Fatalism vs. Nihilism (Wal-Mart vs. Sam's Club)

"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can chose from phantom fears and kindess that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will."

This is a quote from the Rush song "Freewill". It's brilliant in it's simple observation. Some would say simplistic. With that said here is a quote from King Solomon from way way back in the day.

" Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight"

I would hope that my readers are intelligent enough to observe the startling contrast between these two quotes. I think it can be said accurately that both particular quotes can neatly summarize these two individuals worldviews. But I would like to point out a couple of things. The Rush lyrics cannot be deconstructed nearly as easily as King Solomon's proverb. In other words, Rush seems to be describing things the way they really are, and given this fact it makes Solomon's admonition self-contradictory. Behind all the wordiness and poetic mush is a simple statement. "Stop bustling about for higher meaning. What you see is what there is. You are the one who makes the choices, and therefore you are the ones on whom the fate of the universe stands." How can this not be the case? When have you ever done anything against your will? I urge you to really think about that one. Everything, (everything) you do you decide to do it. Given this truth, there is no way to know what or who is the force is behind your decisions. You may believe that it is God, but He never makes the decision for you. The bottom line is, that you make the decisions, therefore you are the decider of your fate.
Solomon does not deny the fact that you make the decisions. This is a strong implication in that he urges his readers to make decisions, based not on their understanding, but on the LORD's. The obvious question is: "What is the LORD's understanding?" To Rush's point, aren't you the one who makes the final decision about who's understanding you're going to follow? You still make the final decision. This would not be so disturbing if there was a handbook or something titled " The LORD's understanding". Many say that there is a handbook. It is called the Bible. But if this is truly what the Bible is, a handbook. Why doesn't it let us know? Why does it tell us stories, and prophecies? Why does it communicate so often in poetry and figurative language? Language that has to be translated, and interpreted. If the LORD's understanding is what Solomon wants us lean on, it is not a very stable post. Why doesn't the LORD tell us plainly what is the way? Why do we have to move in order for God to come direct our paths for us. I think more people would be followers of God if he gave clearer orders.
There is a third player in this debate. It is the fatalist; the one who believes that the course of the universe is set and that fate has already been decided. Therefore, all of our decisions are really illusions. Apparently, this force or god behind all of this is highly sadistic, because as we all know, life sucks and then you die.
Here's what I think about Calvinism. Taken to it's logical conclusion (fortunately most Calvinists refuse to take it to this point) it is nothing more than theological fatalism attached to apologies for God, who appears to be sadistic, even though the Bible says that he is love itself. To be fair, the Calvinists arguments and apologies are often some of the most logical, compelling, and well constructed out there. They defend their beliefs better than anyone. The problem is that Calvinists claim to be biblical theologians. And while the Bible certainly says that God is sovereign, the Bible never suggests that God is in the puppetmaster of the universe. And here's what so many people miss. If God told us he was the puppetmaster of the universe, 1)Why should we believe him? 2) If it were true, what could we do about it? 3) If it were true, what would it change? The answer to the third question is that all it would change is the way that individuals make decisions. Game, set, match, Rush wins. In the end, whether the universe be fatalistic, or given to chance, whether our decisions are illusions, or the movers of fate itself, does not change the fact that what is the most clear and obvious observation is that all we know about life is the decisions that we ourselves make.
But hold on a minute. If this is the case. If Rush's view of the universe is truth. The practical ramifications are the same as for individuals who hold fatalistic viewpoints. For what gives Solomon the underdog victory in the end is the eqaully simple observation that we need a frame of reference for decision making at all. The fact that it is not obvious what we should be doing, that there are disagreements at all about what to do in different sitations, that there are debates on values and morality, that all wars are essentially wars originating in the mind, played out on battlefields, the fact that questions always remain, even at the end of a philosophy leads us directly to the need for answers without physical verification. In other words, why does Rush think it is important to say what he has to say? Is he not expressing a value, and is he not calling for people to see things a certain way? To say that there is no value to having values is a value. It is not the fact that we make decisions, that is most clear. It is most clear that we believe in concepts. Unlike the rest of creation. And that we must assign values, not only to things that we see and understand, but also to things beyond our physical touch and brain compacity for understanding. Where does this come from? It seems to be just there. We are the only species that asks; Why? And it the fact that we ask "why"? That gives us our starting place. Modernity has let us down. Modernity has taught us to skip "why" until we find the "what". And that once we find the "what" we will know the "why". But if you remove the "why" from a human being, you remove the thing that makes him distinctive as a human. Therfore, modernity can be viewed as the dehumanization of humanity.
Rush asks "why?" long after it was unacceptable to ask it. All he had to go on in his quest for an answer, was a blank chalkboard, retaining a faint chalk stain where "why" had been erased. His conclusion; There is no "why", therefore there is no meaning. All we are is all we are. End of story. Oh, but there is a "why". The why always remains. You can insert it in any situation, anytime that you want. Someone may be able to keep you from verbalizing the "why", but they can't stop you from thinking it. The beautiful thing is that you can't stop yourself from thinking it. It's just there. And I don't think it's there to lead us to rational conclusions. I think it's there to point us to something bigger than ourselves. For if you have a "why" than cannot be answered, either there is no answer, and therefore no "why", or there is an answer and it's too glorious for you. It's full of hope actually. If we were it, and this were it, what's the point? But it's not possible. That we are all we are. Why then do we ask "why"? Because there is someone out there who doesn't have questions or answers. He knows all. And we can know him. We can't if we think that we are all we are. We can if we accept that the majority of things that happen every day are out of our control. How does it happen? It's a good question. Maybe it doesn't just happen. Maybe the sunrise doesn't just happen? Maybe, rain and snow, doesn't just happen. Maybe birth and death don't just happen. Try to grab the sky, or run across the ocean, or predict what others are thinking and feeling, or make it rain or make it snow, or make the sun come out, or make it set.
What is the LORD's understanding? It is not our own. And that is all that we need to know. If we can believe that most things are out of our ability to ultimately control, then we can relax, and enjoy the simple pleasures we once did; when we were kids, wide eyed, and trusting, before we were enlightened. Enlightened to what? The truth that all we are is all we are. It cannot be, because then we would not care about the "why". Enlightenment is not when you have the answer to the "why", but when you finally embrace the "why".