Deteminism is fatalism

[civic]

@dizerner

I pulled this from your AI answer/question site

Like I say determinism is fatalism.


Fatalism and determinism are related philosophical concepts, but they have distinct differences in their implications and interpretations.

1. Determinism:Determinism is the philosophical idea that all events, including human actions and choices, are causally determined by prior events and the laws of nature. It suggests that the present state of the universe, along with the natural laws that govern it, necessarily leads to specific future events. In a deterministic worldview, the future is viewed as a logical consequence of the past and the laws of cause and effect. This concept applies to both natural events and human actions.
   Difference: Determinism is a broader and more general concept, encompassing the idea that all events are causally determined. It doesn't necessarily imply a specific belief about fate or predestination. Determinism can be compatible with the idea of free will, as some philosophers propose "compatibilism," which suggests that free will can coexist with determinism if actions align with an individual's desires and motivations.
2. Fatalism:Fatalism is the belief that all events and outcomes are predetermined and inevitable, regardless of human actions or choices. In a fatalistic view, it is futile for individuals to resist or change the course of events since they are bound to unfold as preordained. Fatalism often implies the idea of an external force or destiny that guides events in an inexorable manner.
   Difference: Fatalism is a specific subset of determinism, focusing on the inevitability of future events, typically without consideration of causality or the laws of nature. Fatalism tends to have a more fatalistic outlook, suggesting that events will unfold irrespective of human agency, choices, or actions. Unlike some interpretations of determinism, fatalism tends to reject the possibility of free will altogether.

In summary, determinism is a broader concept that suggests all events are causally determined, while fatalism is a specific subset of determinism that emphasizes the inevitability and predestination of events, often implying a lack of human control or influence over the unfolding of these events. While determinism can be compatible with free will (in the form of compatibilism), fatalism typically presents a more pessimistic view that events are fixed and beyond human intervention or choice.

Theological Determinism: This perspective holds that a divine entity or a higher power's omniscience and plan predetermine all events, including human actions.

Hard determinism is a philosophical position that asserts that free will is an illusion and that all events, including human actions and choices, are entirely determined by antecedent causes. In other words, under hard determinism, there is no room for genuine human agency or the ability to make choices that are independent of prior causes and conditions.

According to hard determinism, the state of the universe at any given moment, along with the laws of nature, logically and inevitably lead to specific outcomes in the future. This perspective denies the existence of any true alternatives and suggests that every action or decision made by an individual is the inevitable result of the sum total of their genetic makeup, past experiences, and external influences.

The proponents of hard determinism often draw on ideas from causal determinism, which posits that the world operates according to a chain of cause-and-effect relationships. They argue that even our thoughts and feelings are predetermined by physical processes in the brain and the external environment, leaving no room for genuine free will.

As a consequence of hard determinism, notions of moral responsibility and accountability become problematic. If individuals are not ultimately in control of their actions and choices, the traditional concepts of blame, punishment, and reward lose their grounding in the context of personal responsibility.

Critics of hard determinism argue that it negates the intuitive sense of agency and choice that humans experience in their everyday lives. They contend that certain complexities, such as the unpredictability of human behavior and the presence of genuine uncertainty in some systems (e.g., quantum mechanics), challenge the notion of a purely deterministic universe.

Overall, the debate between hard determinism and other philosophical perspectives on free will remains an ongoing and profound topic in philosophy and cognitive sciences, touching on fundamental questions about the nature of human existence and the limits of human autonomy.

calvinism is determinism which is fatalism.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Diserner]

Nice.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

People always want to soften fatalism somehow, because instinctively we know it's wrong.

 

[civic]

Nice.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

People always want to soften fatalism somehow, because instinctively we know it's wrong.

Yes I would get resistance and denial all the time from C’s with fatalism being a synonym of determinism . I would quote Calvinists saying the same thing as the definition of fatalism in their arguments and I would still get denial . Some cannot look in the mirror as see the reflection of what they actually look like to others with their teaching . It’s why compatibism exists for Calvinists who cannot swallow the determinism taught by Calvin . They cry “ mystery’ card where the real Calvinist faces the music with determinism and direct try getting God off the hook and soften the fatalistic world God created in Calvinism . Everything was/ is fixed No exception. Sin, evil was His hard determined will , glory and purpose so by default is culpable.

 

[civic]

Websters affirms this below, the calvinist affirms this with their proof texts here: Prov 16:4 ,1 Peter 2:8 and the WCF also affirms this in the confession. Romans 9 and double predestination also affirms its fatalism by the definition. As we see it makes God unjust.

fatalism noun​

fa·tal·ism | \ ˈfā-tə-ˌli-zəm \

Definition of fatalism : a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine​

 

[civic]

from Stanford encyclopedia

Though the word “fatalism” is commonly used to refer to an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable, philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. This view may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called “Logical fatalism” (or, in some cases, “Metaphysical fatalism”); when argued for in the second way, it is commonly called “Theological fatalism”.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Diserner]

I've dealt with Calvinists who are intellectually honest and just swallow the fatalism bullet.

