Institute For Christian
Teaching
Education Department of
Seventh-day Adventists
MORAL CHOICE: DETERMINISTIC,
RANDOM, OR FREE WILL?
by
Bradley G. Hyde
Department of Computer
Science
Southern College
Collegedale, Tennessee 37315
USA
Prepared for the 10th
Faith and Learning Seminar
Held at Union College
Lincoln, Nebraska
June 1992
103- 92 Institute for
Christian Teaching
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring MD 20904, USA
Are we robots, doomed to perform
as programmed by society? Are we creatures of chance who shake a pair of dice in our heads and base decisions on the
spots that turn up? Or are we thinking rational beings, operating in a unique
and different way, making choices for which we are responsible? The author
argues that choice is not deterministic or random, but that we humans have a
God-given power that allows us to be the originators of choices that shape our
lives. Since these are our own choices, we are responsible; we are punished or
rewarded for (and by) our choices.
Introduction
It is agony. My conscience
is killing me. Must I confess or can I keep silence? If I reveal what I have
done, the shame will be terrible. No one knows, why not let my lie remain? I want to do what is right. I want to be
clear before God on the day of judgement. I want to obey His will in all
things--must I obey in this too? I have told God that I am sorry--isn't that
enough? Must I correct the lie as well? Do I really love the truth?
I've stolen--well not exactly--I've just made unauthorized long distance phone calls. Lots of other people did it too. The boss winks at it, he even makes a few himself. Well, yes, it is against company policy, but it was a long time ago. Won't they think less of me as a Christian if they find out that I did it too? I told God I was sorry and quit. Isn't that enough? Must I pay the money back?
These
are moral decisions. How do people make such choices?
As a computer scientist, I
often program computers to make decisions. I have used fairly complex
conditions for some decisions and random number generators for others. No
matter how complex the factors in the decision, the result is determined by
given conditions. If I use a random
number, the result cannot be predicted yet no one would claim that the
computer had "chosen". It is even possible to use a weighted
decision--the sum of outside conditions plus a random number. The result cannot
be predicted but will seem to follow outside conditions, while the random term
prevents a monotonous consistency. No one would say that the computer chose, though it might model some
people's behavior.
In my computer science
classes I challenge students to think about how to program a computer to have
free will. Could a computer program be written that allowed the computer to
decide that it wanted to start a war, plant a garden, raise guppies, or bum
Rome? Could the computer decide that it liked people? wanted to go skiing?
enjoyed watching fish? or wished to purchase modem art as an investment? I go
on to discuss our free will and what it cost God to create a creature with the
option to rebel. God did not want robots programmed to say, I love
You"--but rather thinking, discerning beings who could appreciate Him and
choose to love Him. He valued this freedom enough that, even knowing it would
cost the life of His Son, He gave it to man anyway.
Some will say that since a
computer's decisions are based on comparing two numbers, that free will for
computers is just not possible. Yet artificial intelligence research has shown
some very surprising results-such as programs that play checkers and beat the
programmer, or simulate a psychiatrist well enough to fool people. The
limitation is not with the computer but with the programmer.
It is commonly thought that if a computer ever does get free will, it must first be self-aware. When a computer says, "I want to own New York," it must know the meaning of "I". Perhaps this is contradicted by animal behavior. Even primitive worms and insects know what they want, yet there is no evidence that they are self-aware or that they have free will. A computer operating system has a data block describing the processor type, size of memory, disk capacity, etc. If asked to load a program that requires more memory than the system has, it will say, "I do not have enough memory." It keeps accurate time, responds only to the person who gives the right name and password, and knows what printers, disk drives, and tape machines are connected. Perhaps some steps are being taken toward the goal. It is hard to specify just how much one must know about oneself to be self-aware.
Certainly computer programs
that play chess seem goal-directed to checkmate their opponent, but they are
quite unaware of their own existence. They do not have the option of changing
the goal they seek--choosing to quit playing the silly game for instance
(although many will resign when they are badly beaten). Some are programmed to
make sarcastic remarks, or pretend arrogance or humility, but obviously it is
either deterministic or random. We just do not know how to program computers to
be self-aware and make real choices the way God did when He made people.
"'Every human being, created in the image of
God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator--individuality, power
to think and to do." [Education p.
17]
So far we have not copied
God's power far enough to create a machine that also has free will.
Occasionally we may wish that our children did
not have free will, but as you think
about it, that would not be very satisfying.
