Fatalism, Determinism, and Calvinism

Have you ever found yourself saying, "Well, I guess it was meant to be"? Sounds fatalistic, doesn’t it? According to Wikipedia, fatalism is "the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable." It shows up in various forms. Newsman Paul Harvey used to tell of the exploits of criminals whose plans went awry. He used to say, as the lawbreaker was hauled off to jail, that he was overheard to have said, "Ain’t no use worryin’, ain’t nothin’ gonna turn out all right." No doubt, everyone has lived through days like that.

Not much difference exists between fatalism and determinism, which Wikipedia affirms is "the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will." Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. John Earman is one atheist who holds this view. No unity exists as to the source of determinism.

Some would say it is the stars. Shakespeare calls Romeo and Juliet "star cross’d lovers" in the prologue of the play bearing their names. The stars surface again in Act 1, Scene 2 of the play, Julius Caesar. The nobleman Cassius says to Brutus: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings" [sic]. The first half of the statement, sounds as though it might be a pitch for free will. But then how are we underlings—by our own choice or by irresistible cosmic forces? John Green calls attention to heavenly bodies in what has become a popular novel (2012) and movie (2014): The Fault in Our Stars.

Many depend upon the stars, in terms of astrology. It is estimated that 20% of the population reads a daily or weekly horoscope. Of course, when someone provides a constant stream of predictions, some things are bound to come to pass. Adherents tend to ignore the forecasts that fail.

The universe, however, is only one possible decision-maker for human beings. It could also be genetic. All that we are is programmed into our genes, thus determining how we will act or react in any situation. Our favorite color is embedded there, along with the kind of food we will enjoy eating. The DNA code determines all of our choices.

A third option involves our personal environment. The influences around us cause us to behave the way we do. Many who championed this explanation have been disappointed. Some thought that girls played with dolls because everyone expected that out of them and that boys liked cars for the same reason. To their dismay, when they switched up the toys, it made no difference. Generally, both sexes preferred the same things as their peers.

One more deterministic philosophy is that everything has been determined by God—in other words, Calvinism. God, theoretically from eternity, determined everything about us, including whether we will be lost or saved eternally. One wonders what the point of our existence, then, is. Why do the Scriptures encourage us to live righteously and avoid sin—if God determined our behavior prior to our birth? If God determines all, it does not matter how much a person tries to love and serve Him. If he’s lost, he’s lost. Conversely, if God chose to save someone, it will not matter how much wickedness he engages in—or if he never repents. He will end up in Heaven. Pretty much, this philosophy makes the Bible irrelevant.

What Does the Bible Teach?

The Bible clearly teaches that man has free will. If Adam and Eve had no choices, then why would God give them a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Honesty should have demanded Him to say, "Don’t eat of it, but actually I programmed you to disobey me on this." In other words, God gave them a commandment that He knew they could not keep. This situation is different from saying He knew they would not keep it, which His foreknowledge allowed Him to know. If He knew they could not keep it, what is described is nothing more than farce.

It would be like giving a year-old child the Encyclopedia Britannica and telling him he will be quizzed over volume one the next day. Does anyone doubt he will fail to answer any questions? People cannot do what they do not have the capacity to do. Place a basketball hoop 15 feet above the floor, and see how many players can "dunk" the ball. Tell all of the runners they have exactly one hour to complete the Boston Marathon; it cannot be done. Adam and Eve, however, possessed the capability to refuse to eat of the forbidden fruit. They chose to disobey God.

Nothing could be clearer than Genesis 4:7: God told Cain, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" He did not chuckle to Himself: "Of course I programmed your DNA so that you cannot do well. Ha. Ha." He further told him that sin’s desire was for him, "but you should rule over it." If Cain did not have the ability to rule over sin, then God lied to him—something impossible for God to do (Titus 1:2).

Passage after passage confirms our free will, including the invitations offered by Jesus in Matthew 11:28-30 and the one in Revelation 22:17. Why say, "Come," to those who have no capability to respond? What would a friend think if he were invited to Thanksgiving Dinner? He is told, "Please come." But he cannot because he is in Australia. He might say, "Why are you inviting me when you know I cannot respond?"

Logic and Consequences

Teachings have consequences. If one statement is regarded as true, then it probably leads to various conclusions that can be logically arrived at. For example, if it is stated as a fact that X is greater than 2, then we know X cannot equal 2; nor can it be 1, 0, -1, or any number of less value. If we say angle B is a right angle, then it cannot be 89° or less, nor can it be 91° or more. It must be precisely 90°.

