Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do You Believe in Fate?
By Ephraim Moses Lilien אפרים משה ליליין.
In my most recent post, I shared my life-changing experience of sharing the beginning of Pesach with the iWe family. As part of that special time, they invited a rabbi — iWe’s study partner — for lunch one day. A Chassid with a twinkle in his eye, he sat across the table from me, and his wit, intelligence and humor were evident from the start.
At some point during lunch, the rabbi asked me if I believed in fate. I told him that I didn’t, that I believed in free will which would contradict the concept of fate. Then he asked if G-d knew what choices I would make and I said that I felt G-d could know those choices, if He wished to know. He then pointed out that if G-d knew what my future held, how could I have free will? Was my life not pre-destined? I was silent. He assured me warmly that we didn’t need to pursue that discussion, but I realized it was something I wanted to give a lot of thought.
It’s only been a few days since, and I’m still thinking through the possibilities and implications of G-d’s knowing our future, even though there is no fate.
The first thing I realized is that it’s impossible for us to know what is in the mind of G-d, what G-d is capable of, or what G-d chooses to do at any given time. G-d is beyond space and time. So for us to insist on our understanding of the workings of G-d is to suggest that we are equal to G-d, and I know darn well I’m not!
But since I believe in G-d’s omnipotence — and since I am incapable of identifying what G-d is capable of or what G-d knows — it’s not a stretch for me to live with the paradox that we have free will and that G-d knows our future. Again, we simply cannot define or understand the mind of G-d. Whether this is in concert with traditional Jewish thought, I have no idea, but it makes sense to me.
Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or religious person, it’s an intriguing question:
Do you believe in fate?
Published in General
Oh, lots of juicy thoughts, FSC! I don’t think at any point I would call my life predictable–just ask my husband! I think the prophets could predict because G-d was working through them. And of course, Judaism doesn’t ascribe to man’s fallen nature, so we are only limited by our own perceptions and understandings. Fascinating ideas, aren’t they?
Christianity asserts that God is eternal, rather than infinite. That means He exists beyond time. There can be no events without things to act and be acted upon. God is the Creator of all things. Therefore, He created time and is not bound by it. God does not have to wait for the future, nor abandon the past, as we do.
There is a divine plan which proceeds from God’s total awareness of our every decision in every potentiality. That He knows what choice I will make does not prevent me from making it, nor cheapen my free will.
I agree with Trink and Sabrdance that modern Westerners commonly overestimate their ability to define themselves and to direct their own lives (let alone the world around them and fellow persons). Our freedom is often more in response than in direction. We do what we will with what we are given. But that is a great measure of freedom. And it is also common for people to underestimate our participation in Creation and the divine plan.
Is it fate if a child builds whatever he wants with a limited number of toy blocks, within a limited time, within the limits of physics? Is any minor restriction a degree of fate? Or is fate a total determination that cannot be measured by degrees?
There is no luck. We are not slaves. We are not each granted an equal measure of freedom. We all are offered love, here or in Heaven.
The longest conversation I was ever a part of revolved around the fate/pre-destination/free will paradox. For 2 hours, about 12 of us snacked on pizza and wings after an especially deep Bible study about this stuff.
It was so interesting and fun but eventually we all had to go home and no real Earth shattering enlightenment seemed to befall us.
A few were fairly strongly opinionated on both sides but most were really thinking about it for the first time (as I was). I’m along the lines of your original post. Yeah, I think about at and wonder (wander). However, I just shrug after a few minutes and put it before God in faith and look forward to hearing the answer from His lips.
That is certainly an approach one can take. I feel it’s a bit passive for me. I think G-d expects more from me (such as in doing good in the world), yet I look forward to His direction as well. I suspect you’d agree.
Being raised a Dutch Calvinist who has been a member of a Southern Baptist church for the last 25 years, I’ve come to roll my eyes and sigh every time the free will vs. predestination topic comes up. While I firmly believe what I was taught and see it as scriptural, I realize that discussions of this type rarely change anyone’s opinion.
I recently came across a copy of The Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith (amazingly reformed) that describes the providence of God, in section 2, this way:
Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not any thing, befalls any by chance or without His providence; yet by the same providence He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
There are 6 other sections that flesh is out more, but basically I believe God ordains what will happen but we’re still responsible for our own choices. I don’t totally understand that, but I don’t totally understand lots of stuff. Again, I don’t believe my saying that or a thread like this will move the needle at all.
Well, it would appear that Belt and Aaron Miller have beat me to the points I was to make, and certainly made then better than I could have done.
There is, in Reformed Christian (especially evangelical/non-denominational iterations) theology, a certain tension between being able to make choices for ourselves while believing in God’s ultimate Sovereignty over His Creation.
Two comments which I hope are interesting without telling you anything you don’t know.
