels and resurrections and judgement of souls--as clear as we now see judgements of criminals in our courts--it would eventually divest religion of all the meaning it has for human beings. There may still be religion, but it will have been changed to what we can only call "something else"--it would not be religion as we know it; and no religion was anywhere ever believed that consisted of nothing but clear, established facts. If there were a belief system anywhere--whether a religion finally come true or a scientific conceptual framework--consisting only of clear established data, it would not be what humans have used the name "religion" to describe up till now. Indeed, it would be something else.

Eschatology has meaning for us only so long as it does not come true; the day it does, and God begins his reign over men--he being as plain to us as the US president is now--there will be nothing of the same religious spirit of humanity anymore. It will be neither mysterious, awe-filled, nor a possible object of faith. No one asks, "Do you believe horses exist?" and the idea of "Faith in horses" is nonsensical. The same would be true of God should he come to earth and rule human beings; people will have to find their faith always in things that are unknown and thus filled with mystery. As soon as God comes to the Earth, he will be meaningless and commonplace in the human heart.

As we saw above that heaven is (in a practical sense) impossible according to what we know of human consciousness, we will say now that the end of the world and the rule of God divests itself of its own meaning for humanity as soon as it becomes true and factual. Heaven loses its value through its very lack of suffering; in the same way religion would lose its value for humanity by its very manifestation as plain fact. Eschatology has value to humanity only so long as it does not become actual and manifest. The idea of the end of the world and reign of God has meaning to human beings only so long as it never comes true. As soon as it is manifest fact, it no longer holds any mystery, nor can it possibly be an object of faith or a thing of awe. It is just another fact; nobody disbelieves in horses, and nor does anybody feel any especial mystery in their existence. Unicorns, however, are a different matter.

Angelhaunt.net: Because earth's madness is heaven's sense.