An interesting science
fiction book tells of a scientist who wanted to make robots who could make
moral choices. What better test than to put the robot on a small raft, only
buoyant enough to support one, with another robot or a human. In the first
test, Samaritan I is tested with a human and, after determining that the human
is smarter, Samaritan I wobbles over the side into the water. Two Samaritan II's both jump overboard, two
Samaritan III's each try to throw the overboard
and the Samaritan IV's go down while clutching each others electronic
throats. [The Tin Men by Michael Frayn, copyright 1965]
Epicurus is says of the
happy man,
He "has no belief in
necessity, which is set up by some [the Stoics] as the mistress of all things,
but he refers some things to fortune, some to ourselves; because necessity is
an irresponsible power, and because he sees that fortune is unstable, while our
own will is free; and this freedom constitutes, in our case, a responsibility
which makes us encounter blame and praise. [Home, Free Will and Human Responsibility, p. 26]
Necessity is determinism and fortune is randomness or luck. The rest of this paper will ignore randomness and focus on refuting arguments against free will, followed by discussion of the use of the will in overcoming sin.
Arguments against Free Will
I. We are
Heredity plus Environment, and Nothing More.
Clarence Darrow in Attorney for the Damned makes several
arguments that we do not have free will
and are not responsible for our actions. He says that everything we do is the
result of heredity or environment and since we cannot control either one, we
have no free will. Even criminal behavior, he argues, is controlled by outside
factors.
Using statistics, he shows
that crime increases during times of economic hardship. Hence he concludes that
if we could have universal prosperity, there would be no crime-except for those
few individuals who have broken minds and should be treated kindly in a hospital.
However, the history of horrible deeds done by those who were rich (and not
insane) seems to deny his thesis. Kings, churchmen, and industrialists have all
been oppressors. The major problem here is that Darrow is taking the results of
a large class and applying them to individuals.
If we conclude that mankind
is deterministic, unable to go beyond heredity and environment in moral
choices, then it seems that the same would be true of technical
achievements-humans could not be inventive. The ability to imagine things that
never have been (the tractor, airplane, rocket ship, etc.) and then make them,
shows that we can and do go beyond heredity and environment. Computers have
become a tool of the imagination in which we construct fantastic games
and alien environments that
certainly go beyond anything seen by us or our ancestors. We have the ability
to originate ideas that came from no other source. (This is the problem with a
literary criticism that is often applied to inspired writings: it is assumed that
anything an author wrote came from some other human source. If a similar
thought can be found in any material that the author might have seen,
inspiration's claim that God gave the thoughts is denied.)
Our ability to go beyond our heredity and environment in technical and artistic lines makes a good argument that we can also go beyond in moral lines--either good or bad. One could ask where Nero, Hitler or Stalin learned their cruel ways. One could ask who was the model for Albert Schweitzer, George Muller, Moses, John the Baptist, Paul, or John the Beloved.
I will allow that heredity
("unto the 3rd and 4th generation" Ex. 20:5) and environment
("can any good thing come out of Nazareth" John 1:46) do play a part
in our moral choices but that they do not force our choices. Those who are born
to addicted parents will have a very hard time being temperate, those who are
raised in an abusive home will have a more difficult time learning to love.
Yet, God's grace is sufficient to rescue even these, if they respond to His
call. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come
unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."
Heb. 7:25
"God has not left us to battle with evil in our
own finite strength. Whatever may be our inherited or cultivated tendencies to
wrong, we can overcome through the power that He is ready to impart." [Ministry of Healing p. 175-176]
II. The Brain is
Electrochemical and Must be Deterministic.
Bertrand Russell argues
against the existence of free will from another angle. Since the mind operates
on chemical and electrical energy; and since given any such device with full
knowledge of its present state, its next state can be predicted: the will must
be deterministic, not free. Thus he disposes of sin, since sin must be a
condition of will that is uncaused. He goes on to claim that this thought
caused France to endorse pure materialism and thus brought on the French
Revolution. [Religion and Science p.
122-127]
This argument is like the
argument against a computer's having free will because of its design. Before
Einstein and Heisenberg it was a real puzzler. But as physics has come to
recognize it is impossible to know both the position and speed of an object at
the same time, the matter of determinism is no longer absolute. [Freeman J.
Dyson, Infinite in All Directions: An
Exploration of Science and Belief ] The
work done with neural networks by computer scientists shows that the
present computer programming model is not the only way machines can work.