I think this is from Guns, Germs, and Steel; where Jared Diamond repeats an aboriginal saying from New Guineau which is something like…The future is an arrow that lands at my feet. The idea being that no one can see or dodge an arrow coming, you see it when it hits just in front of you (or if you are unlucky just hits you). This is it seems to me a totally fatalistic view of life where one can do nothing to avoid one’s fate. I don’t think it is a coincidence that these folks were head hunters.
Modern progressive thought is both different and similar in that they believe mankind can be substantially perfected given the perfect environment. The movie Trading Places comes to mind. Differences of any kind are largely social constructs, so give everyone the same training and all outcomes will converge. OR ELSE THE SYSTEM IS RACIST or somethingPHOBIC.
I don’t believe in fate, in the sense of necessity. I believe God gave us all free will. To really vandalize Boethius, God has seen the movie and knows how it ends. But we, nevertheless, wrote and acted our part.
I have a crazier collateral theory, that the Multiverse is a potentially infinite series of parallel universes, which differ only according to the choices of beings with free will. After all, physical reality is lawful and doesn’t vary. It’s only we who choose different paths.
…and, to return to theology, God rules per Omnia saecula saeculorum. That last phrase is usually rendered “forever and ever,” but can be translated more literally as “through all the World of worlds.” More interesting that way.
Thanks for bringing us this topic!
When I was conceived by my parents, I had no say in it. When as an infant and a child my parents made decisions I was required to submit to them. I had some free will in bits and pieces here and there but largely I was put in a situation and learned to navigate in that situation.
I gained some freedoms as a I grew up. For instance, I learned how to cross a street without risking life and limb. I learned how to drive a car, safely.
When I was about to graduate from high school, I enlisted in the Marines. That choice was mine, as was my offer to serve in Nam as a Marine.
There are lots of decisions I make, and am responsible for those decisions. Those decisions include not only me but can include my wife and my kids, as well as anyone who might be involved even remotely in what happens when I make a decision and then act on it.
So, within a specific set of circumstances (fate?) I have the ability to make decisions and act on them.
But there are big things, such as being an American and what that involves, to which I am subject. Fate and free will. Both apply.
Your comment is intriguing. Do people choose to influence others or to change their minds on a Ricochet post? That’s not my goal at all. I just want to know how people see the topic of fate, and if and how it influences their lives. It’s the wide range of views that I appreciate.
Well done! I like the contrasts in beliefs. Thanks, Ross.
Very intriguing! Which only emphasizes the influence we can have and it extends beyond our own comprehension. Thanks, Autistic.
According to the Molinists, yes.
Arguments about God’s providence, it seems, fall into two categories: some dispute His foreknowledge; others question whether He can direct creation to a particular end (or ends). The second debate, in my opinion, is far more troubling than the first.
If God’s divine plan is merely that I exercise my free will — and, if providence is simply God’s awareness of past, present, and future events — the notion of a providential God (for me, at least) poses no problem. But, if God’s divine plan involves the rise of empires — or Tolkien’s meeting Fr. Francis Morgan — human free will becomes a seeming impossibility.
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that you were trying to influence people to change their minds. And I’ve been around Ricochet long enough to know that minds don’t usually seem to be changed by the sharing of differing opinions. Although, truthfully, don’t we offer our opinions in order to influence others on some level? Anyway, in my experience this seems to be a topic that people seem especially dug in on. (Too many Baptist Sunday School classes, probably!)
My #1 son suggests that because Pharaoh limited the free will of the Jewish people (by refusing their request to leave Egypt) six times, G-d limited Pharaoh’s free will, measure for measure, six times.
This explanation not only shows why G-d limited Pharaoh’s free will (an extraordinary act much queried by our sages), and why he did so six times, but it also is a stirring example of how G-d views freedom and liberty. The Torah seems to be telling us that if a human takes away the free will of another, then G-d may do the same to him.
Early books of the Bible are explicit that God does indeed influence the rise and fall of civilizations. It has always been Christian teaching that God is not a divine watchmaker but rather active in human and natural events. The Bible even contains a repeating theme of God rewarding or cursing a person’s ancestors for that person’s faithfulness or selfishness.
It does not contradict free will any more than a parent’s influence on a playground prevents children from playing creatively. The parent provides opportunities, sets boundaries, encourages or discourages, and occasionally intervenes. That the children’s freedom is not absolute does not mean it isn’t significant.
If God favors one army in battle via weather, ingenuity, or refreshed strength (as Generals George Washington and George Patton believed), God’s determining graces do not steal from free men the choices to hope, to fight, to innovate, etc. We cannot win the war, but we can be His hands in battle.
To complain that we are not allowed to act completely indepedent of God’s own will and His enabling graces or just censures is to misunderstand human nature. God is not just the most powerful being. He is Being itself. We exist only by extension of His power and love only by our allowance of His love. We cannot live or choose except through the graces He offers.
The parent-child analogy is endlessly valuable in considering God and Man, but there are limits.
If God knows what is going to happen, then God lacks free will.
If God lacks free will, then God cannot influence any events in any way, and therefore does not exist in any meaningful sense.
Similarly if you lack free will, then you do not exist.
