What is fate?

Fate, also described as determinism, is the belief that all future events can be predicted, with the use of the laws of nature, ahead of time if all prior and present events are taken into account.

A popular example of determinism is Laplace’s demon. Imagine an entity that uses knowledge of past and present events and predicts the future using the laws of the universe. Obviously, no human or other living organism for that matter has this ability.

However, theological determinism states the assumption that God is ‘all-knowing.’ One would assume that in order to be all-knowing (know the future), such an entity must possess all knowledge of the past and know the interactions of every object in the universe in order to predict how such objects will exist in the future, much like Laplace’s demon.

The human model of the macroscopic laws of the universe, Newtonian physics, has proven reliably accurate in predicting non-complex interactions of collidable objects at the large scale. It demonstrates that there are, in fact, laws that govern how the universe operates, regardless of how well a human model can capture those laws and use them to predict outcomes. If a human model was advanced enough to fully simulate the laws of nature, given the infinite amount of information needed to know the present state of the universe, one would conclude that the prediction of a future state of the universe is indeed possible. In other words, Newtonian physics is deterministic.

And then comes quantum physics, or the human model of the microscopic laws of the universe. At this level, the laws of nature behave what appear to be drastically different from what is predicted by Newtonian physics. Quantum physics theory states that the interaction of individual particles (such as electrons) cannot be precisely predicted, but instead offers probabilities of how such particles behave. Since quantum physics is probabilistic in nature, it is not deterministic.

However, both Newtonian and quantum physics are both valid in different cases. There is much debate over whether or not quantum physics, being probabilistic in nature, disproves determinism. Clearly, at the macroscopic level, Newtonian physics suggests determinism. From an engineering standpoint, any human model of the universe, which can only guarantee probabilities, clearly is not a precise, accurate model and needs revision. The question is where does the probabilistic nature of quantum physics lie, in the model itself, or in the universe? Currently, this question has not been answered and so an assumption must be made. Given the complexity of the universe and the limited processing power of the human brain, I am prone to assume that the model is where the flaw is located. This is clearly an assumption and a critical component to this debate.

What is free will?

Free will is the belief that conscious beings have the ability to determine their contribution, through action, of future events. At any given moment in time, there must be several choices that said beings have available to them, in which each choice will create a distinctly different future (even at a small scale).

What about God?

It should also be noted here that a logical person that believes in an all-knowing God, must also subscribe to the belief of determinism to avoid paradox-like logic. If the universe truly only deals in probabilities, the existence of an all-knowing God is illogical. Another problem that arises is the fact that believing in a deterministic universe and an all-knowing God creates a situation where the existence of free will is void, and the creation of heaven and hell (or reward and punishment) becomes meaningless and sadistic. If there is an all knowing God, then we conclude that the universe is deterministic and that a reward/punishment system is contradictory. However, we can logically assume that there is a God (albeit not all-knowing), that free will exists, and that there is no contradiction with a reward/punishment system. Regardless if someone assumes that God exists or not, their logic should dictate only a few possible outcomes regarding free will, determinism, and heaven and hell.

The human factor

Naturally, there are several ethical problems that arise when discussing the possibility that free will does not exist. There is much debate on this very subject, and so one must observe that natural bias in human rationalization might sway the objectivity of the argument for free will. The belief of free will supports the idea that every conscious being has the ‘choice’ in every action they perform. Pride, a phenomenon in which a person compares themselves to others, plays a crucial role here in creating a hierarchical ladder where ‘morally superior’ people (those who make ‘good’ choices more frequently) have the chance to appease their need of self-actualization over those that are less moral. If one takes pride in their pattern of moral decision making (which is natural human behavior), one is prone to create a bias which necessitates the requirement that said person has made moral decisions of their own accord (free will). As with many things in life, bias prevents the objective analysis of this argument with corrupted rationalization and therefore should be mentioned here so that this debate is received and discussed without prejudice.

On moral responsibility

To believe in determinism goes against the natural order of how people tend to think. It places all human beings on the same level and exposes unfairness in genes and environment, both of which are critical in shaping a person. The majority of people will find discomfort in this line of thinking, to the point that determinism is usually discarded prematurely without being contemplated rationally. Determinism causes ethical problems regarding the validity of a justice system in society. If there is no free will in which people make their own choices, how can they be punished for making ‘bad’ decisions? The answer to this question lies in the theory of the ‘social contract.’ Civilization has a ‘social contract’ in which a person agrees to abide by laws and in return enjoys the rewards of a society where resources are distributed more efficiently than in raw nature. If laws are broken, which leads to an inefficient society, the social contract is broken and thus resources should be taken away from the offending parties (punishment). It’s nothing personal, just a reshuffling of resources to reinforce those that follow the social contract and discard those that do not. Our human emotions assign ‘good’ and ‘bad’ connotations to this scenario, when in fact; civilization treats individuals much like the human body treats its own individual cells.

Why we need free will

Assuming we subscribe to the belief of determinism, the belief of free will or control is necessary in order for people to overcome human deficiencies and develop their full potential as conscientious beings. The illusion of control alone forces a reasonable person to strengthen their moral compass and become pillars in a society. It should be the responsible of those that are given high intellect to develop mental tools that help the less fortunate individuals maximize their potential, enabling them to be productive members of society as well.