Neural networks of very small size can perform difficult tasks like converting
text to spoken words or locating defective products on an assembly line, using
a video camera. When we consider that the human brain has 14 billion neurons
with up to 10,000 inputs to each one, it is foolhardy to say what it is
incapable of doing! God at the Tower of Babel said, "...and now nothing
will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." [Gen. 11:6)
In another place Bertrand
Russell praises "free thinkers" like Thomas Paine, Robert Owen, and
Karl Marx. [Understanding History p.
68. p. 56-122 discuss free will] The
idea of a "free thinker'' without free will is certainly contradictory!
III. God's
Sovereign Will Precludes our having Free Will.
Wycliffe, Calvin, and Martin
Luther all claimed that we do not have free will. Luther, from his strong
position on sovereign grace and salvation by faith alone, was not willing to
allow the human will any role in salvation. He claimed that:
"God foreknows nothing
contingently, but that He foresees, purposes and does all things according to
His immutable, eternal and infallible will. This thunderbolt throws free will
flat and utterly dashes it to pieces." [Discourse
on Free Will, Erasmus-Luther p. 106]
Erasmus argued that if there
is no free will, then God is the author of sin--both in people and the devil.
Moreover, God would not be just in punishing us for actions over which we had
no control--except in the sense that the Creator can do anything He wants with
anything He creates. Luther believes Paul who says, "I know that in me
dwells no good thing." [Rom. 7:18] But he does not apply Gen. 3:15 where
God promises enmity between all Eve's children and the devil, which is the
basis of free will for fallen man. Nor does he look at I Cor. 10: 13 which
promises that with any temptation God allows to come to us, He also gives us a
way of escape. The question is not whether we have free will independent of God, but rather do we
have free will given by God.
Quoting Luther again,
"Thus the human will is
like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes whence God wills;
.... If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to
which rider it will run, nor which it will seek. But the riders themselves
contend who shall have and hold it." [Discourse
on Free Will, Erasmus-Luther p. 112)
This would seem to give God full control, since God's power is greater than Satan's and He is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." [II Peter 3:9] Thus, everyone should be saved. Anyone who is lost could say that it was because God did not fight the devil hard enough on his behalf. But as Ellen White writes,
"We do not understand
as we should the great conflict going on between invisible agencies, the
controversy between loyal and disloyal angels. Over every man, good and evil
angels strive. This is no make-believe conflict. It is not mimic battles in
which we are engaged. We have to meet the most powerful adversaries, and it
rests with us to determine which shall win." [Testimonies for the Church Vol. 7 p. 213]
Ellen White says that we can choose who will control our will.
[Also of interest are: Eze. 33: 11, Eccl. 11:9, Matt. 11:28; 23:37, James 1:
13-15, II Pet. 1: 10, & I Cor. 9:24.] The question is not whether or not
God can do as He wishes, but rather, whether He wishes to give us free will.
Our choice is contingent upon God's desire to give us a choice.
(An historical aside)
Just as Luther contended with Erasmus, St. Thomas with Duns Scotus, and St. Augustine with Pelagius; so Calvin was met by Jacob Harmensen, a Dutch theologian who Latinized his name to Arminius. His views have survived better than most of the others and include two in particular that apply here: 1) that man may resist divine grace and 2) that man may fall from grace. This doctrine became known as Arminianism and has entered the Church of England and Methodism.
Descartes recognized free will but called it the parent of error, his successor, Malebranche believed in it but considered it a defect. Kant felt that freedom is a postulate of a moral life--if there are things that a man should do, then it must be possible to do them. He said, "Man ought, therefore he can." [Home p. 52-53] )
Gary Friesen in, Decision
Making & the Will of God says,
"The world was created
by His will and our salvation is the result of God working all things after the
counsel of His sovereign will. He even determines each toss of the dice in a
Monopoly game. No one or no thing can resist or frustrate His sovereign will.
It will inevitably come to pass.
And yet, though God
determines all things, He does so without being the author of sin, without
violating the will of man, and without destroying the reality of decision
making. Each one of us is held responsible for every decision we make. This is
a great mystery, but it is true. If we are not able to grasp it, we may rest
assured that it all fits together perfectly in the mind of God."
I agree that if you take his
view, there are some unexplainable mysteries--even contradictions. If you take
this just a little further, you will have God controlling all the thoughts in
the devil's mind. It seems that God did control the casting of lots, at least
in the case of Achan [Joshua 7] and Jonah, but I do not think He controls all
the dice in Las Vegas, although He could if He wanted to.
