Do You Believe in Fate?

 

Abraham_Lilien 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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 75 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    As for God’s changing things, that’s all it is–changing things.  For God to change something is for God to change it; it is not to change what He knows because His knowledge of the fact follows after the fact.  It is rather to create the fact which He knows after creating it.

    • #61
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Saint Augustine: Like Lewis said, it’s all in Boethius.

    Wasn’t familiar with Boethius. Here’s a reference.

    • #62
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Saint Augustine: 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.

    First, St. A, thank you for responding to Robert; you did a much better job than I could have! Although I must say that this paragraph through me for a loop. Is there an simpler way to express it so people like me can understand it more easily?  ;>)

    • #63
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Robert Zubrin: Therefore free will exists, and omniscience can not – not in reality, not even in principle.

    I was going to respond, but St. A does a much better job than I could on #61.

    • #64
  5. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Susan Quinn:

    Saint Augustine: Like Lewis said, it’s all in Boethius.

    Wasn’t familiar with Boethius. Here’s a reference.

    I made the (somewhat ridiculous) cartoon version of The Consolation of Philosophy:

    • #65
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Susan Quinn:

    Saint Augustine: 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.

    First, St. A, thank you for responding to Robert; you did a much better job than I could have! Although I must say that this paragraph through me for a loop. Is there an simpler way to express it so people like me can understand it more easily? ;>)

    There is a simpler way!  But I’m probably either not smart enough to do it, or too tired.  (It’s near bedtime in my time zone, and I was sick for the last half-week.)

    If it comes up again tomorrow morning, then we may find out whether I’m smart enough.  (In the meantime, my comment # 58 might be helpful, if you haven’t seen it.)

    You know, C. S. Lewis put a ton of Boethius and other great philosophers into ordinary language.  He was smart enough.  I just don’t remember ever reading him tackling this particular challenge.

    • #66
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Saint Augustine: If it comes up again tomorrow morning, then we may find out whether I’m smart enough. (In the meantime, my comment # 58 might be helpful, if you haven’t seen it.)

    Well, feel better soon! I wasn’t clear if it was similar to #58–just didn’t want to miss anything. Don’t worry about working on it–and generally, I “get” what you say with delight!

    • #67
  8. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    Saint Augustine:

    Susan Quinn:

    Saint Augustine:

    There is a simpler way! But I’m probably either not smart enough to do it, or too tired. (It’s near bedtime in my time zone, and I was sick for the last half-week.)

    I’ll take a stab, but I’ll assume it’s just because I’m working on a full night’s sleep.  Auggie is much smarter than me.

    The false assumption is that If God knows something will happen, then that something must happen.  This can be falsified by having God tell someone what they will do, and then have them not do it.  This is roughly the plot of Minority Report.  Thus, God’s foreknowledge cannot exist.

    This is incorrect because it misunderstands God’s position in his foreknowledge.  It presumes God knows “before” the event in a meaningful way.  Aaron has pointed out, this is a difficult claim to make of an eternal God who exists outside of time.

    Rather, God knows the event because God is present simultaneously now and then, and thus, that the event happened means that God will know it.

    Formally, (If you make a decision, then God will know it) does not imply (If God knows it, then you will make a decision.)  Robert Zubrin is interpreting an “if” statement as an “if and only if” statement.

    • #68
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Sabrdance: I’ll take a stab, but I’ll assume it’s just because I’m working on a full night’s sleep. Auggie is much smarter than me.

    That’s VERY helpful, Sabrdance.  And quite wonderful, too. Thank you for re-stating it.

    • #69
  10. BR Member
    BR
    @

    Good question! I recently listened to “Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell, which tells the stories of many who are considered great in their field and then points out that each person had it made from the start, essentially that if person x hadn’t been born in a certain year, as a boy/girl, to these parents, in this city, etc. then they wouldn’t have been so amazing. Was this his understanding of fate? This analysis seems to deny the creative spark, the action one takes when there is more than a binary decision and the basic agreement each has with their lucky circumstances, their free will.

    • #70
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    BR: This analysis seems to deny the creative spark, the action one takes when there is more than a binary decision and the basic agreement each has with their lucky circumstances, their free will.

    Thanks for joining in, BR! I haven’t read that book of Gladwell’s but I read some of the reviews of his book on Amazon. Some people felt he might be light on statistical analysis although he weaves a fascinating story. So I’m skeptical that he’s working from a rigorous analysis. Certainly many things factor in to our lives, and I think free will plays a big part. You can draw your own conclusions!

    • #71
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Sabrdance:

    Saint Augustine:

    Susan Quinn:

    Saint Augustine:

    There is a simpler way! But I’m probably either not smart enough to do it, or too tired. (It’s near bedtime in my time zone, and I was sick for the last half-week.)

    I’ll take a stab, . . . .

    Well done!

    The false assumption is that If God knows something will happen, then that something must happen.

    Indeed.  I’m going to make another effort, borrowing from Sabrdance.

    The false assumption is that omniscience entails that If God knows something, that something must happen.

    The correct understanding of omniscience is If something happens, God must know it.


    Stopping here is good!

    Adding the bit about time is better, and Sabradance covered it well!

    Adding the bit about necessity is better still, and I’ll put it in the next comment!

    • #72
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Now, there is a general truth about knowledge, whether divine or human knowledge: If a person knows X, X is true.  You can’t know anything false.  Since I know I’m drinking tea, it’s true that I’m drinking tea.  Duh.

    So there is a sense in which we could say that If a person knows X, X must be true.  If I know I’m drinking tea, then it must be true that I’m drinking tea.

    But doesn’t mean that the thing known is a necessary truth: I could have drunk Tang instead!  It only means that knowledge necessarily entails truth.  That’s what it means with human knowledge, and that’s what it means with divine knowledge.

    So there is a sense in which we really could say that If God knows something, it must happen.  But no necessity attaches to the event.  The only necessity involved is the necessity that everything God knows is true.

    (And, of course, some of those truths are true independently of God–the ones resulting from free will.)

    • #73
  14. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    “So if there is a God, or anyone else, who has free will, then no one can know the future.”

    This concern is accounted for. God had everything planned before creation.

    Ephesians 1:3-10
    3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

    Ephesians 2:10
    10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

    • #74
  15. donald todd Inactive
    donald todd
    @donaldtodd

    Robert Zubrin: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.

    Your idea of God is sadly lacking.  You fail to give Him credit for Who He is and what He does.  You’ve reduced Him to human limitations with some possible supernatural abilities.  Those were the Greek and Roman deities, who don’t exist.  The Author of everything good does not suffer under those limitations.

    • #75
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.