I respect them a lot more for being logically consistent.

What I say about Compatibilitism is it just logically boils down to either LFW or EDD depending on how they define it.

It's positing a direct contradiction: A and NOT A.

 

[civic]

This is fatalism.

1646 WCF, 3.1
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own
will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as
thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of
the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established.

1689 LBCF, 3.1
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever
comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath
fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the
creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all
things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

 

[civic]

I've dealt with Calvinists who are intellectually honest and just swallow the fatalism bullet.

I respect them a lot more for being logically consistent.

What I say about Compatibilitism is it just logically boils down to either LFW or EDD depending on how they define it.

It's positing a direct contradiction: A and NOT A.

Exactly its their way to get off the hook with their theological dilemma with cause/effect

1- events/people are determined, predestined, fixed- cause
2- so humans are powerless to change them- effect

 

[Diserner]

This is fatalism.

1646 WCF, 3.1
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own
will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as
thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of
the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established.

1689 LBCF, 3.1
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever
comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath
fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the
creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all
things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

I would more say it's a square circle, a contraction.

 

[civic]

Roger Olsons definition here :

Most people know that Arminians do not believe that God micromanages history or human lives–especially not in terms of evil. That is, Arminians do not believe that God designs, foreordains or renders certain sinful acts. Sin and evil are included in God’s consequent will, not God’s antecedent will. God governs them but does not design, foreordain or render them certain. I have expressed my own overall view of God’s providence this way: “God is in charge but not in control.” However, some Arminians objected to that. I’m not going to repeat my explanation or defense of that here.

 

[civic]

I side with Arminius on the providence of God and reject calvins view and the WCF just like he did. I find calvins view repulsive.

see here

Arminius’ Doctrine of God’s Providence Briefly Considered – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

[civic]

calvin.

Calvin's Calvinism - "Defence of the Secret Providence of God" - Introduction

 

[civic]

dictionary.com

See synonyms for: fatalism / fatalistic on Thesaurus.com
College Level

---

noun
the acceptance of all things and events as inevitable; submission to fate :Her fatalism helped her to face death with stoic calm.
Philosophy. the doctrine that all events are subject to fate or inevitable predetermination.


conclusion: determinism is fatalism/ calvinism


from wiki

The term "fatalism" can refer to any of the following ideas:

• Any view according to which human beings are powerless to do anything other than what they actually do.[1] Included in this is the belief that humans have no power to influence the future or indeed the outcome of their own actions.[2][3][clarification needed]
  • The belief that events are decided by fate and are outside human control
  • One such view is theological fatalism, according to which free will is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient God who has foreknowledge of all future events.[4] This is very similar to theological determinism.[a]
  • A second such view is logical fatalism, according to which propositions about the future which we take to currently be either true or false can only be true or false if future events are already determined.[1]
• The view that the appropriate reaction to the inevitability of some future event is acceptance or resignation, rather than resistance.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism#cite_note-8 This view is closer to everyday use of the word "fatalism", and is similar to defeatism.

conclusion: determinism is fatalism/ defeatism/calvinism

 

[civic]

I will quote @e v e from the old forum

there is an incredible text written on fatalism. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational.
fatalism's essentially a greek thing at heart, as to its inception,
and relates to the greek fear of their gods (=satanic beings, fallen angels)
concerning their determinism of every detail of life...
the greeks feared those beings.. Christ had not come yet,
this was pre 0AD. and the greeks felt forced to obey them... it was bondage.
---fatalism is based on the capricious and cruel nature of those gods (fallen angels).
it's interesting the term got adapted to situations outside its original intent.
that the gods were fatal to the soul, and compare, every greek tale tells of the gods 'fooling man.'
On one hand it all (the greek philosophy) seems so rational.... (e.g., Aristotle's substance and causality, plato's view of God as unaffected, the unmoved mover etc.)
until it's utter empty sickening cruelty is understood.

the book is a download on scribd.

Dodds, The Greeks and The Irrational (In) BB & | PDF​

Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.

www.scribd.com

Or it is on amazon.

Bringing this up because Christianity and fatalism have zero in common.
God Directing All reality and His outcome happening, is not fatalism whatsoever.

That said, determinism and free will are early modern concepts, after descartes and after the medieval was ending, and related to the "self" that esau was bringing in. It has different roots than does fatalism. Different concept but also, not Christian. The greeks had no idea of a 'self' or 'free will'. Only a deity had 'will'.

Saying that God knows and directs all reality and that He decides what will happen
(which is TRUE!) is NOT
the same as any of these essentially pagan terms and systems:

fatalism (greek) -- explained above in cliff note form
determinism (early modern) -- not explained due to space
occasionalism (leibniz) -- not explained due to space
free will-ism (early modern) -- not explained due to space

debating all this is a waste of time...
God never uses such terms...does He

 

[civic]

@e v e from the old forum which is spot on as it went from greek pagan philosophy to Augustine to the reformers into Christianity.

