Do you believe in destiny?

[Guapo]

Anyone of you believe in destiny?

[Sally]

I suppose what I believe in would be more appropriately termed Divine Providence. St. Thomas, for instance, distinguishes fate from Providence, but I'm ill-equipped to really explain the difference clearly.

If anyone calls the influence or the power of God by the name of Fate, let him keep his opinion, but mend his speech.
-St. Augustine

[Psychonaut]

At this point, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards determinism, not from any auto-experiential data, but simply because aside from sub-atomic random quantum fluctuations (which, as they're random don't aid in the argument towards directed free will), matter operates within the domain of causality.

[Loki]

Good question.

I voted for this:

I think some things in life are destined for but you do play a role in influencing your fate.

Why? Because we are limited to a large extent in our abilities by what has been given to us genetically. This doesn't mean that we can't excel and do much better than was expected of us. But, it means, for example, that someone with Down Syndrome will never be able to beat Kasparov in a chess match.

This also means that we are born with certain talents and "gifts", given to us through genetic inheritance, via evolution.

As for believing in destiny as in a religious/superstitious thing -- I don't believe in that at all now. When I was a Christian, I did. I believed that God had some great plans for my life, and that these plans would come to fulfilment sooner or later.

Now, my view on the future is more sober. It will be what I make of it. I know my own potential, and it is considerable. I know that I will be able to achieve much, although this hasn't yet realised. Sometimes, life throws obstacles at you that you didn't plan for. Some you may be able to overcome, and others not.

In some respects, some people have a destiny, whether they like it or not ... and there will be nothing they can do about it. For instance, if you are genetically determined to get cancer at, say, a certain age, and die from it within a year or two, there will be precious little you can do about it. It will be your fate, whether you like it or not. I think health is one of those areas where you can make a difference, but you are never in full control. As for other matters of a more material nature, I believe the world is your oyster. You can achieve whatever you want to achieve, depending on your determination and effort. You don't need to worry about superstitious garbage that will slow your pace. Just go for it.

[Lutiferre]

At this point, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards determinism, not from any auto-experiential data, but simply because aside from sub-atomic random quantum fluctuations (which, as they're random don't aid in the argument towards directed free will), matter operates within the domain of causality.

But nevertheless, that doesn't remove the capability of human agents to autonomously exercise agent causality and final causality.

As to the quantum mechanics, I would, like Heisenberg, say it confirms the basic Aristotelian notion of unrealised potentia, in that the wavefunction before it collapses isn't predetermined, but can have several outcomes (potentialities) out of which not all will become actualised.

[Piparskeggr]

I have come to accept the sense that we are destined to do things...what, I do not know, nor can I know until they happen.

This is in no wise fully determined, but is affected by what I do every day, though the weight of my past will push me in certain directions...

Pip

[Psychonaut]

But nevertheless, that doesn't remove the capability of human agents to autonomously exercise agent causality and final causality.

Umm...if material motion is strictly causal (meaning that the current trajectory of A is the direct consequence of event B, which was in turn the direct consequence of event C, ad infinitum), then the appearance of autonomy would in actuality be false.

[Lutiferre]

Umm...if material motion is strictly causal (meaning that the current trajectory of A is the direct consequence of event B, which was in turn the direct consequence of event C, ad infinitum), then the appearance of autonomy would in actuality be false.

Well, it happens so that it is not strongly causal in the sense you propose. That is an idea of the modern age which has been debunked on many levels. It is weakly causal, but not in an externally "forcing", mechanistic, concurrent and fatalistic sense. The existence of possible worlds/potentialities has been established as a concrete reality in quantum physics. Things can exercise causality over each other to bring about a possibility, and humans can exercise causality themselves to do so. That we are contingent upon another thing for our existence (like our parents), doesn't mean that that thing still exercises a fatal causality over us.

[Tabiti]

I believe we are born to lean to particular tendencies, but you decide which of the offered paths to choose.

[Psychonaut]

Well, it happens so that it is not strongly causal in the sense you propose. That is an idea of the modern age which has been debunked on many levels.

Please source this assertion. The only physical phenomena that I'm aware of that are not purely causal are those relating the the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Quantum Foam. Aside from that, the universe is remarkably regular. Matter operates according to know physical formulas, period. Fuzzy math and logic don't apply to the world at large, only to sub-atomic particles in isolation; even on the sub-atomic level, although individual particles show a certain degree of non-causality (under the current theory), the more of them you put together, the more regular their behavior becomes, so that when you get to something as large as an atom, the behavior is entirely causal and predictable.

Aaaaaanyway, non-causality in-and-of-itself, is by no means an explanation for non-causal directed action; it is only an explanation for randomness.