Is there any such thing as 'Random'?
The bibles say that God created and sustains the universe, and that means there is nothing random as God is in control of all. It may be radom from our point of view, but that is simply because we don't know enough (like God does).
Agree or disagree?
Views: 71
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on -
I think there are several Biblically acceptable models of divine providence, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and some (but not all) entail exactly what you have described about randomness. This is a very tricky and broad subject, as it relates to issues of providence, foreknowledge, God's control over nature, free will, determinism, sin, suffering, and a host of other subjects.
Personally I tend to favor a molinist account of providence, which I described in a past thread on the problem of evil. One leading molinist has been pushing for a paper to be written on applying molinism to quantum indeterminacy. Very briefly, the idea is that there are facts about what indeterminate events would occur in different possible worlds, and God can providentially control which events occur by deciding which possible world to actualize. In this model, then, there can be events in nature that are truly random in the sense that they are not causally constrained, but at the same time God is directing all things, right down to the details of quantum indeterminate events.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on -
I believe that is what we are told about God, that there is nothing beyond His control, and therefore no 'random' activity from His POV...
-
Permalink Reply by Adam J. Benton on -
Well there are certainly some aspects of the universe which appear to be random, but whether they actually are is unknown. Their attributes might simply the result of some undiscovered equation or divine precedence. But at the same time, if there is some underlying order behind them we have yet to find it.
So all I'm willing to say at this time is that there are events which appear random, but there is a possibility this is not the case.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on
-
The more I think about it, it might be helpful if we discussed what we actually mean by "random." It has occurred to me that there are a number of ways this term can be used. It seems like it could mean:
1) not causally constrained
2) humanly unpredictable
3) divinely and humanly unpredictable
4) arbitrary
There are probably other possible definitions that one could think of too.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on -
Definitions are very important. BTW, I agree with the Molinist perspective. Didn't have a name for it before the conversation in your "evil" thread.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on -
Some things, from a human perspective are orderly, and predictable in the way they occur. You can set your watch by them, like the stars and sun and moon - they are for times and seasons and signs.
Other things are unpredictable, and intended by God to be that way. The outcome of these matters is intended by God to be uncertain and unpredictable to the Human mind. These might be called "random." But even the outcomes of these things are known unto God, so from His side they are never random. The lot is an example of something that God intends to be random to the human perspective (Lev. 16:8-10; Num. 26:55-56; Prov. 16:33).
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on
-
Here is the result of my recent musings (for whatever it is worth):
Taking the four definitions I offered above, (1) draws an objective, ontological distinction between a random and a nonrandom event. On that definition, causally constrained (i.e. determined) events would be nonrandom, and events that are not causally constrained would be random. In contrast, definitions (2) and (3) reduce randomness to a purely epistemic issue. they are neutral on the question of whether or not random events are causally constrained, not causally constrained, or a mix of the two. What matters is the extent of the knowledge of whatever subjects are relevant to the definition (humans, God, etc.). The best way to take the 4th definition, it seems to me, is to mean something done without a reason or purpose. That would seem to be an objective fact about an event (though it need not be known to an outside observer).
If we want to take the epistemic route, definition 2 seems to be the most plausible, though it could be modified (e.g. what about angels?). An open theist might go for (3), but I find open theism both unnecessary and heterodox.
On the other hand, if we want a definition that is not purely epistemic, a combination of (1) and (4) looks the most promising. (1) by itself entails that, if humans have libertarian free will, then our choices are all random, but most of us would not want to accept that primarily because, even though our choices are indeterminate, they are done for some reason/purpose. (2) by itself is inadequate because it implies that all causally determined events that are not done for reasons/purposes are random. But surely if a mouse gets caught in a mouse trap we won't call this event random. While I may have set the trap with a purpose of catching the mouse, the trap being triggered by the mouse is an event further down the line of causation, and since the trap is not sentient we would not want to say that the trap caught the mouse for some specific mental reason/purpose. But neither would we call this event truly "random."
So neither arbitrariness nor the absence of causal constraint are sufficient by themselves, but if we combine them then we get what might be a decent definition of "random": "An even that is neither causally determined nor done for some reason or purpose." This would mean that human free choices are not random except when/if we make a choice for no reason. It would also imply that quantum indeterminate events are random if in fact they are not causally determined, since they are also non-sentient things that do not do things with purposes in mind.
None of this precludes God's foreknowing random events so defined. In fact, a molinist view of providence even allows events that are random according to the above definition to be "directed" by God. God, after all, may have a specific reason for actualizing them, even though there is no purpose or causal constraint that determined that they are actualizable in the first place.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on
-
I'm glad I'm not a alone. :) Back when I was studying the Calvinist/Arminian debate I never came across it (other than a couple of brief mentions and footnotes in the work of Geisler and Grudem which I mostly brushed over). Then an acquaintance who graduated from Biola with a degree in apologetics told me about it and I spent a few months researching it in depth. Its not very well known (because it is kind of technical and it was lost to history for a while) but it is a very fruitful concept theologically.
Brian Guiley said:Definitions are very important. BTW, I agree with the Molinist perspective. Didn't have a name for it before the conversation in your "evil" thread.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on
-
I've been 'fighting' with Calvinism/Arminianism for years, because I did not see either 'fitting'. I came up with the molinist view on my own, but didn't know it under that name. It is the only view I can come to that makes sense of 'free will' and predestination both.
Justin Mooney said:I'm glad I'm not a alone. :) Back when I was studying the Calvinist/Arminian debate I never came across it (other than a couple of brief mentions and footnotes in the work of Geisler and Grudem which I mostly brushed over). Then an acquaintance who graduated from Biola with a degree in apologetics told me about it and I spent a few months researching it in depth. Its not very well known (because it is kind of technical and it was lost to history for a while) but it is a very fruitful concept theologically.
Brian Guiley said:Definitions are very important. BTW, I agree with the Molinist perspective. Didn't have a name for it before the conversation in your "evil" thread.
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