Some have wondered if God's setting up of kings [Dan. 4:35] implies that He forces the will of all the voters in today's democratic elections? Surely He controls those wills that are submitted to His control but does He overrule the will of the rebellious? Does God stuff the ballot box? The candidate of God's choice may not get elected but God's plan in the world will still be carried out. Did God want Iraq to invade Kuwait? I think not. It was the wrath (or greed) of man, but even that praises God. [Psalm 76: 10, see also James 1:20] God allowed the invasion and may have used it for a purpose (No speculation here about what that purpose might have been).
"In the annals of human
history, the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires, appear as if
dependent on the will and prowess of man; the shaping of events seems, to a
great degree, to be determined by his power, ambition, or caprice. But in the
word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, above, behind, and
through all the play and counterplay of human interest and power and passions,
the agencies of the All-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the
counsels of His own will." [Prophets
and Kings p. 499-500]
But surely Judas had to
betray Christ? I think not, but rather as Christ said, "The Son of man
goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is
betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." [Matt.
26:24] Even if God needs a terrible deed
done, that need does not excuse the one who does it. In the Bible God spoke of
a heathen nation being used to punish idolatrous Judah but later being punished
themselves for their pride. [Isa. 10:5-15] Pharaoh was warned that his very
rebellion was being used by God to show His power [Ex. 9:16)
In His interaction with us, God holds us responsible for our actions. In ancient Israel a murderer was to be killed [Num. 35:16-18; 31]. A thief was to restore double [Ex. 22:3]. Saul was punished for not fulfilling God's order completely [I Sam. 15]. David was punished for his affair with Bathsheba and Uriah [II Sam. 11]. Nowhere in Scripture does God excuse sin. He always assumes that we are responsible moral agents and the question "What hast thou done?" [Gen. 4: 10, 1 Sam. 13: 11 ] is addressed to sinners.
God's sovereign will is
revealed in Christ, "The love of Christ constraineth us;..." [II Cor.
5:13] God does not force us but loves us. "Or despisest thou the riches of
his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness
of God leadeth thee to repentance?" [Rom. 2:4]
Christ, in the Lord's
Prayer, taught us to pray "Thy will be done in earth as it is in
heaven." [Matt. 6: 10, Luke 11:2] Why should we pray that God's will be
done if there is no other option?
Christ in the garden prayed, "..... not
my will, but thine, be done." [Luke 22:42] Thus He asserted the existence
of His Own will by His choice to submit it to His Father's will (see also John
10:15-18).
If there is divine election,
it is at our option for we are told, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give
diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if you do these things,
ye shall never fall. [II Peter 1:8]
IV. God's Foreknowledge
Forces us to do what He Knows we will do.
In Greek mythology, there
was a god who could predict the future. One of the lesser gods came and asked
what his fate would be. He was told that he would die as a despised and poor
creature in a certain city. He begged the god to change his fortune but was
told, "I would love to give a happier picture. But, I do not control the
future. I only tell what will be. I despise inaccuracy and lies."
Foreknowledge is like a man
on a hill top watching two trains approaching each other around a bend, he may know that the trains will crash but his
foreknowledge did not cause the
crash.
Of course in God's case, He not only knows the future but can control it too. Even I can predict with good accuracy the things that I control. That is why I claim that this section and the previous are so similar. First we saw that God's sovereign will does not preclude our having free will, then separately we see that neither does His foreknowledge.
In oriental countries when a
youth on the street is asked, "Why are you not in school?" he may
reply, "It is not the will of Allah. If Allah wanted me in school, would I
not be there?" This passive acceptance of determinism based on God's
sovereignty prevents people's advancement. The person who believes in free will
believes that he can and should make things
happen. Belief in free will results in a better state of society than belief in
determinism-no matter which view is really correct.
We are forced to conclude
that we can choose whether to believe in free will or determinism: a choice
that will change the way we live-thus we must have free will.
Man can
Cooperate with God to Overcome Sin
Frank Channing Haddock, in his book Power
of Will published in 1921, gives directions for overcoming many types of
bad habits by "proper" use of the will. This is an area of great
interest to Seventh-day Adventists. Following are quotations from Ellen White
that are so clear as hardly to need further comment.
"While our salvation is
wholly dependent upon Jesus, we have a work to do in order that we may be
saved. The apostle says, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.'
The work that we are to do is not independent of what God is to do, but a work
of co-operation with God. The power and the grace of God are to be wrought into
the heart by the divine worker; but some go astray here, claiming that man has
a work to do that is wholly independent of any work of God. Another class take
the other extreme, and say that man is free from all obligations because God
does the whole work, both the willing and the doing. But the true ground to
take is that the human will must be brought into subjection to the divine will.