You think, therefore you are. Those who don’t think, aren’t.
a profound and important conversation, but I am still smiling over the picture in #2, of a “free-range chasid”
Forgive me, Robert, but I don’t know if you’re serious or not. I think your point above is incorrect. G-d can know what is going to happen, has the power to act and control, but chooses not to.
Isn’t he the cutest?! All of three years old and even cuter in person!
Most chasidim follow a rebbe, and that rebbe is at least a source of inspiration if not actually something of a conduit. Wiki’s piece explains this pretty well. When I say “most” I mean that there are very, very few exceptions – people who could never, ever be considered “followers” and still remain chasidim.
My town has two families whom one could call “Free Range” Chasidim. One of these families is too independent to follow a leader, and the other is too enthusiastic to be limited to one path. It is the second whom Susan met.
The vast majority of Jews (like people in general) tend to fit in one group or another. There is almost always a herd of some kind. Peer pressure is strong, and people like to be part of a group.
Then there are those Jews who simply don’t belong to any category (not even Chasidism), and have no herd of any kind. The only reasons those Jews are not ostracized is because we don’t pick fights with others, and we are transparently passionate about learning and practicing the Torah. At least, that is what I keep telling myself.
I just see the debate as interesting but trivial nonetheless. It takes a few hours to hear everyone’s thoughts, then everyone realizes that we still have no answer. The answer would have no impact on whether we should do “good in the world”. Yes, we should. It isn’t bad to wonder about God’s nature. I’m sure that pleases Him. However, as you state, our real purpose is to serve Him and not get wrapped up in things we can’t fathom.
Knowing what is going to happen does not mean that the knower made that thing happen. Knowing what is going to happen implies knowledge, omniscience. Omniscience is a different word that omnipotence because it implies something else.
A Being Who is love offers His creation the opportunity to act. They may act in His favor or they may act against His favor, but He has given them the right to act freely and He does not retract that right when it is inconvenient for either Him or them.
Could He do it? Omnipotent. Does He normatively do it? Not normatively. Does He ever do it? Yes. The miraculous still occurs.
I’m sorry that you see this discussion as trivial; it’s not about coming up with an answer. I think learning how people see their lives, the options and the power they have to serve is fascinating. It’s not just about understanding the nature of God; it’s also to understand that we are empowered (or not) to act. And I think the different ways that people feel about that responsibility is enlightening for me.
Preaching to the choir in my case, John.
I will ponder this, John. Great points! Thanks!
Foreknowledge doesn’t interfere with free will because the causal link betwee God’s knowledge and my choices is entirely one-way–from the choices to God.
It’s best to think of God as outside of time. Thus foreknowledge is a misnomer. God’s knowledge of our choices is more like our own knowledge of the past.
Like Lewis said, it’s all in Boethius.
I’m quite serious. If God knows everything that is going to happen, then God can’t change anything, and therefore is completely powerless, and thus effectively does not exist.
So if there is a God, or anyone else, who has free will, then no one can know the future.
Can anyone know the future? Consider the following thought experiment. I will give you a computer with unlimited computational power, and allow you to program it with every fact concerning the location, velocity, charge, mass, and every other physical property of every particle in the universe. Then I ask you to predict what I am going to have for dinner tonight. Despite your complete knowledge of every particle on the universe, you can’t do it – because I have free will and can choose to contradict your prediction.
Therefore free will exists, and omniscience can not – not in reality, not even in principle.
This, among other things, is why liberty works and communism doesn’t. You can’t plan an economy without reducing people to less than what they are.
I believe God knows which decisions I will be confronted with and the outcomes of how I chose. God knows each variation of ever possible decision. If you believe in branching reality then all possible fates await you, and God knows all the branches. If you do not believe in branching reality, then God knows the probability of your choice and all the possibilities but lets you decide which way you will go out of all the choices. The deck is either completely set, or God had a sense of humor and said “Surprise Me”. Einstein was right only half the time about God not rolling dice.
Now do not go into branching realities with branching Gods, that just gets messy.
At least one error, maybe two.
First, you’ve presumed that divine foreknowledge makes its object a necessary truth. You’re understanding necessity backwards. Given the fact which divine knowledge knows, divine foreknowledge is necessarily correct; but this necessity imparts no necessity to the fact which is known and which, in the case of a free decision, is not necessary. The causation goes one way, from the fact to God’s knowledge.
Also, since God is best thought of as outside of time, it’s roughly accurate to think of God’s necessarily accurate knowledge as coming after the fact, imparting no necessity to the fact at all.
(All in Boethius.)
Second, I suspect you’ve presumed that the divine quality of omnipotence means being able to do anything. But what it really means is having unlimited power. And the ability to do certain things like die, tell a lie, or produce a contradiction is not a power, but a weakness.
(All in Anselm.)
For God to have the ability to change a fact He knows to be true would be for God to have the ability to make a fact both true and false. This would be to produce a contradiction, and thus would be a weakness excluded by omnipotence.