From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Futures Studies and Trans-humanism[edit]

Under this section it says ... Quote : "The Sun's expansion will obviously not lead to the end of the Universe. Its effects will be limited to our Solar System. It will inevitably lead to the disappearance of our planet. Life on Earth will become impossible long before the planet is actually swallowed up by the Sun due to a rise in temperature."

This is not cited and is incorrect. Yes the sun will expand to engulf our (CURRENT) planetary orbit, however the earth's orbit will at the same change and become a larger and wider orbit, placing the planet outside the new sun's surface.-- (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Stunningly, unacceptably short article[edit]

For example: Philosophy, which was misleadingly titled "Philosophy," the logical interpretation of which is "the philosophy of eschatology." I've changed to "Eschatology in Philosophy," which is what the content, such as it is, requires.

1. Wikipedia devotes a whopping two paragraphs to this subject.

2. Para 1 jumps from Augustine to Ibn al-Nafis to Hegel to Marx, whose philosophy of religion was only "eschatological" in advocating its dissolution, outside the definition of eschatology. Para then ends with a short non-relevant sentence on theodicy -- should be removed.

3. Para 2 is entirely one of the way-too-many-in-Wikipedia citations of transhumanism. It seems that adherents to transhumanism are among the most enthusiastic contributors to Wikipedia. When a critical mass of transhumanist citations populate Wikipedia, Wikipedia will lose its credibility as a resource/source.

Perhaps this article should combine with End Time, and the notion of a useful, annotated (if intellectually repellent) link farm be revisited for this page.

Dstlascaux (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[I've moved this section from the top of the page to the bottom, so it fits in chronologically with other entries] Dom Kaos (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Dstlascaux: The article is only brief because no one with sufficient knowledge of the area has stepped up to expand it. Are you the one? --gdm (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hindu Theology[edit]

This article has Shiva destroying after Kalki has cleaned house at the end of Kali Yuga and then creating the next go-round. My understanding is that Shiva's 'job' is to destroy everything so that Brahma can start creation. I'm not an expert in the Vedas but some clarification should be sought. --Piepie (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


I boldly archived the talk, just get things moving forward some. I am going to put a copy of this article in my userspace (I'll update with a link later), to work on extensive clean-up, re-writing for this article. Thanks. AthanasiusQuicumque vult 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Other non-mainstream belief systems?[edit]

I for one would like to see this page talk about less well-known eschatology beliefs. For example, the Hopi Indians, the Magic Bill Community, etc. There is a lot of great info there. What say you people? --HelsonBeado (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That'd be great, but it'd have to be well sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel that this page should be left for major world religions, or generalities within spiritual movements, wikipedians looking for further information would do well to research the individual religions themselves. Anthalamo (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Duplication of Material[edit]

The page already has links to eschatology pages for the major religions (and others), so it doesn't make sense to repeat that information on this page. Looking at the various wiki sites on this subject, there already seems to be a lot of duplication. Let's just keep a few introductory comments on this page to whet people's appetites and point them toward the links for the existing pages on the various eschatologies, some of which are very good. --gdm (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! I think the topic "End Times" should be kept as a teaser to point to the page on eschatology. There is a definitive segment of evangelical Christianity who will be more familiar with the term "End Times" rather than the more specific term "Eschatology." The bulk of material should be placed under "Eschatology." Coldtangerines (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge End time into Eschatology[edit]

The "End time" article is basically an article all about comparative eschatology beliefs and this material really belongs in the Eschatology article. If I'm not mistaken, the term "end times" refers to a specific set of apocalyptic beliefs in evangelical Christianity, hence that article should be kept but rewritten to specifically discuss that more narrow topic.

