If God knows the future, then God knows whether you’re going to be saved or damned. If that be the case, no matter what you do, you’re still going to end up where God knows you’re going to end up. Then where is our free will? This article tries to sort out this dilemma.
Free Will
In his book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, philosopher Alex Rosenberg makes reference to a series of experiments, boing back to about fifty years ago and replicated many times, which seem to show conclusively that our conscious decisions to do things do not actually do what we think they do. Our conscious decisions seem to happen too late and not to be involved in the choice process at all.
The most famous of these experiments was conducted in the late 1970s by neurologist Benjamin Libet. In this experiment, subjects were simply asked to push a button whenever they felt like making a decision to do so. Libet created a dot on the screen of an oscilloscope circulating like the hand of a clock, but moving much more rapidly: completing a rotation in one or two seconds, say. The subject was asked to visually note the position of the moving dot when one was aware of the conscious decision to move the finger or the wrist to push the button. At the same time the subject’s brain was electrically wired to detect the motor cortex signal responsible for flexing the wrist and pushing the finger or wrist down. Normally it takes about two hundred (200) milliseconds (0.2s) from conscious willing to finger pressing; but the motor cortex signal starts about five hundred (500) milliseconds (0.5s) before the button is pressed. In other words, all that is needed to complete the finger pressing action has already taken place about three hundred (300) milliseconds (0.3s) before the subject is conscious of one’s decision. Rosenberg concludes,
“The obvious implication: consciously deciding to do something is not the cause of doing it. It’s just a downstream effect, perhaps even a by-product, of some process that has already set the action in motion. A nonconscious event in the brain is the ‘real’ decider. Maybe the real decision to act that takes place unconsciously really is a free choice. Or maybe, since your brain is just a purely physical system, you don’t have any free will.” (Rosenberg, p. 153)
While, admittedly, this is an interesting experiment, there are similar experiences with our vision, hearing, olfactory, and tactile functions: where what we think is happening ‘now’ actually happened some short time earlier.
For example, we feel the pain of touching something that is very hot noticeably later in time. What we see is actually pre-filtered and re-interpreted by our brain, and we see it later in time. There could be reasons why vision is filtered by the brain; for example, one does not want to run away from the reflection of a predator in a pool, because that will mean that one is running towards the predator: so the brain takes some time to sort things out. But, just because we see something slightly later in time, it does not follow that we had no vision of the thing at all, or that what we see never happened. The three hundred (300) millisecond (0.3s) delay between the conscious and the subconscious just shows that there is a connection between them that we still do not fully understand. True, we may not know enough about this filtering process, but it does not follow that we have no free will. Disposing of free will sounds more like a materialist’s agenda: namely, eradicating all supernatural (meaning above the natural) concepts.
It’s not the first time someone decides, early in the morning, to go grocery shopping after work and actually does so; or one might change one’s mind after work because it happens to be raining. A woman might decide to get pregnant; she asks her husband in the next few days to accommodate, and she actually does get pregnant; to say that she actually had no free will to make such a choice is ludicrous to me. Long term planning: like getting a university degree or planning for retirement; can we really say that we have no free will in embarking on such projects? A three hundred (300) millisecond (0.3s) delay is interesting, but not important enough in most situations in real life: it’s splitting hairs.
Determinism
According to Newton’s laws of motion, if we know accurately and completely the initial states (mass, position, velocity, direction, acceleration, temperature, impact-restitution factor, frictional coefficient, etc.) of two particles that interact (collide) with each other, we can predict their final states. Conversely, if we know their final states, we can tell what their previous states were. This also holds true for a system of particles, or ‘body,’ if we are able to know accurately and completely the state of every particle constituting the body.
