The Nature of Truth: Fate and Free Will

Truth never turns out to be as simple as we thought it was.
While touring the floor of the United States House of Representatives, I ran into a Congressman from New York. I shook his hand, introduced myself, and mentioned that I study at Hillsdale College. After he gave me his card, I researched him and found out that he had been my grandfather's representative for many years. I sent him a resume and a cover letter, and spent the summer after my Freshman Year interning on Capitol Hill.
Fate, Providence, the Divine Force, or whatever you want to call it, seemed to act in that situation to put me in the right place at the right time. These events do not seem to follow from arbitrary chance. Nevertheless, I know that I made the decisions that led to that experience. If I had not followed up on our meeting, if I had not applied for the job, I would not have gotten to work on Capitol Hill regardless of the inner workings of fate. It seems that fate and free will both exist, and both worked in the same event.
A personal example cannot prove this assertion, so I suggest that my readers look into their own lives. Many experiences arise not merely from our own choices, but also from our surroundings. Take Julius Caesar and Martin Luther as examples. Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon, declaring the famous "alia iacta est," or "the die is cast," changing Rome from a Republic into an Empire for five hundred years. Yet he could not have done this if Rome had not been experiencing many civil wars preparing her for this pivotal moment. Something had to have been manipulating the strings, and Caesar capitalized on it. Similarly, when asked to recant his heresy, Martin Luther declared "here I stand, I can do no otherwise. God help me," and his Reformation spread throughout Christendom, splitting the Christian Church for five hundred years. Nevertheless, the efforts of John Wycliffe and Jan Huss had prepared the Church for this split, and the circumstances of Luther's life also impacted this momentous decision.
Many argue against the idea of providence that chance could have produced the same result. They say that it is no miracle that human life evolved on planet Earth because, if the conditions were different, human life would not have evolved here. Yet Ockham's razor works against such an argument. William of Ockham argued that, if presented with two different explanations for a phenomenon, a rational person should accept the simplest explanation.
For instance, a condemned criminal stands before a firing squad of six shooters. All six fire, and all six miss. They reload, and the same result follows. They repeatedly fire, and repeatedly miss. Finally, they take the criminal to the warden, who exclaims, "I can't believe that they all missed." The criminal calmly replies, "of course they all missed, because if they hadn't, then I wouldn't be here to talk to you about it. It just so happened that they all missed." This insane reply (exerpted from Dinesh D'Souza's book What's So Great About Christianity) misses the remarkable nature of the event, and so fails to explain all the evidence. Besides, if a man throws a coin 400 times, and each time it turns up heads, any rational person would suspect a plot. This common experience of fate suggests just such a plot. Chance may explain the data, just as an infinite number of universes where each universe experiences a different result may account for such a small probability. Nevertheless, such events rely on so miniscule a chance that a conspiracy explains the evidence in a much simpler manner, and thus follows Ockham's rule of reasonable deduction.
Truth, in this case, consists in a confluence of two apparently contradictory ideas. Any free-will Atheist or mere Arminian would complain that this explanation does not take free will seriously, just as a determinist or a Calvinist would claim that it does not take fate seriously. Nevertheless, ordinary people experience both, and accepting one in order to disprove the other does not explain the odd occurrence of both. Such philosophies may consistently explain one half of the truth, but they fail to explain the whole truth. It appears that Truth consists not in a circle of mental consistency but in a cross-roads of two contradictory ideas. It does not resemble the circle of eternal recurrence, for that would be too simple to explain the data. It rather resembles the cross of Christ, where eternal truth meets timely change. For Parmenides was right when he said that whatever truly is must be eternal, but Heraclitus was also right when he said that everything that exists is in constant change. Each side of the coin is true, but that does not disprove the other side. If we seek truth, we must be willing to accept both, even if we must suffer apparent contradiction.

Opening to a Blog

I know that, if you have visited this site, you are interested in me, for whatever reason. I would like to express my surprise and my honor that I have gained your attention. In this first post, I will detail my plans for this blog, its final cause, if you follow Aristotle.
God has blessed me with an era of easy communication. I can type anything here, post it, and publish it to the world where nearly anyone can read it. This places a great deal of responsibility upon me. I may be held accountable in the future for anything I publish here. Therefore, if you, the reader, find that I have attacked anyone verbally on this blog, or that I have spoken anything unappropiate, I invite your criticism, indeed, I implore it. A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.
I intend this blog to publish my thoughts to the world. I intend to demonstrate through it that good is more exciting than evil, that love transcends death, and that Jesus Christ is, was, and forever shall be the true Son of God, conqueror of death, and good shepherd. I intend to inspire wonder in the souls of others, and to bless them with what little truths I have come to possess. If you plan to reverse or to fight my ends, you declare yourself my enemy. I will not attack you with this blog. If you choose to comment and attack me, the responsibility will fall upon you. Nevertheless, I invite those who disagree with me to an open forum of argument. This blog aims to serve God, but if you convince me that God does not exist, then the blog's final cause has disappeared, and I will destroy it. This blog holds no permanence, unless I will it. I may destroy it if you destroy my faith, but I warn you, I am stubborn, and God has blessed me. Only the greatest of battles may remove my faith from me, and the Lord will defend me if you attack.
Lord, I pray that You might bless the endeavors of this weblog. Use it to demonstrate Your Truth to the world, and use my life to demonstrate Your Love. I am Your servant. Be it done to me according to Your will.
Reader, thank you for the complement of listening to a fellow soul. Each soul possesses infinite value. As C.S. Lewis said, you have never met a mere mortal. Each person shall one day become so divine that a man would be tempted to worship him, or so debased as to haunt the deepest nightmares of the insane asylum. Your act of ecstacy in looking into the life of another may carry eternal significance. I pray that this blog will change you for the better, and that yours may do the same for me.