Opinions? I'll keep this open to discussion for the next month or so, but if there's no consensus against it by then, I plan on merging the material from "End time" into "Eschatology". Peter G Werner (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the only reason for a separate article on "End Times" would be if it had a more specific focus, but with a title like that, it's hard to see how that would be the case. Your proposal to merge the two seems reasonable. Doing it will take a little of your time, though, so we should be grateful for your willingness to take it on. The only thing I'd say is that we need to make sure that the "Eschatology" page does not become more than a general overview, an introduction to the subject. If we start adding too much to the individual sections ("Christian Eschatology" etc.), we'll be duplicating what's on the more specific eschatology pages listed in the box on the top right, which would create the same problem all over again. (Also see comments in "Duplication" section, above.) --gdm (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with gdm, we need to be careful about the merge. And we need someone to do it. Simply said, I don't have enough time on my hands otherwise I would...
-CaradocTheKing (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • support merge. BUT Add more on science based technological singularity, now becoming a major field of study at universities such as Stanford, etc. HkFnsNGA (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • support above position - subjugate. "End Times" is a work-horse phrase for Pentecostal Christians - who believe that we should expect today the same tempo of miraculous events as appears in the New Testament - which is described as "the outpouring of the holy spirit" Pentecostals contextualize themselves as being right on the cusp of "the End Time" and every newspaper headline brings the world an inch closer to the events in Revelations - including most notably the rise of religious apartheid in Palestine/Israel. Presumably: "End Times" is properly a section under Christian Eschatology. (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. (Don't know why with all the supports this hasn't been done, so my comment is belated.) "End time," as noted by Peter G Werner above, is used mainly if not exclusively for the apocalyptic beliefs of evangelical Christianity, which certainly merit elucidation in their own article. Other terms are better suited for the other eschatologies. Biophys is therefore correct in pointing out that End time should not contain the eschatology of belief systems that don't primarily use the term. If End time is merged (after having its off-topic material removed), it should be merged into Christian eschatology, not this article. The broader eschatology is also a concept that can be discussed within some philosophical and religious belief systems in classical antiquity; "end time" would never be used in that context. The most common use of the term is not scientific, and technological singularity is therefore confusing to have at the top. Since each variety of religious eschatology has its own article, each is only summarized here, but the section on Jewish eschatology seems short compared to that of Islam or Christianity. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge with this page -- This page should be merged mostly into Christian eschatology or Jewish, Muslim, etc. as noted above. There is too much content here to simple merge into Eschatology, as a librarian I can warn you these articles are getting too long already. Let's go to the Internet's strengths and create more subpages. Joel J. Rane (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There seems to be a clear consensus that End time needs merging, though with other pages as well as this one. I've added tags (not sure if they were ever present in the original discussion). I realize this will be a difficult merge. The two opposes have advocated merging with specific religion/philosophy eschatology pages as well as this one. That's still a merge. --JFH (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. -- Quote from jfhutson ("...clear consensus that End time needs merging,...") is inaccurate. No clear consensus and a faulty fact, a faulty pair of pages. Scholars of eschatology (if Wikipedia was actually considered accurate in scholarly communities) would see these two pages as poorly categorized and populated. Each of their respective fields do not overlap, but in fact these two Wiki pages have done just that: some elements have been incorrectly placed in one page when they should, in fact, have been on the other page or on both pages. However, merging them makes both pages even more inaccurate from a theological standpoint than they already are. A reassignment of information needed; not a merge. --JF (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • comment There is clearly an issue, I have just come here looking for something and have to go to three places to gather the info. If we merge, improve or whatever something serious must be done. End Days, Day of Judgment, This word eschatology (never heard the word until now). It is all talking about the same thing. There needs to be cross reference and integration. merely merging might not fix it. --Inayity (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Eschatology is a much broader topic than End Times. Perhaps the problem is that the article on Eschatology does not reflect the breadth of the topic. Dr. John R. Stephenson's book on Eschatology discusses the "narrow sense" and the "broad sense" of the term. The broad sense of Eschatology may be found in the twin terms "already" and "not yet". In other words, part of the eschatological hope has already occurred, but the realization of the Eschaton is not yet. The term "eschatological hope" is telling, because while End Times theology is mainly apocalyptic, the Eschaton is something to look forward to rather than be fearful of. Eschatology is connected to teleology, the philosophical examination of the purpose of everything. The "End Times" is descriptive of the end of the world, but Eschatology touches on the purpose of it all, including the reason why the cosmos and human beings were created in the first place. Linking to the End Times page would be appropriate, but the contents need to stay where they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsonloggie (talkcontribs) 02:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Kris Carlson (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)--Kris Carlson (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)--Kris Carlson (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the idea of a merge, but oppose exact merge request. I too have only heard "end times" refer to "christian apocalypse", but the End time article current content is more broadly "eschatology", and I don't see a source backing that up the [[end time] article's strange definition. My main concern with the proposal as written is that "end times" should redirect to "christian eschatology", not here, unless a source can be provided. I would support a new merge request in end time that it redirect to christian eschatology, and that the contents be merged into eschatology and/or christian eschatology as deemed appropriate by the merging editors. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Eschatological Categories: Suggested[edit]

Inclusion of the End Time article should be delayed until a broader view of eschatology is derived first.

