Is there even a difference? I mean, if everything that happens is the only thing that could happen, how is that any different than believing in fate or destiny?
I am a compatibilist, I think free will and determinism are mutually compatible. I also think we are complicit in our fate, which is why Oedipus killed his father, he was warned but he did not listen.
What kind of determinism are you talking about? Cause I believe we have a biological free will of sorts, but strict determinism doesn't really mesh with free will. With strict determinism, any choice you make is the only one you could have made.
@FatherOfNyx No way. Science is determinate. Conflation of science with social realities is fallacious. Free Will is a social construction and it is real, it is not the same as two electrons bouncing off each other.
Fate (according to my google search) means the development of events beyond a persons control. Fate is something by definition is planned out for you already. You can do whatever you want to avoid it but you’ll still get to the same end goal.
Determinism is the doctrine that all events are ultimately determined by causes external to the will; basically human beings have no free will. You can do whatever you want to avoid it but you’ll still get the same outcome, regardless if you wanted it or not.
I guess the only real difference is that fate typically associated with a person or god controlling everyone’s fate. Determinism is determined by preceding events or natural laws, it occurs naturally even though it is -for the most part- out of our control.
Fate implies that some agency is directing events. Determinism says we're at the end of various causal chains and influences, but doesn't suggest that it's directed or determined by some intelligent agent.
Two different roads, same destination. I follow soft determinism with a dash of chaos theory thrown in the mix. Hard determinism, even without the intelligent designer belief, is still too much like fate. Hard determinism says the future is set in stone and I can't get behind that.
@FatherOfNyx I am probably roughly in your camp but still think the distinction of causal agency being present or absent is a significant difference. You can be a hard determinist without saying anything about whether it's in any way purposeful.
Fate or destiny implies that there is some kind of goal, that everything happens for a reason. Determinism is the opposite.
I am not sure that determinism is the opposite of fate, it just lacks the goal part.
I mean, the whole point of determinism is that everything has a cause, a reason. Like Fernapple said, only thing missing from determinism compared to fate is a goal. The definition of fate is usually the events that take place as determined by a supernatural entity, so either way, what happens in determinism and fate was already predetermined to happen that way. I wouldn't even say that fate always implies a goal either. When things happen, people who believe in fate just say that that was destined to happen anyway. If it's said after the fact, was there actually a goal? If everything is already determined, everything's fate is already set, which would mean everything is a goal.. and like some say, if everyone is special, then no one is.
@FatherOfNyx I would argue that when talking about fate people usually put some significance to certain events. Likewise when saying 'X happened for a reason' usually people mean that the event was a goal in some form. There is intention involved. But in the end this is just semantics. You can use 'reason' just meaning cause and you can use fate meaning a non-goal oriented process.