If, for a moment, we forget about our inability to know the state of every particle accurately and completely, whatever those states might be; it follows, from the above reasoning, that the current state of any body is completely determined by its prior state, and that prior state is completely determined by an even prior state, and so on and on. It follows that any physical system, including our bodies and our brains, is completely determined by what occurred before; in other words, according to the laws of classical physics, we have no free will: Newton’s laws are completely deterministic. This scientific conclusion, one must admit, is quite a formidable one. And this is exactly what Rosenberg proposes in the same book; he writes,
“The mind is the brain, and the brain is a physical system, fantastically complex, but still operating according to the laws of physics—quantum or otherwise. … When I make a choice—trivial or momentous—it’s just another event in my brain locked into this network of processes going back to the beginning of the universe, long before I had the slightest ‘choice.’ Nothing was up to me. Everything—including my choice and my feeling that I can choose freely—was fixed by earlier states of the universe plus the laws of physics. End of story. No free will, just the feeling, the illusion in introspection, that my actions are decided by my conscious will.” (Rosenberg, pp. 236–37)
I’m sure most readers of this passage will feel something is wrong with the above argument, but where? Feelings are not always to be trusted: it’s usually science that has the last word. When we touch something hot or get electrocuted, it feels like something undesirable ‘flowed’ into our body, in both cases. In the latter case we are correct: electrons flowed into our body. However, in the former case we are not; here’s what actually happens. Heat is just motion of molecules; when we touch something hot, our skin cells are also set in motion by simple contact; the end result is that our skin cells are permanently damaged by this excessive motion; consequently, our nervous system sends a painful message to our brain, so that we won’t do it again. No doubt, things aren’t always what they feel or what they seem. It so happens, however, that the laws of physics are not as deterministic as described by Rosenberg or Newton above.
When we speak of an electron orbiting around a nucleus, at first we imagine it orbiting in a two-dimensional circle or mild ellipse: perhaps like the moon or a satellite orbits round the earth, or like the planets orbit round the sun. But then, when you think about it, why should the electron settle in one plane; why shouldn’t it move in a sphere all-around the nucleus? So all we can say is that the electron of every atom settles in some three-dimensional distance from the nucleus (in a spherical shell); at any instant of time, we cannot tell exactly where it is: we can only talk about its probability of its being in a certain location. Not only that, but even the distance of the electron from the nucleus isn’t defined precisely, it can deviate a little in a mild elliptical manner. One can plot a bell-shaped statistical distribution of the distance of the electron from the nucleus; it will be a very narrow distribution, but all the same we can only talk about the probability of an electron being a certain distance from the nucleus but anywhere around it; therefore, we can only think of an electron as a negatively charged cloud when it’s inside an atom.
It can be proved experimentally, as we shall presently see in this article, that matter, particularly electrons and light, can behave both like particles and like waves under different conditions. The above theory of determinism originated from the behavior of particles alone; we don’t even know if electrons and light are going to behave as particles or as waves at any given moment: we can only talk about probabilities. So, by its very nature and at its very foundation, physics is probabilistic. Now, if you think about it, probability and chance cannot co-exist with determinism.
In his essay “The Measure of All Things: Quantum Mechanics and the Soul,” philosopher of science Hans Halvorson writes,
“‘Classical Physics’ is a catch-all phrase for a number of different theories developed roughly between the time of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879). Radically abstracting from the rich detail of these theories, they are all based on two main assumptions: first, the state of each object in the world can be completely specified by assigning values to all of that object’s quantitative properties (such as its position, its velocity, its mass, etc.). Second, there are laws of nature such that the state of each object at any future time is completely determined by the state of all objects at any previous time.” (Halvorson p. 140)
The reader probably noticed the word “assumptions” in the above quote: it does not follow that there are such deterministic laws in nature.
Regarding determinism, in his book The Physics of Immortality, mathematical physicist and cosmologist Frank Tipler writes,
“The structure of the phase paths [histories of maximum probability] (more precisely their ultimate future) gives probability weights—guidance, so to speak, not rigid control—to all paths. The ultimate future guides all presents into itself. But this guidance is not determinism.” (Tipler, p. 185)
In other words, the Holy Spirit gives us guidance, but he does not preclude our deciding to do what we want.