For the most part the article treats eschatology under the category of religion. But what of scientific, social, political, asthetic, and historical eschatology? The knowledge of life after death and related topics has excited the minds of every culture in history because eschatology is one of the primary subjects of science and the arts. If a scientist postulates the origins of life from organic inquiry, he also investigates the causes of the end of that life - perhaps in the form of pandemics. The astrophysicist contemplates an eschatological framework when studying the mass and trajectory of comets and asteroids. Global warming, a dying sun, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are further illustrations.

Also, religious eschatology needs to be distinguished from futurology and other seemingly related fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leabeater (talkcontribs) 10:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Futures Studies and Trans-humanism[edit]

Under this section it says ... Quote : "The Sun's expansion will obviously not lead to the end of the Universe. Its effects will be limited to our Solar System. It will inevitably lead to the disappearance of our planet. Life on Earth will become impossible long before the planet is actually swallowed up by the Sun due to a rise in temperature."

This is not cited and is incorrect. Yes the sun will expand to engulf our (CURRENT) planetary orbit, however the earth's orbit will at the same change and become a larger and wider orbit, placing the planet outside the new sun's surface. -- (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


"Not to be confused with Scatology." - current redirect distinction at the top of the page

Pretty easy to confuse the two, I agree. ;)

Still, someone with integrity should probably remove that as it's quite blantantly just the author's opinion as to the pedagogical significance of the topic and does not accord with a neutral presentation of an, apparently, controversial article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetname (talkcontribs) 12:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, looks like the discussion on the scatology page includes someone claiming that spelling and pronunciation similarities (especially in spanish/portugese) make the redirect appropriate. But...still. Perhaps someone should look into this a bit more, just to make sure that the linguistic similarities do exist and that they constitute an important enough problem as to warrant a redirect, especially given that such a redirect can easily be accidentally interpreted as a commentary with respect to the philosophical claims and implications of the article's content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetname (talkcontribs) 12:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

I know Jehovah's Witnesses are a minor region, but would it be worth linking to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Secular forms of eschatology[edit]

How about a separate section on modern, secular forms of eschatology? The article mentions Marxism as one form of this, but elements of eschatology could probably also be found in certain forms of radical anarcho-liberalism. To me, there also seems to be evidence that the ecological movement uses elements of eschatology, most obviouslsy in the debate on global warming, for example. --Thewolf37 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Without sources it's OR. Jojalozzo 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern eschatologies?[edit]

The introduction has the sentence: "Most modern eschatology and apocalypticism, both religious and secular, involves the violent disruption or destruction of the world, whereas Christian and Jewish eschatologies view the end times as the consummation or perfection of God's creation of the world." a) What modern religious eschatologies are we referring to? b) The only instance we mention that could be construed to be modern secular eschatology is Marxism (though that's not so modern in my view). Is that single case sufficient support for this statement? Jojalozzo 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Eschatology" means theological, not secular, beliefs[edit]

The current introduction states:

"Eschatology... is a part of theology, physics, philosophy, and futurology concerned with what are believed to be the final events of history, the ultimate destiny of humanity...

The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as "The department of theological science concerned with ‘the four last things: death, judgement, heaven and hell’."

If the OED (and many other dictionaries as well) define eschatology as theological (or at least doctrinal), why are we presuming to define it differently?

Not that it matters, but I also have only heard it in the theological context. Uses of 'scientific eschatology' or 'secular eschatology' are rare and somewhat ironic, like modern uses of 'horseless carriage'. (Note that the 'Carriage' article does not devote any significant text to the topic of 'horseless carriages', instead restricting such discussion to the articles for the more usual term 'Automobile'.) At the very least, we should make it clear that, by definition, "scientific eschatology" is science, not eschatology (just as Wikipedia makes it clear that "rifled muskets" are technically rifles, not muskets).

