Free Choice vs. Providence: Can/How Do they Coexist? (I)

One of the oldest unresolved conversations facing the religious scholar or the theological philosopher surrounds the belief in a divine providence that allows for free choice.

On one hand humanity wields free will and can influence its own destiny to the extent that we can destroy ourselves.
This notion of free choice equally apples to nature. Thus a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.

On the other side there is this idea that all of humanity is subject to a universality -whatever that source of universality. This universiality can also be called providence, or as I call it "the Unifying Factor". This higher providence is termed by some "nature" for example a so called mega-volcano (see PBS), like that found in Yellow Stone national park, could destroy the world.
Or that millions of people religious or otherwise read their horoscope, implying some greater force is at work making choices.

I offer these examples to make the point that just as we all accept free choice as an inherent good and fact of life, there is evidence pointing to inherent lack of choice and control.Indeed from and environmentalist perspective nature has no choice, thus a polar bear cannot wake up one day and decide it wants to go vegan, are we different...?

In other words:
From the conventional religious perspective the notion that everything happens for a reason is akin to the environmentalist asserting that there is a direct link between polar ice mass and weather global weather patterns.

One can go so far to assert that this question does not exist solely in the realm of speculative religion.

So is there free choice, from nature and providence?

Some like the rationalists seek a logical path to coexistence between providence and choice:

Example A.

We make choices but the result is the same, so we choose to practice law over teaching cause it provides more money. The higher force, has deemed that you should not make more money, so your choice becomes moot in relation to the providence. You are now a lawyer that makes less money. Thus providence dictates the results, and choice exists so far as the human can either reconcile themselves with providence/results or reject it.

Example B.

Imagine that each human is an individual line these lines like humans seem to move independently from neighboring lines/humans. As these lines develop (as your life unfolds) they begin to converge into a collective destiny. But on the way to this destination each line/organism can wiggle this way or that, representing choice. The general trend however is towards the universal mission that each organism, by virtue of their existence, plays an integral role in called providence/nature.

The rationalist sees choice as only relevant to the individual, and not having an effect on providence/result.

Conversation:

The rationalist view is premised on reinterpreting the term providence. In other words providence ad choice reflect to different perspectives. Providence is a top-down imposition that is both uncaring and removed from the present individuals choice. Whereas the individual choice boils down to an illusionary belief that they exercise control over their lives.

This is not merely a difference in belief structures of the prime mover vs. the active mover.

After all, if we accept the proposition that nature is a manifestation of providence, and that nature is the sum total of a complex system that exists in the here and now, then how can we separate the here and ow from the larger result? Put otherwise, if providence/nature was explained as merely the result and not requiring active participation of a multitude of present variables/choices then how do we explain the real implications of every action we take?

For example: if the ice cap does melt then the weather will change, and the eco-system will be disrupted. For a positive or negative result to occur it requires that the present choices “cooperate”. This approach to reconciling free choice and providence seems, rationally, untenable.

In the part 2 of this discussion we will look at the irrational perspective.