The reader may have heard about the ‘strangeness’ of ‘quantum physics’ (alternatively known as ‘quantum mechanics’), and may wonder what this strangeness is all about. There are many strange realities described in quantum physics, but I shall here limit myself to one extremely common phenomenon, the duality exhibited by particles and waves: that is, the fact that sometimes particles behave as if they were waves, and vice-versa, sometimes waves behave as if they were particles. And this happens with practically all basic (fundamental) matter! However, before we embark on this investigation, we must first appreciate the physical and experimental differences in the properties of particles and waves.
Particles
Particles are confined to one specific location in space; they are not spread out in space as waves are: they are well-localized discrete objects. In the absence of any force field (gravitational, magnetic, electric, etc.) they do not start to move on their own; but if they are already moving they will keep on moving in a straight line (they don’t change direction) and with the same speed they already have. Therefore, in the absence of any force field, particles do not bend around corners or edges (as sound or water waves do) but keep on moving in a straight line; they can, of course, be reflected (bounced back) if they encounter obstacles. Particles may collide with (bump into) one another or they may coalesce (stick) together constituting a larger particle (or body). Particles are relatively simple to understand: they behave very much like miniature pool table balls.
Practically everyone knows that electrons are particles, not waves; but how do we know this? In the previous section on “Determinism,” I described an electron orbiting around a nucleus as a negatively charged ‘cloud’; so how can we say that electrons are particles? This is the case when electrons are inside an atom; however, if we produce a beam of free electrons by using a thermionic (red-hot filament) electron gun, we can determine how free electrons behave. If we shoot such a beam through an opening in the shape of a Maltese (eight-pointed) cross onto a florescent screen, we obtain a very sharp image of the cross. In the absence of any force field, moving particles travel in straight lines; they do not bend round corners or edges as sound or water waves do. Had electrons consisted of waves rather than particles, they would leave a broad and diffused patch of light on the florescent screen, not a sharp detailed image of the eight-pointed-cross opening.
Waves
Waves are a little bit more difficult to understand; but we all have enough everyday experience with sound and water waves to appreciate the differences between particles and waves. Waves are spread out in space; unlike particles, they are not confined to a particular (small) location, and they consist of a multitude of particles.
Waves do keep moving in a straight line in free space; but if they encounter a corner or an edge, they have the tendency of (sort of) clinging to and bending around them; this property of waves is termed diffraction. For example, one can easily hear someone speak from around the corner of a building, even if the building is in the middle of nowhere, where there is no possibility of any sound reflections. All varieties of waves exhibit diffraction phenomena; the extent to which they bend around edges depends on the wavelength of the particular wave: the greater the wavelength, the greater the angle of diffraction.
Waves can reinforce one another if they are in phase (synchronized) or neutralize one another if they are oppositely synchronized. If an amusement park water-wave machine (alone) produces one-foot-high waves, and another water-wave machine (alone) produces two-foot-high waves; when working together they would produce three-foot-high waves if they are synchronized and one-foot-high waves if they are oppositely synchronized. In the first case the peaks and the troughs of the individual waves reinforce each other, while in the latter case the peaks and the troughs of the individual waves oppose each other. This property of waves is termed superposition. Particles, on the other hand, cannot be superposed like waves; they can only collide with one another or coalesce (stick) together. Waves are said to interfere constructively (reinforce each other) if they arrive at a particular point in space synchronized (termed ‘in phase’): the peaks or troughs add together. On the other hand, waves are said to interfere destructively if they arrive at a particular point in space in opposite phase (the troughs neutralize the peaks completely). The general term used for this phenomenon is interference of waves.