It's fine to keep the existing brief content relating to non-religious eschatologies, but we should make it clear that such uses are unusual, and they should include links to the main articles where they are discussed in their more usual terms, such as Human Extinction, Future of the Earth#Solar_evolution, and Ultimate fate of the universe. Alternatively, rather than linking to the last two, we could create a small new article called, say, 'Human Extinction in the Far Future', which links to and briefly summarizes Solar evolution, Ultimate fate of the universe, and throws in the eventual solidification of the Earth's outer core. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

But then you get to stuff like Marx's belief that the proletariat will inevitably overthrow the bourgeoisie once and for all and establish a truly communist society (instead of simply shuffling some of the proletariat into a neo-bourgeoisie), which is neither religious nor scientific... There's also the Technological Singularity, which cannot be scientifically proven (and so is conjecture), but is definitely concerned with science. They are concerned with the end of the world, the only difference is that they are not religious. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Marx's belief is doctrinal, but not explicitly theological. But looking on Google Scholar for "eschatology marx", confirms my suspicion that the articles that use 'eschatology' to refer to Marxism are arguing that Marxism is *implicitly* theological, by comparing it with Christian eschatology. When people say "Marxism is eschatology" they're saying that Marxism is quasi-religious. If there's no special word in the English language that includes secular beliefs about the "end of the world", then we should accept that we can't change the English language on our own. If you think we should have an article on everyone's beliefs about the end of the world, secular and theological, then such an article should just be titled "Beliefs about the End of the World". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is eschatology part of philosophy? By default we must assume that eschatology isn't part of a field until documented evidence is found to the contrary. What evidence is there to justify this article's claim that eschatology is part of philosophy? That someone who Wikipedia classes as a philosopher once talked about eschatology (e.g. Saint Augustine) does not imply that eschatology is part of philosophy, any more than the fact that someone who Wikipedia classes as a physicist once talked about alchemy (e.g. Isaac Newton) implies that alchemy is part of physics. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that eschatology is not part of philosophy. For example, Wikipedia's own article on philosophy contains no mention of eschatology or cognates. More tellingly, the "most comprehensive bibliography of philosophy" (, which is edited by hundreds of professional philosophers, contains no mention of eschatology or cognates. Hence, pending documented evidence that eschatology is part of philosophy, I have removed the section on eschatology in philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that eschatology is more a part of theology than it is a part of philosophy, but both items of evidence you give seem invalid. First, while eschatology doesn't appear in the philosophy article, neither does it appear in the theology article. Second, ( gives ~200 matches, maybe there was a typo in your search? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, I misunderstood your point, you were talking about the fact that eschatology isn't one of the 4638 categories listed on (, you weren't talking about their search engine. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rolf. This is on a different IP address. You are correct that my point was that the 4638 categories of philosophical inquiry at PhilPapers does not include eschatology or cognates. (Of course a comprehensive collection of articles within just about any field will contain a few articles with the word 'eschatology' in the title.) With respect to your first point, I would point out that, while Wikipedia's theology article proper does not reference eschatology or cognates, many of theology's 'sub-articles', such as the article 'outline of theology' ( prominently reference eschatology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As a Christian pastor of over 30 years, I am all too familiar with the term "end times". Perhaps it can be merged or subordinated under the topic of eschatology, if such were called "Christian Eschatology". I cannot speak for any group of people, but many of those looking to wikipedia on these subjects are more likely than not seeking something to their specific faith or discipline. Perhaps a general eschatology page explaining the general idea with an expanding list of links to more exact streams of thought on the subject would practically speaking work better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gratefulmealways (talkcontribs) 13:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


I think we should remove "physics" from being listed a field in which eschatology is studied. The Cake 2 (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Scatology[edit]

The word "Eschatology," for those who are not well-versed with this philosophical concept, may be confused with the similarly-pronounced word study of feces, "scatology." Hence, the need to add the

Not to be confused with Scatology.

template to the Eschatology article. A similar template

Not to be confused with Eschatology.

was added to the Scatology article.

PS: I claim ownership of the edit, and as of this writing, I have reverted User:Rolf h nelson's previous edit. THE IMPERIOUS DORK (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Eschatology equivalents in science and philosophy[edit]

The section Eschatology equivalents in science and philosophy

has no reference to a single philosopher ( I suppose someone will scurry to find a quote from Heidegger and then argue that he was a philosopher of science )

There are no discussions of eschatology in philosophy since the rise of modern science outside "philosophy of religion" unless you look in the likes of Paul Ricoeur.

What PhD Comprehensive exams in astronomy have included even the question "What is meant by eschatology in theology ?"

Best bet: define what you mean by "equivalent" and find a philosopher and scientist with a refereed publication defending that claim.

Lots of luck outside "Southern Journal of Philosophy" et al. (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)