Repeat:
The prime mover unmoved construct is PAGAN.

It comes from the Aristotle, a greek pagan, referring to his gods.

If God was 'unmoved' He would be a sociopath.

The greek gods are sociopathic.. hence aristotle refers to
the mover unmoved....because....
those beings are unaffected, unmoved and do not love. Cruelty is their nature.

That's nothing like our Christian God.

If we did not affect Him He would not have bothered to send His son to save us.
Or to speak to us at all through His Words in Scripture. Or to want us back.

instead we can say

God is perfect and He is love
and He is our deity...
and He knows every hair on heads
and cares for us..
and that He wants His sons, you and all His sons,
to rule with Christ in His New creation (restored eden.)

And everything God says and does is true...
and His will be done, now and for ever.

 

[civic]

And @Rockson in the same thread on the old forum on fatalism/determinism.

"And that human minds can even accept such a strange esoteric way of thinking is beyond just unusual. How in their minds they can go with and embrace such is "just condemnation" that is some people he'll put in all desires and drives (irresistible grace) to put them in the place of having eternal life, and if he didn't do this, they'd not make heaven their home, and the others he won't do this when the others are just as guilty of sin.... then where is the justice? Is there any? Where? Then such a horrifying concept is whitewashed with a statement that has an appearance to great humility about it....."To the praise of the glory of his grace" How can such a concept EVER be praised??? Wanting to believe the best of all men I'd like to believe even Calvinists deep down in their hearts KNOW, they KNOW there can be no way that would be just. They defend it for this reason.... fear of offending God, not that they would but that they think that they would. This is really ironic for the truth is God is really grieved that they'd fall to accepting such a idea about his character."

"But you see that's not the way I think most Christians and I think most of the population of the Earth would be willing to accept IF and I said IF the Westminster Confession were true which I'm fully confident IS NOT. You're wanting to world to accept the following, "...and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" means that wouldn't mean force. Again the other poster told you some use a gun pointed at people to get their way. I suppose I can accept friend that you're not going to accept Calvinism doesn't add up as it's hard to have spent a lifetime supporting it....what would that say about the time you wasted? I'd still hope though you'd come to the obvious conclusion.

To all other readers though I'd say look what you've got to do with your mind to even consider Calvinistic thinking is true! If everything...everything was ordained to come to pass and many things that take place are by force (we all know that) then what are you left with trying to reconcile?

I think the following would illustrate. One has a puppet machine who is committing crimes with a gun. Another is totally controlling it however by remote control we could say miles away. Who is guilty of the crime? If this went to court what would a judge and jury say? What rational person would say the puppet is guilty? Such a charge would be laughed out of court. And if all things are and were ordained, every action every crime....we won't get into mentioning some of the most hideous acts which aren't even in good taste to talk about.....shocking things....and you're claiming God wanted those to happen???? So seeing where your way of thinking ultimately would take you YES I'd hope you'd say enough is enough of all this! It just can't be true and that you see a need to embrace a more accurate way of thinking about God. At least I'd hope. "

 

[Diserner]

I do believe God has the moral right to run his universe however he pleases.

To reject that idea is to be in rebellion to God.

So let's be all the more thankful God is maximally loving...

Without acting like he owes it to us, or is evil if he were not.

It's an important distinction, a lot rides on it.

 

[civic]

I do believe God has the moral right to run his universe however he pleases.

To reject that idea is to be in rebellion to God.

So let's be all the more thankful God is maximally loving...

Without acting like he owes it to us, or is evil if he were not.

It's an important distinction, a lot rides on it.

Yes sovereign does not mean ruling my meticulous control and determinism.

 

[Rockson]

Yes sovereign does not mean ruling my meticulous control and determinism.

Like I said in another post for Calvinists it's like they're doing their best to read a clock and tell the time, and they focus only on the second hand. Well they might say the clock says its, 4,5, and 6 oclock over a 15 second period which is like saying God is sovereign, God is sovereign, God is sovereign!

They push the sovereignty of God so strongly and tell people they don't believe in God being sovereign unless it's the extreme way they're considering it. But that doesn't mean they're reading the clock right in being able to tell the correct time or the meaning of a subject. The other hands on the clock balance out the whole system where one can reach a right conclusion.

 

[civic]

Like I said in another post for Calvinists it's like they're doing their best to read a clock and tell the time, and they focus only on the second hand. Well they might say the clock says its, 4,5, and 6 oclock over a 15 second period which is like saying God is sovereign, God is sovereign, God is sovereign!

They push the sovereignty of God so strongly and tell people they don't believe in God being sovereign unless it's the extreme way they're considering it. But that doesn't mean they're reading the clock right in being able to tell the correct time or the meaning of a subject. The other hands on the clock balance out the whole system where one can reach a right conclusion.

Good analogy !