Determinism, a philosophical stance popularized by thinkers like John Stuart Mill, holds that free will and personal choice are illusions. In this view, every event is the product of preceding causes, and nature operates according to consistent, predictable laws. From a deterministic perspective, "chance" is merely a label for events whose causes are not fully understood.
 |
By way of contrast, fatalism suggests that events are inevitable but not necessarily caused by prior conditions. In fatalistic belief systems, an overarching power or deity could decide events arbitrarily, regardless of preceding causes. This concept is ancient, predating many modern religions. For example, in Greek mythology, the Fates were depicted as transcendent figures who determined mortals' destinies independently of any causal chain.¹
The distinction between determinism and fatalism can be nuanced. Wikipedia clarifies the difference:
Fatalism is normally distinguished from "determinism".[3] Fatalism is the idea that everything is fated to happen, so that humans have no control over their future. Notice that fate has arbitrary power. Fate also need not follow any causal or otherwise deterministic laws.[1] Types of Fatalism include Theological determinism and the idea of predestination, where there is a God who determines all that humans will do. This may be accomplished either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience[4] or by decreeing their actions in advance."²
This raises philosophical challenges, especially regarding divine omniscience and human freedom. For example, does God's foreknowledge imply that God determines our choices? Some argue that it does, suggesting that God's knowledge of our actions means God is ultimately responsible for them. This view leans toward theological determinism, often associated with agnostic or atheistic critiques of divine justice.
On the other hand, many Christian theologians argue that divine foreknowledge does not negate free will. God, they propose, knows every choice we might make but grants us the freedom to choose. This perspective aims to reconcile divine omniscience with human agency, preserving the concept of moral responsibility.
 |
| Astronomical clock in Prague |
Historically, many philosophers have advanced determinist ideas, including Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, who viewed human actions as governed by laws akin to those found in physics. For them, all human choices and actions were theoretically predictable given enough information about prior causes.
To deepen our understanding of determinism and fatalism, it’s helpful to examine several related concepts:
Compatibilism
This philosophical view seeks to reconcile determinism with the concept of free will. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are shaped by prior events, we can still be considered morally responsible for our choices. In this view, freedom is understood not as the ability to act without cause but as the capacity to make choices without external constraints. Compatibilists suggest that as long as we act according to our desires and intentions, we retain a meaningful sense of freedom, even if those desires themselves are determined by prior causes.
Quantum Mechanics and Indeterminacy
The development of quantum mechanics introduced the concept of inherent randomness at the subatomic level. Unlike classical mechanics, where events are predictable with enough information, quantum mechanics suggests that certain events may occur without a deterministic cause. This has led to philosophical questions about whether determinism applies universally or whether some events, particularly at the atomic scale, are fundamentally indeterminate. However, while quantum mechanics introduces randomness at a microscopic level, it does not necessarily imply that human decisions are governed by quantum indeterminacy.
Moral Responsibility and Determinism
If all actions are predetermined, this raises significant questions about moral accountability. How can individuals be held responsible for actions that were inevitable? Compatibilists argue that moral responsibility remains intact as long as individuals act according to their values and intentions. Others, however, suggest that true accountability requires freedom from causal determination, which aligns more closely with libertarian views of free will. This debate continues to be central to discussions in both philosophy and ethics.
 |
| Image - wondergressive.com |
New Age Ideas
Before we leave this topic I'd like to mention some New Age ideas. One of the most compelling of these is that our lives are like the tape head on a VCR tape. Or if you prefer a more up-to-date analogy, the sensor on a DVD drive. All the data of our life story is encoded and our conscious experience arises as the "head" or "sensor" sweeps over it. So the future is already there. And that past is too. We just skim along the tape or disc, believing we are free when, in fact, the "show" already exists in its entirety.
This may seem strange, but if you take it to a cosmic level, it can be fascinating—if not to fully believe, at least to consider. One objection I have to the idea is that space and time need not be fixed (like a cosmic DVD) but interactive. By that, I mean past, present, and future choices may have an omnidirectional influence on one another.
The idea of retrocausality gives some evidence for this.
 |
| Tachyon visualization: since a tachyon moves faster than the speed of light, we can not see it approaching. After a tachyon has passed nearby, we would be able to see two images of it, appearing and departing in opposite directions. The black line is the shock wave of Cherenkov radiation, shown only in one moment of time - Wikipedia |
—
¹ The Oxford Companion to Philosophy New Edition, Ted Honderich (Ed.) p. 208.
² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism (Quote is from a 2012 version of Wikipedia but is highly similar today)
Related » Predestination
Comments