Determinism vs. Fatalism
Posted by Vincent Cheung on May 14, 2005People occasionally ask me about fatalism. Most of these are polite and teachable individuals who would like to know what determinism and fatalism are, how they differ from each other, or how my position differs from fatalism.
Here are two examples:
(1) But I was wondering what your stance is on fatalism? Is fatalism and determinism the same?
(2) I was wondering how you would differentiate between hard determinism and fatalism. The reason I ask is because it seems to me that most Calvinists which hold to soft determinism are striving to avoid the charge of being fatalists.
Then, there are some who outright accuse me of teaching fatalism.
The following will suffice as my response to both groups of people.
Although I assume that most people will keep this in mind even if I do not mention it, please remember that by "determinism," we are referring to only theistic, theological, or divine determinism, and not naturalistic or scientific determinism, the latter of which being the position affirmed by many atheists. We are considering the control that God exercises over his creation, and not the relationship between human actions and antecedent natural causes (such as genetic and environmental factors).
— /// —
By some definitions, the terms "determinism" and "fatalism" are similar.
For example, some English dictionaries would define these terms in ways that fail to make a clear distinction between them. Merriam-Webster is too ambiguous for our purpose, and Webster’s New World Thesaurus considers the two synonymous. Certainly, even those who affirm "soft" determinism and accuse me of teaching fatalism would not want to accept these ambiguous definitions, since then they would become "soft fatalists" at best.
The definitions in theological and philosophical literature might be more precise.
By "fatalism," I refer to the teaching that all events are predetermined by impersonal forces regardless of means, so that no matter what a person does, the same outcome will result.
By "determinism," I am specifically referring to theological or divine determinism — I am referring to the teaching that the personal God of the Bible has intelligently and immutably predetermined all events, including all human thoughts, decisions, and actions, and that by predetermining both the ends and the means to those ends.
These are not my private definitions, but they are consistent with the common usage in theological and philosophical literature.
For example, Dr. Alan Cairns, a respected Presbyterian pastor and theologian, whose orthodoxy is generally unquestioned, and who is a "soft" determinist himself (p. 186), defines "fatalism" as follows: "The theory of inevitable necessity; the heathen oriental philosophy that all things are predetermined by blind, irrational forces and that therefore there is no point in human effort to change anything" (Dictionary of Theological Terms; p. 176, "fatalism").
Now, before the sight of God, who dares accuse me of teaching that "all things are predetermined by blind, irrational forces"? To do so would be to commit the sin of slander, and some have indeed committed this sin against me by their false accusations.
And who dares accuse me of teaching that all things occur as predetermined regardless of means? I affirm that God determines all things by immutably foreordaining and directly controlling both the ends and the means.
It is dangerous to speak of things that you do not understand, and it appears that those who accuse me of teaching fatalism are in fact ignorant of what fatalism really means.
Just as some Arminians falsely accuse the Calvinists of teaching fatalism, these Calvinists who affirm "soft" determinism turn around and accuse me of teaching fatalism, when both these Arminians and Calvinists have no idea what fatalism means. These people do not have the courtesy to even look up the word in a theological dictionary to make sure that it applies.
As for those of you who are attentive and teachable — unlike those who make ignorant and slanderous accusations, pretending to be scholars when they are not — I do not blame you for asking about this, since there is much false information being circulated.
Rest assured that what I teach, although it is a stronger version of determinism than the one that you are accustomed to hearing, it is very different from fatalism. In fact, it is as different from fatalism as theism is different from paganism and atheism, since I affirm that all things are determined by the personal and sovereign God, and not by "blind, irrational forces."
Therefore, do not let ignorant people confuse or deceive you.
— /// —
Then, I will also point out something that is commonly misunderstood, namely, some people assume that one has more freedom under "determinism" and that things are more comprehensively determined in "fatalism." But this is not true.
The fact is that things are more determined in divine determinism than in any other scheme. Under "fatalism" (as properly defined above), an event is predetermined in such a way that the same outcome will result "no matter what you do," that is, regardless of means. But under divine determinism, although it "matters" what you do, "what you do" is also immutably predetermined in the first place. And it "matters" because there is a definite relationship between "what you do" and the outcome, but even this relationship is determined and controlled by God.
(What are people going to accuse me of now? I can’t be accused of teaching fatalism, since I am saying that fatalism is too weak! But slanderers will think of something.)
Thus, I affirm divine determinism and not fatalism, but not for the reason that people sometimes shun fatalism. I affirm divine determinism not because things are less controlled in this scheme — they are more controlled — but I affirm it because it is the revealed and rational truth.
— /// —
While I am at it, there are those who charge that my determinism is Spinozism (following the philosophy of Spinoza). Related to this is the charge that my occasionalism is pantheism (see A. A. Hodge in Outlines of Theology). But this is also stupid and ignorant.
If pantheism affirms that "all is God," then it means that when God acts on any object, he is always acting only on himself. However, this is far from what I affirm. Rather, I affirm that God has created spiritual and material entities that are other than himself, but that he nevertheless completely sustains and controls. To say that God completely controls X is very different from saying that God is X.
Thus, as with the charge of fatalism, these people have no idea what pantheism means, and to accuse me of explicitly or implicitly teaching pantheism is nothing but slander.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "Arguing by Intuition"
Gordon Clark, Predestination
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will