Keeping the Faith

"I wear the chain I forged in life ... I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it."

- Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

In a recent post there was a brief mention of the debate between free will and determinism.  There was some discussion off line, so I thought it would be worth while to expand on the subject a bit more.

This debate has continued for millennia.  Do I, a human being, make the choices in my life freely?  Or are my actions, even my thoughts, pre-determined by the laws of the universe, or by decree from God?

The idea that our actions may be pre-determined in some way is related to the idea of the universe as the ultimate machine.  Many of these ideas were influenced by the laws of motion developed primarily by Isaac Newton.  It was believed that, in theory, if one could discover the exact “state of the universe” then the state of the universe in any moment in time, past or future, could be mathematically predicted.

Of course, the “state of the universe” would include the exact position, direction of movement, and speed of every object in the universe.  From the tiny particles that make up the atoms and molecules of our bodies to the stars and galaxies that fill the night sky.  Everything. 

The mathematics would be daunting, they would almost assuredly be well beyond the ability of humanity to ever actually master.  Even to begin, to gather all the information needed about the current state of the universe, would be beyond mortal capability.  But, in theory, it could be done.

It could be done by God, of course.  For the omnipotent creator of the universe it would be a way to pass the time on a slow Sunday afternoon.  You know, between church and when the cousins stop by for dinner.

That was a fashionable view during the age of enlightenment, the clockwork universe.  In that view the universe was thought of as a kind of machine, like a clock, with springs and gears and counter weights. 

This clock had been designed by God, who wound the main spring and then let it go.  According to this view of the universe the clock is still ticking away, without need of further intervention by the creating clock maker.

What an interesting feat of intellectual juggling!  In one neat little package the existence of God is "proven," and then removed from the picture.  Wondering why there is such a lack of miracles in the world?  No prophets around proclaiming the coming of the chosen one?  Don’t you hear the ticking of the clock?  At least in the metaphysical sense.  

It is one small step from the clockwork universe to one in which the actions of each man, woman, and child are not the result of choice, but predetermined by that most inescapable of the powers of God: Fate.

There is a bit of a bug in the system of the clockwork universe.  If a man’s fate, if his very thoughts and actions are pre-determined, where does that leave original sin? 

If someone does evil deeds not because he chooses them, but because Fate (God) has pre-ordained it to be, shouldn’t he then be blameless?  Then even original sin is not the fault of man, but the fault of the creator who made the machine of the universe. 

In the novel "A Clockwork Orange" author Anthony Burgess explores the idea further.  If a man is compelled to do good deeds, from psychological conditioning, is he good?  Is someone who is forced to do good any better than a man who chooses to do evil from free will?   

Burgess writes, “Goodness is something chosen.  When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man."

And further, "The important thing is moral choice.  Evil has to exist along with good, in order that moral choice may operate.  Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities.”

Evil must exist so that man has free will to choose good.

Wow, did not see that coming, although I'm sure many of you are rolling your eyes and praying for my soul by now. 

And yet, if there was no free will, given that God created the universe, then it must be filled only with good.  If we had no choice, then a just and loving God could only allow goodness.

That is a pivotal point in my argument, but is my argument proof?

One difficulty is the definition of proof.  To the layperson once you prove something then that’s the end of it.  It’s proven, it’s fact, move on.  I can prove a shovel is hard by hitting you in the face with one, and there you are.  In the world of science and philosophy things are not so clear cut.  Based on that definition of proof you can never prove anything. 

You can disprove a theory by doing something in an experiment that the theory says is impossible.  You can do an experiment where what happens is predicted by the theory, in which case you confirm a theory.

When it comes to proof there is always something waiting in the wings, in some cases referred to as “hidden variables.”  There may be laws of nature that make it look like your theory is correct, but if that hidden variable is removed your theory falls flat on it’s smug little face.

You can disprove.  You can confirm, and if you find enough confirmation then the theory is accepted, but always conditionally, always with the caveat that some other law of nature is out there, and that other law is the real cause.

So do we have free will?  It can’t be proven in the conventional sense.  In the technical sense we can confirm it, but not prove it.  And there is always that hidden variable, and that variable is God.

If God is omnipotent then He can create a universe that is totally pre-determined, yet appears to us as if we have free will.  If God is omnipotent then any knowledge we have about the nature of the universe will always require a certain amount of Faith.

The argument that God can "make it look like" whatever He wanted was used by Pope Urban VIII.  In response to the "proof" Galileo offered to confirm the Copernican idea of a Sun centered universe, Urban argued that God could construct the universe so that it looked like the Sun was in the center,  while in fact the Earth was at the center.

Galileo then wrote a book called the Dialogue in which a character named Simplicio ("The Simpleton") championed the same argument as Pope Urban.  In short, Galileo called Pope Urban VIII a "simpleton."

Galileo was arrested for heresy soon after.

This same argument has also been used by Creationist movements to dismiss archeological evidence.  God created the fossil records to fool us, to make it look like the Earth was much older than the biblical chronology.

Einstein once said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible."   To which I would say, if the world isn't comprehensible let's all just go home.  If you don't start by assuming the world can be understood without resorting to the "God can do anything" argument there is no point.
 

Can you prove free will?  No.  Can you prove the existence of God?  To that I also say no, but that’s another post. 

Now, here is my final point.  You can’t prove the existence of God, or that mankind has free will. You don’t need to.  One could even make the case that you shouldn’t prove it.  What you really need is something else altogether.

You gotta have faith.