Practically everyone knows that light consists of waves, not particles. But wait a minute; light does leave a sharp image if one shines a laser beam through an eight-pointed cross opening onto a photographic plate; so how do we know that light does not consist of particles? If one observes the light shadow thus produced carefully, one does observe that the image of the cross is, in fact, very slightly diffused: this is evidence of the bending of light around edges. The shadow from an electron beam is much sharper; it is not diffused at all, not even minutely. Recall that the extent to which waves bend around edges depends on the wavelength of the particular wave. Light wavelengths are very small (4×10^-7m to 7×10^-7m) compared to sound wavelengths (1.7×10^-2m to 17m) hence the bending round edges in the case of light is not noticeable in everyday life; but in the lab, with proper equipment, it’s quite obvious.
A final important phenomenon of waves is appreciated by looking at and examining the erosion of beaches by waves. Beaches are eroded over time by the successive beating of waves onto the beach; what the first wave cannot achieve, the next billion might: their effect is cumulative, but over time.
Quantum Physics (Quantum Mechanics)
In a dark room that is illuminated only by red light, a photographic film is not affected: no matter how intense the (red) light might be or for how long it shines onto the film. Blue, green, or perhaps yellow light is required to affect it; their higher frequency enables them to produce an ‘image’ of the light source: the higher the frequency the higher the energy of a light train, or quantum (a ‘packet of energy). The energy of a light quantum is given by the equation E=hf, where ‘h’ is a very small fixed number, known as Planck’s constant, and ‘f’ is its light frequency. Although there are many observations indicating that light consists of waves, at times it also behaves as particles—normally called photons. Unless these photons have a certain threshold (size) of energy, they will not produce any effect: the cumulative aspect of waves described in the last paragraph does not kick in. The red light in a photographer’s dark room is such an example.
As a second example of strange behavior in quantum physics, consider the following simple apparatus, placed on a horizontal table in a dark room. At one end of the table is a horizontal laser beam (a light source), and at the other end is a vertical photographic plate perpendicular (at right angles) to the laser beam. In between is a screen, also vertical and perpendicular to the laser beam, with two very narrow parallel vertical slits (perpendicular to the table) and very close to each other.
Here is a diagram of the apparatus, viewed from above:
SOURCE—————————————————————|———————————————————X————————————————————————— |———————————————————Y————————————————————————— |———————————————————Z——————————————————————DOUBLE SLIT
Now a laser beam consists of monochromatic light: that is, it has just one color, and therefore one frequency and one wavelength; the light waves emitted by a laser beam are also all in phase (synchronized). Now imagine a line of symmetry, the perpendicular bisector of the horizontal distance between the two slits, extending from the source to the photographic plate; let’s call this point on the photographic plate X. Because of symmetry, the light beams exiting through both slits travel the same distance to X; therefore, having started synchronized, they will also arrive at X synchronized. Hence, they will interfere constructively and produce a bright vertical line, called a fringe, on the photographic plate at X. To either side of the center-line, on the photographic plate, the beam from one of the slits travels a longer distance than the beam from the other slit. So a phase difference starts to creep in: that is, the crests and troughs of the individual light beams start to become unsynchronized, and the two beams do not interfere constructively one hundred percent (100%) any longer; consequently, the intensity of the light starts to diminish away from the center-line. (Please note that we are talking about very small distances here, because light has a very short wavelength.) So, as we move further from the center-line on the photographic plate, we come to a location where one beam travels exactly one-half wavelength more than the other. At this point, let’s call it Y, the beams arrive oppositely phased and so interfere destructively: that is, trough cancels peak, because the two beams will be of roughly equal strength there. The result is that there is no illumination (light) at Y; so we end up with a dark fringe (vertical line) at Y. As we move further away from the center-line on the photographic plate, we come to a point, let’s call it Z, where one beam travels exactly one whole wavelength more than the other, and the two beams again interfere constructively, boosting each other up; consequently we again end up with a bright fringe at Z. If we carry on in this way, further away from the center-line on the photographic plate, we predict, and in fact obtain, a pattern of alternate bright and dark fringes on the photographic plate. There will, of course, be an identical pattern on the other side of the center line. (This is how sound and water waves behave too; that is why there are some locations in concert halls, or in churches, where one cannot hear properly—everything sounds muffled: that’s partial destructive interference at that location.) In conclusion, since light waves interfere constructively and destructively, light must consist of waves.