So, let’s say that fatalism or determinism is true. Then certain conclusions must follow. If all that we are is determined by the stars or DNA (or anything else), then no such thing as free will exists. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. How can anyone choose a response when factors in existence will enable a person to choose only one course of action?

If free will does not exist, how can there be any such thing as morality? Values cannot exist in a deterministic world. A murderer cannot help but be what he is. He cannot be faulted for his crime. Neither can a philanthropist be credited for giving substantial sums of money to a "good" cause. No such things as good or bad, right or wrong, and excellent or miserable can exist without choice. A man could not help but be a philanderer; his genes will not allow him to be monogamous. No wonder people like to say, "Don’t judge me," all the time. An alcoholic cannot be otherwise, or a drug addict, or a homosexual, or one who practices pedophilia. Therefore, they should not be ostracized from society. Or can they be? Can those who would ostracize them help their feelings about it? Hmm.

Second, since people cannot help what they are (since it has been pre-determined), then how can we possibly sanction a penal system? Would we punish someone who liked the color red? Of course not. The same genes that make a person like red causes him to like underage girls. He cannot be incarcerated for that any more than he should be honored for dashing into a burning house to pull two small children to safety. But, then, what do we do with all of those people whom determinism makes to think wrongly on all these subjects? We can tell them the "truth" of the matter, but if they have no ability to change, how will that help?

We know, in fact, that people do change their minds when they are presented with factual evidence. They do admit to being wrong; perhaps, they even apologize. Proponents of determinism would simply say, "Their ability to listen to factual evidence and change proves nothing. That too was predetermined. You want proof? Look at all the people who hear the truth and refuse to change." Yes, they exist, also—and in great numbers. They will affirm, "I don’t care what you say; I’ve already made up my mind."

"Furthermore," some might argue, "just because you don’t like the consequences doesn’t disprove determinism." No. No one’s opinion would prove it right or wrong, but no one can live consistently as a determinist. If a man breaks into a determinist’s home, steals goods worth thousands of dollars, molests his daughter, and kills his wife, is he going to shrug his shoulders and say, "Poor guy. He can’t help it, you know"? He will not—if he has an ounce of humanity in him. He knows that such actions are wrong, wrong, wrong. He must admit that determinism is not a practical way to live. In other words, the philosophy is illogical and therefore invalid.

Who’s the Controlling Force?

Is our destiny written in the stars? If so, who wrote it? How did the burning balls of gasses scattered throughout the universe get so smart and knowledgeable about human beings born in any particular century? How do they know a person will begin a new romance shortly; do they keep track of dating sites? Apparently, they keep tabs of everyone’s personal finances in order to know that someone will come into money from an inheritance. How much business acumen they must possess to know that someone will be promoted in a few weeks!

"Well," someone may protest, "intelligent people don’t believe that stuff. Today we are much more scientific and know that everything is programmed into our DNA." Question: "Who programmed it?" The problem with determinism is that it has no answer to, "Where did DNA come from?" One alternative is that it just developed at random in the universe. The problem is that there is no mechanism for that to have occurred. They have to say something like, "There was a big bang, and after billions of years earth was formed, and eventually some primordial goop, which evolved into animals, etc. DNA just happened" (this is the Reader’s Digest version). The problem is that DNA is so intricate that random development is not possible. It had to be created by a being with intelligence.

This realization caused Antony Flew to give up a lifetime of atheism and finally admit that Intelligence had to be involved in the putting together of DNA. If God created the heavens and the earth, along with human beings, as Genesis 1 declares, then we have an explanation for where DNA came from. We also have right and wrong and the existence of moral values. Man did not create moral principles; they come from God, an objective source. Thus, they do not depend on what any culture thinks or what century we are living in. They are absolute for every country in every part of the globe in any generation of mankind.

One more thought should be noticed. Why do those who believe the earth resulted from chaos and randomness speak of logic? Can they prove that order comes from disorder? If so, how? Matter and a huge explosion have nothing to do with logic, which involves rational thought. Only if intelligence existed first can we have logic. God said to His people, "Come now, and let us reason together…" (Isa. 1:18). No rainforest, mountain, or body of water ever said that. Neither has an onion or kumquat. Fish, birds, and bears also remain silent.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: