Free Will or Destiny? How Religion Rebranded Ancient Philosophy (Part 2)

In Fate or Free Will? What Ancient Philosophy Actually Says (Part 1), we explored how ancient philosophers wrestled with fate, necessity, and free will. Logical fatalism said everything happens by necessity. Aristotle tried to preserve human agency. Cicero insisted free will was essential for morality. Nobody proved anything.

Let us not forget, how our foregone cultures looked upon Destiny, fate, and heroism. So I unapologetically quote my own work:

Mythologies of all civilizations present us with stories of ancient agents of Destiny crossing seas, Arcadian or perilous landscapes, quite aware that their lives, loves, hardships, conquests, and life battles flew along a challenging yet reliable thread the invisible spindle produced. It was deemed terribly plucky and even heroic to accept our preordained path no matter what.

Helena Lind, The Destiny Book (Chapter 1: Origins of a Perennial Principle)

Now we're going to see what happened when organized religion entered the picture. Spoiler: they took Destiny's conceptual brand core and gave it to God. And the debate got even messier.

Divine omniscience weighs in

While Aristotle and colleagues suggest that Destiny and fate rest on the broad shoulders of necessity while acknowledging the possible impact of free will, another, later school of thought offers a different take. Christian thinkers like Luis de Molina and the American philosopher Alvin Plantinga believe an omniscient being conducts the reality show that is life while we, humanity, have free will that functions in tandem with God's foreknowledge, predestination, and the concept of salvation.

Neat trick if you can pull it off, no?

These thinkers posit that God knows what is destined to happen in the future, even including the imponderables of us willing, choosing, and acting upon our own free will. The set definitions of free will options are 'counterfactuals of freedom', and God's intrinsic pre-knowledge of what is to take place under any circumstances, also referred to as divine providence, is called 'middle knowledge'. Molina's On Divine Foreknowledge laid the groundwork for this theological framework, while Plantinga expanded on these ideas in The Nature of Necessity.

Faith is not to be contrasted with knowledge: faith (at least in paradigmatic instances) is knowledge, knowledge of a certain special kind.

Alvin Plantinga

Although this school of thought salutes the concept of free will, its construct is still painted with a fatalistic palette. Not just in Judaism, which is built on yirtse Hashem. Christians refer to God's will, and an almost identical notion of God's superior edict is found in Islam, where everything is willed by Allah, hence all is insh'allah. The Abrahamic God adapted to, and adopted, the powers, threads, and ropes of Destiny happily and with great success.

Why reinvent the wheel when you can just rebrand it?

Regardless of whatever decision we make in the supposed mode of free volition, we are, in fact, acting within an already set jurisdiction, not just foreknown but already predetermined by the predestining God. Between the actual manifestations of the divine pre-decree, we, on the tender wings of our free will, are in control of our actions. And while that seems to be free will indeed, its future consequence is already long foreseen and decided by the all-knowing God.

So you're free to choose. God just already knows which free choice you'll make. Whether that's actually freedom is the question nobody can quite answer. The Stanford Encyclopedia's entry on divine foreknowledge and free will explores these paradoxes in detail.

The Molina school of thought even projects three types of pre-cognizance (natural, middle, and free knowledge) onto God's aegis. But which of these views has true authority? Is it the logical fatalist who believes necessities spin the world, or the theological devotee who assigns the power of Destiny to an infallible God?

What do we actually know for sure?

Both views (in fact all views) remain open to debate and subject to further examination. Wherever we stand, we should not disregard the argument brought on by proponents of theological fatalism supported by counterfactual freedom and middle knowledge. If anything, it's an explanation of a concept of Destiny that seems applicable to many millions of people worldwide.

Fortunately, philosophy gives us the ideas of compatibilism and semi-compatibilism to kind of marry free will and determinism. Lots more on that in The Destiny Book.

The fact is, though, that many of us will always presume we are willingly and actively in charge of our Destinies. And that's fine, since the idea of free will is an important factor for the smooth upkeep of societies and legal systems. People can and should think and believe what they like.

So is free will even 'real' or just a figment of deliberated, useful, conventional wisdom-inspired subjective perception?

Neat question. No one's managed to prove it either way. The Stanford Encyclopedia's entry on free will examines the full spectrum of positions, from hard determinism to libertarian free will.

The realization that other people acting under similar circumstances arrive at different results makes for a strong argument that the end may indeed be dependent on a predesigned route. Both arguments are worth their mettle in relevance and objectivity.

Ultimately, which of them garners more traction has always been subjective and dependent on the perspective of the observer. Causal determinism has scientific support from physics and neuroscience, while teleological concepts like Destiny and divine providence remain metaphysical claims without empirical evidence.

But is proof of a metaphysical concept necessary?

To a scientist, libertarian, a humanist, an atheist, and agnostic, for sure. These amiable skeptics would insist on it, of course, since they cannot find a root of truth in such theories. Although quite a few atheists and agnostics seem to like the idea of fate, interestingly enough. More on that in my book.

I categorize myself as a free thinker, if anything. I prefer facts, even firm proof, to woolly and often manipulative narratives. But since I hope to clearly understand Nature, human nature, and the nature of personally experienced phenomena of any kind, I would never just dismiss anything even if it still remains without cold hard evidence. Destiny and fate are two prime examples. Hence I write about them, reserving the liberty to stay tolerant and open-minded despite my phenomenal penchant for factuality and evermore non-religiousness.

According to Plato, Socrates once said:

I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Now there's one truth. Because no one knows anything for certain, and especially not for sure. Just ask Sextus Empiricus. We may believe whatever we want. And we do. We simply cannot stop ourselves. But believing still means not knowing. Believing means that we go along with our feelings and, or a religious idea or story, a phenomenon, or an accepted, even disputed social construct.

And what are examples of social construction? Time. Class systems. Rules. Money. Religion.

Several neuroscientists and biologists even suggest that our sense of agency might be more illusion than reality.

A man can do as he wants, but not will as he wills.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Certain philosophers and theologians tend to anticipate free will as a (God?) given human prerogative, despite contrasting scientific statements in their respective scriptures. But does that really matter? Apparently not, judging by the persistence of the debate.

Why Destiny is the ultimate historical power

The concept and principle of Destiny was the seminal force of order in the universe, religion-independent and above any official pantheon or deity. Cosmic Destiny brought order to chaos, with the added benefit of higher justice and an appreciation of excellence of character in a human instead of only admiring brute strength. In our context, that would qualify it to be cherished as the first ethical power ever.

The creed of Destiny is arguably the bedrock and trailblazer for all systemic faiths that came later, and a reason organized religions were developed and are with us today. Our predecessors built great civilizations like ancient Greece, Rome, and many more. They embodied Destiny into predominantly feminine divine incarnations (such as Ananke, Moira, Aisa, the three Moirai, Necessitas, Providentia, the three Fates, or the three Norns) to lend a relatable face to an otherwise invisible principle.

Since the notion of Destiny was so vital and successful, also as a symbol word for future and opportunity, it was 'borrowed' and vested into the God of the Abrahamic religions and rebranded to predestination and divine providence. It is a deep human need to manifest supernatural beings and Gods to import rhyme and reason to our often challenging and very limited lives. Not everyone requires that kind of theoretical certainty. However, it's difficult to fathom a humanity without some adherence to concepts of faith.

Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form, but with regard to their mode of life.

Aristotle

Today, as the data clearly shows, Destiny remains a highly popular phenomenon, and not for no reason. This legend is indeed alive. And her thread continues to flow forward.

If the fates allow.

By Helena Lind┃Independent thinker and author of The Destiny Book : Rediscovering the Mother of Spirituality (History and Mystery of the All-Connecting Cosmic Thread), Identity Publications, 2024. My work draws on decades of comparative study across mythological, philosophical, and theological traditions, informed by lifelong personal experience and bilingual research into Destiny's cross-cultural presence.

*The Destiny Book: Rediscovering the Mother of Spirituality (History and Mystery of the All-Connecting Cosmic Thread) The Destiny Book by Helena Lind invites readers on a journey across Destiny's mythical beginnings to today’s enduring significance as a major guiding force. The Destiny Book offers an engaging history of humanity’s relationship with the wellspring of international spirituality.