Sunday, April 4, 2010

Eschatology vs. Free Will

There's a problem here, like the old saying in math class about apples and oranges. Eschatology is one of those ridiculously complicated words that mean something fairly simple: the belief in and philosophy around the end of the world, or where history is headed. (Okay, so maybe not so simple.)

Something about the human psyche demands an end-of-the-world story. Most major civilizations around the world had stories about what would happen, how the world would end, and what kind of world would come after. A lot of them held that the world was destroyed and recreated, over and over again, in a timeless cycle, based on how degraded or evil humanity had become; a new Earth would then be created, with a shiny new humanity ready to inhabit it.

Christianity's no different. From the hardest fundamentalist to the loosest liberal, many if not most Christians have a religious expectation of a Second Coming, a New Jerusalem. It might be literal, as in the Left Behind series; or it might be a metaphoric story about the hope that history is tending towards the perfection of humanity. Either way, history is being guided by a divine hand to some distinct future goal.

That means that every choice we make, for good or for ill, must lead to that final heavenly goal. There is no way around it. There is no possibility of escaping the last days, whether they come next week or two million years from now. History will play out in such a way that everything winds up for the best. The end of the story has already been written.

But if we already know (approximately) how history will turn out, where does that leave free will?

Here, have some time travel:

Suppose you want to go back in time and assassinate Hitler. Unfortunately, even time travel must follow physics. Once you've gone back in time, you must have always gone back in time, which means that the situation that caused you to go back in time has just become a done deal. In other words, when you go back in time, you've predetermined the future. (Maybe someone tried to go back in time to assassinate Hitler, which is why no one was ever able to assassinate him...)

This also goes into the "omniscience" of a personal God. If God knows everything that's going to happen, therefore the future is predetermined. There's a little wiggle room here, since this predestination is only from God's point of view; from our puny human point of view, we still have yet to make the choices God knows we're going to make. (So the apples become oranges in another dimension?)

Either way, though, if history has a set ending, then our free will is either an illusion, or a farce. If God influences our choices to lead to history's happy ending, then free will is a lie. If, on the other hand, God influences nature and physics (all those miracles in the Exodus story, for example) to shape history around our choices, then free will is useless.

[There's an entire subtopic about the horror of "miracles," but that can wait.]

All this is tied up, in most traditional versions of theism, with the idea that God will come swooping in to save the day. (And if you know why "swooping is bad," you get a cookie!) Or the millennium. Or all of human history. It's out of our hands. Which is nice, because now we don't have to take responsibility for each other or for the rest of the planet. God will do it for us--probably by inspiring us to do his holy work, but hey--we just have to wait for that inspiration to strike.

Do away with the eschatology. There is no set ending. It's entirely possible that we will be responsible for our own extinction. It's also entirely possible that we will learn to manage our resources and get along with each other and with the natural world around us. Either way, it's our responsibility now, because there is no promised land except the one we make for ourselves.

2 comments:

DiscoveredJoys said...

I recently stumbled upon your blog and found it very interesting. I'm being lazy and partially recycling some comments I made on another blog today.

I’ve been reading some pop philosophy recently. Galen Strawson suggests that people tend to be diachronic or episodic… by which he means that diachronic people see their lives as the story of a single character (‘me’, past, present, and future). Episodic people think of their lives as episodes (duh) lived by the person they used to be then, a different person now, and probably a different person again in the future - not such a strong identification with their past selves.

If this view has merit, then I guess episodic people will find it easier to live for the present, but diachronic people can have a much stronger sense of purpose and meaning in their lives (its their story after all, and all stories have a plot and a happy ending or at least an eschatology).

Which brings us back to Free Will. I'm coming around to the opinion that no such thing exists. We believe in the illusion of Free Will (because we lack introspection into our unconscious, yet believe in our own narrative), and we choose to operate in society as if Free Will exists.

All of which means that we believe in the illusions of teleology, and 'the end of times', and 'Free Will'; we are just very complicated meat robots which cannot understand their own programming. Arguably this is version of a full blown pantheism, but not very sacred.

There is probably a long German word for an idea that is both depressing and fascinating at the same time!

Elaine said...

I'm right there with you. I don't believe in "free will" in the Christian sense (in that we are free to obey God's will or sin our hearts out), mostly because I think nature/nurture does funky things to our heads that we have no control over. But I do think we have free choice, in that we have a certain amount of conscious control over how we react to given situations. (But Will, no matter how much I might believe in it, can't make me sprout wings and fly, or act contrary to my personal nature.)

My problem with eschatology/teleology is a moral one. We have to act as though we have free will (or at least free choice), because responsibility for our future rests firmly in our own lap. "Let go and let God" is one hell of an idiotic retirement plan.

As for the diachronic/episodic stuff--why can't it be both? Yes, I'm a different person than I was twenty years ago; but there's a continuation of consciousness that stretches from there to here. My life has meaning for me--it must have meaning--but that doesn't entail me not changing.