Now, in the above apparatus, replace the light source by an electron beam (say from a thermionic electron gun or a mild beta-emitting radioactive source), and also replace the photographic plate by a florescent screen. Now block one slit; the result is a bright sharp image of the other slit on the florescent screen, slightly off center in line with the other slit, of course. Now, instead of blocking the first slit, block the second slit; again we obtain a bright sharp image of the first slit, slightly off center in line with the first slit, of course. If we do the same thing with light waves we do get similar slit images, in succession, but the images of the slits will not be as sharp, because light waves bend slightly round edges: the images will be slightly diffused. In conclusion, electrons are particles.
Generally, electrons do behave as particles: that’s quite true; but look at the following strange behavior. If we leave both slits open for the electrons to go through either slit at will, we do not get two bright sharp fringes corresponding to the two slits, as we would expect: that is, the combined effect of the two separate (slit-blocking) experiments just described in the previous paragraph. Strangely enough we obtain an interference pattern similar to that of the laser beam (light waves)! That’s strange, isn’t it?
Even stranger is the fact that, if we leave both slits open but place two electron detectors one in each slit, we do not get an interference pattern any longer; we obtain two bright fringes: the images of each slit. Please note that the detectors do not interfere with the movement of the electrons through the slits: the electrons just pass through either detector as they choose. It is like our measurement is affecting, or ‘spooking,’ the behavior of the electrons: sometimes they act like particles and sometimes like waves, depending on whether we are ‘looking’ at them or not. This experiment has been repeated hundreds of times, giving the same result; it’s not a fluke, it’s reality; it’s not a small miracle, it’s physics: it is just one of the many strange phenomena of quantum physics.
Consequently, in his book ‘The Spiritual Brain,’ neuroscientist Mario Beauregard writes,
“This area of physics, quantum physics, is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the subatomic level of our universe. Briefly, the synapses, the spaces between the neurons of the brain, conduct signals using parts of atoms called ions [charged particles]. The ions function according to the rules of quantum physics, not of classical physics. What difference does it make if quantum physics governs the brain? Well, one thing we can dispose of right away is determinism, the idea that everything in the universe has been or can be predetermined.” (Beauregard, p. 32)
There you have it; our brains function at the subatomic level and therefore obey the laws of quantum physics, not of classical physics.
In quantum physics there is a significant amount of indeterminism, as the above experiment shows. So much, therefore, for the materialist scientists’ view that free will does not exist because the laws of physics and chemistry in the universe are deterministic. Basically, it’s not the whole truth.
As an aside, I don’t think that the law-enforcement and legal systems would like to concede that none of us have free will; I don’t know how we can fare in society without taking responsibility for our actions. No free will has the stench of a wrong conclusion.
The Lord’s Prayer
Even our most famous prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, in Matthew’s gospel suggests we should constantly do God’s will: “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10, KJV, my emphasis) It’s interesting to note, however, that this sentence is omitted in the version of the prayer given in Luke’s gospel. (Luke 11:2–4) Still, the church has kept this sentence in its official version of the Lord’s Prayer.
When most Christians pray “Thy kingdom come,” (Matthew 6:10, KJV) as conference speaker, relationship counselor, and Christian evangelist pastor Darin Hufford says Christians tend to think that God has some kind of master plan for furthering his kingdom on earth; and that they are just a bunch of useless, disposable servants that he must use, or even discard occasionally, to make it happen. They also believe that they will not be happy in their lives unless they conform to this master plan. (Hufford pp. 96, 99) They say things like, “Everything happens for a reason.” God is interested in furthering his kingdom on earth, that’s true; but his kingdom consists of our respecting one another: it is a kingdom of love, truth, justice, sharing, freedom, peace, and happiness. The object of his kingdom is us, not himself: his will is that we live fully and happily. By what others see, we then become God’s message to other people without even having to say a word: by showing them how they can live a happy life too. (Hufford pp. 99–101) His “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36, KJV): it is a kingdom of the heart—if it ever happens, God will rule in our hearts, but through loving other people.