The will of man is not to be forced into co-operation with divine agencies, but
must be voluntarily submitted. Man has no power of himself to work out his own
salvation.
"Salvation must be the
result of cooperation with divine power, and God will not do that for man which
he can do for himself. Man is wholly dependent upon the grace of Christ. He has
no power to move one step in the direction of Christ only as the Spirit of God
draws him. The holy Spirit is continually drawing the soul, and will continue
to draw, until by persistent refusal, the sinner grieves away the tender
messenger of God." ["Bible Echo and Signs of the Times",
11/01/1893, Cooperation with God a Necessity; EGW Database #114652],
The paragraph above seems to echo Luther's statement that man is powerless. This is true unless the Holy Spirit draws us, and He draws everyone.
"Through yielding to
sin, man placed his will under the control of Satan. He became a helpless
captive in the tempter's power. God sent Ms Son into our world to break the
power of Satan, and to emancipate the will of man .... When man places himself
under the control of God, the will becomes firm and strong to do right, the
heart is cleansed from selfishness and filled with Christ-like love. The mind
yields to the authority of the law of love, and every thought is brought into
captivity to the obedience of Christ." [Our High Calling, p. 104; EGW Database #49169]
"The will of every
human being should be under the discipline and control of God, for it is a
dangerous element if exercised in selfish schemes. ....The will of man is safe
only when united with the will of God. When merged into the will of God it is a
will joined to conscience, rightly exercised in advancing the honor and glory
of God .... Under the supervision of the divine power, the will is to be
cultivated to
become strong, prompt, firm.
..." ["Bible Echo and Signs of the Times" 07/20/1896; EGW Database # 115111 ]
"...It is the work of
the human agent to cooperate with divine agencies. As soon as we incline our
will to harmonize with Gods will, the grace of Christ is supplied to cooperate
with our resolve. But it is not to be a substitute to do our work-to work in
spite of our resolutions and actions. Therefore our success in the Christian
life will not be because of the abundance of light and evidence, but will
depend upon our acceptance of the light given, upon our rousing the energies,
upon our acknowledging the light, and upon our cooperating with the heavenly
ministers appointed of God to work for the salvation of the soul."
["Bible Echo and Signs of the Times" 11/01/1893; EGW Database #114656]
Summary
We are free moral agents.
God created us with free will in Eden and, after the fall, gave His Son to
restore our freedom. He has always operated toward us on the basis that we can
choose. Just how we make decisions is not fully understood-nor can we presently
duplicate the process electronically-but the decisions we make are neither
deterministic nor random but rather we consider options, deliberate, and
select. God holds us accountable for how we have chosen. When God says,
"Choose you this day whom ye will serve" [Joshua 24:15] we can and
must choose.
"...And, if we consent, He can and will so identify Himself with our thoughts and aims, so blend our hearts and minds into conformity with His will, that when obeying Him, we shall but carry out our own impulses. The will, refined and sanctified, will find its highest delight in doing His service." ["The Signs of the Times", 11/19/1896, The Love of God; EGW Database #159331]
"I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may five:"
[Deut. 30:19]
Bibliography
1. Compton, Arthur H. The Freedom of Man. Yale
University Press. 1935
2. Darrow, Clarence. Attorney for the Damned. Simon & Schuster. 1957
3. Dworkin, Gerald. Determinism,
Free will, and Moral Responsibility. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1970
4. Dyson, Freeman J. Infinite
in all Directions. Harper & Row. 1988
5. Erasmus-Luther. Discourse on Free Will. Ungar. 1961
6. Friesen, Garry. Decision
Making & the will of God. Multnoma Press. 1980
7. Haddock, Frank Channing. Power of Will. Pelton Publishers, 1921
8. Home, Herman H. Free
Will and Human Responsibility. The MacMillan Co., 1912
9. Lapsley, James N. The
Concept of Willing. Abingdon Press 1967
Note pages 116-176, "Willing in Androids"
10. Russell, Bertrand. Religion
and Science. Oxford University Press.
1961
11. Russell, Bertrand. Understanding
History. Philosophical Library. 1957
12. White, Ellen G. Education.
Pacific Press. 1903
13. White, Ellen G. The
Ministry of Healing. Pacific Press. 1905,1909,1937,1942
14. White, Ellen G. Our High
Calling. Review & Herald. 1961
15. White, Ellen G. Prophets
and Kings. Pacific Press. 1917,1943
16. White, Ellen G. Steps to Christ
note the chapter "Consecration". Review and Herald . 1892, 1908
17. White, Ellen G. Testimonies
for the Church Vol 7. Pacific Press. 1948