Hufford then gives us one of the most beautiful portraits of God. He opines that if you were to ask God what he wants from you, he will probably answer that he does not really know; he will simply ask you back what you would like to do. (Hufford, pp. 101–3) I must admit I never thought of it this way: I always thought God knew everything beforehand. But maybe, God does not really know the future after all! If he did, where does our free will fit in? In fact, coming to think of it, we don’t have any tangible evidence of God’s ever being able to foretell the future—not even from biblical accounts, as I show in my two articles on “Bible Prophecies.” While he presumably knows what will make us better individuals, he lets us find our own way; he would not dictate nor suggest which way we should take: he lets us make our own decisions.
Conclusion
Strangely enough, following Augustine of Hippo’s theology, Calvinists (or Reformed Churches) believe in ‘divine predestination’: they opine God chooses some people (only Christians, of course) to be saved; the rest are condemned to hell for all eternity. This is a consequence of God’s ‘omniscience’—his knowledge of everything including all future events. This implies that at least 5.5 billion people (out of a global population of 8 billion people) are destined for hell. I must strongly disagree with this because God is impartial (Romans 2:11). If this were truly the case, then Satan has defeated God, hands down, throughout the ages.
Christian theology admits that God cannot do everything: in the sense that he cannot perform contradictory acts. For example, he cannot create a stone he cannot lift since he is omnipotent. It’s a self-contradiction. Neither can God make two plus two add up to five. Similarly, he cannot know certain things in nature because of the way he created them. Indeed, in his book ‘The Universe in a Nutshell,’ theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking writes the following regarding Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle:
“We cannot even suppose that [a] particle has a position and velocity that are known to God but are hidden to us. … Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know [both] the position and velocity [simultaneously]; He can only know the wave function [probability].” (Hawking, p. 107)
If God cannot know, definitely, how a ‘single’ particle will behave, how can he tell exactly how a human being (containing billions and billions of particles) will behave? It is this uncertainty principle which is the basis of our free will: otherwise everything would be predetermined for us. God so constructed our world in a way that we can have free will. God might know the universe’s future, but I contend he doesn’t really know the future where we are concerned. In my opinion, God could have made the world in such a way that he could know everything, but he didn’t want to control us like puppets or robots: God wanted a personal relationship with every one of us. God is the greatest ‘gentleman’: he doesn’t force anyone to do what he wishes.
References
Beauregard, Mario & Denyse O’Leary. ‘The Spiritual Brain: A Neurologist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul.’ Toronto, ON: Harper Perennial, 2008. (ISBN 9781554682188)
Halvorson, Hans. “The Measure of All Things: Quantum Mechanics and the Soul.” in ‘The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul.’ eds. Mark C. Baker, Stewart Goetz;
Hawking, Stephen. The Universe in a Nutshell; New York, NY: Bantam Books, 2001. (ISBN 055380202X)
Hufford, Darin. The Misunderstood God: The Lies Religion Tells about God. Newbury Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2009. (ISBN: 9781935170051)
KJV: The Holy Bible: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769.
New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2011. (ISBN 9781441152244, pp. 138–67)
Rosenberg, Alex. ‘The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.’ New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2012. (ISBN 9780393344110)
Tipler, Frank Jennings. ‘The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead.’ New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1995. (ISBN 0385467990)
Author’s Books
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
(1) Is God a Reality?—A Scientific Investigation: https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/740913-Is-God-a-Reality,
(2) Is the Bible Infallible?—A Rational, Scientific, and Historical Evaluation: https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/792987-is-the-bible-infallible, and
(3) Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines: https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/812598-faith-and-reason.
My books are also available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Indigo-Chapters, etc.
Faith, Science & Reason 