Does God Play With Dice?

[Richca]

Richca;13331232:

Chance has two meanings: “random” and “coincidental”. St Thomas rejected the first and endorsed the second. He stated that natural evils, like animal blindness, suffering and death, lethal earthquakes, tornadoes, and the like, are** incidentally **

evil**,** that is, locally and relatively undesirable by affected creatures. They are the result of coincidences that are not intended but permitted by God. There is an inevitable element of conflict in an immensely complex, physical system with countless creatures pursuing different goals.

Can you cite any texts from St Thomas to back up your claim? I do not believe St Thomas teaches what you are claiming him to teach here nor do I think it can be defended from Holy Scripture. I believe St Thomas’ view of chance is the “coincidental” meaning, that is, some effect escapes the order of some particular cause through the intervention and hindrance of some other particular cause. But all particular causes fall under the order of the universal cause, God. And so St Thomas says "all things that exist in whatsoever manner are necessarily directed by God towards some end; as the Apostle says “Those things that are of God are well ordered” (Romans 13:1) (ST, Part I, q. 22, art. 2). And “as to the order of divine providence, nothing in the world happens by chance as Augustine declares.” St Thomas is committed to the axiom that every agent acts for an end whether this agent is of a voluntary nature or involuntary nature. God, who is the first efficient cause, obviously acts for an end determined by his wisdom and intellect through his causal activity in secondary causes.

Suffering and death applied to humans is the result and consequence of sin (either one’s own or at least original sin or the sins of humanity as a whole) which St Thomas calls the evil of punishment of which God is the author. For the Scripture says “I am Yahweh, and there is no other, I form the light and I create the darkness, I make well-being, and I create evil, I Yahweh, do all these things” (Isaiah 45: 7) and in Amos 3:6, “Shall there be evil in a city, in which the Lord hath not done?”

Some people of course suffer from evil done to them by other human beings as Jesus did. This is all under the direction of God’s providence for the sake of some good and end.

Yes, the universe is immensely complex to our tiny minds. To God, the complexity of the universe is as nothing “for heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool”. For the universe is finite while God is infinite.

 

[Beircheart]

The question I also pose, though, is whether or not it matters.

Whether or not it matters depends on the individual asking the question. If this is a hurdle to your faith it matters greatly. If, on the other hand, you can faithfully believe and trust in God and are comfortable in not knowing, then the existence is as it is at face value and life goes on without needing a definitive answer.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you cite any texts from St Thomas to back up your claim? I do not believe St Thomas teaches what you are claiming him to teach here nor do I think it can be defended from Holy Scripture. I believe St Thomas’ view of chance is the “coincidental” meaning, that is, some effect escapes the order of some particular cause through the intervention and hindrance of some other particular cause. But all particular causes fall under the order of the universal cause, God. And so St Thomas says "all things that exist in whatsoever manner are necessarily directed by God towards some end; as the Apostle says “Those things that are of God are well ordered” (Romans 13:1) (ST, Part I, q. 22, art. 2). And “as to the order of divine providence, nothing in the world happens by chance as Augustine declares.” St Thomas is committed to the axiom that every agent acts for an end whether this agent is of a voluntary nature or involuntary nature. God, who is the first efficient cause, obviously acts for an end determined by his wisdom and intellect through his causal activity in secondary causes.

Suffering and death applied to humans is the result and consequence of sin (either one’s own or at least original sin or the sins of humanity as a whole) which St Thomas calls the evil of punishment of which God is the author. For the Scripture says “I am Yahweh, and there is no other, I form the light and I create the darkness, I make well-being, and I create evil, I Yahweh, do all these things” (Isaiah 45: 7) and in Amos 3:6, “Shall there be evil in a city, in which the Lord hath not done?”

Some people of course suffer from evil done to them by other human beings as Jesus did. This is all under the direction of God’s providence for the sake of some good and end.

Yes, the universe is immensely complex to our tiny minds. To God, the complexity of the universe is as nothing “for heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool”. For the universe is finite while God is infinite.

The following passage seems quite clear:

On the other hand, evil is caused in a thing, but not in the proper effect of the agent, sometimes by the power of the agent, sometimes by reason of a defect, either of the agent or of the matter. It is caused by reason of the power or perfection of the agent when there necessarily follows on the form intended by the agent the privation of another form; as, for instance, when on the form of fire there follows the privation of the form of air or of water. Therefore, as the more perfect the fire is in strength, so much the more perfectly does it impress its own form, so also the more perfectly does it corrupt the contrary. Hence that evil and corruption befall air and water comes from the perfection of the fire: but this is** accidental**; because fire does not aim at the privation of the form of water, but at the bringing in of its own form, though by doing this it also accidentally causes the other. But if there is a defect in the proper effect of the fire–as, for instance, that it fails to heat–this comes either by defect of the action, which implies the defect of some principle, as was said above, or by the indisposition of the matter, which does not receive the action of the fire, the agent. But this very fact that it is a deficient being is accidental to good to which of itself it belongs to act. Hence it is true that evil in no way has any but an accidental cause; and thus is good the cause of evil.

URL="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

David Hume was a sceptic but he realised that the laws of nature cannot possibly ensure that there are no accidents or misfortunes. They are the inevitable consequence of life on a planet where there are an immense number of creatures pursuing different goals. No one has ever produced a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia for the simple reason that an earthly Utopia is a naive fantasy. The Catechism sums up the solution succinctly:

The CCC is succint but not really much help here.

Whether or not it matters depends on the individual asking the question. If this is a hurdle to your faith it matters greatly. If, on the other hand, you can faithfully believe and trust in God and are comfortable in not knowing, then the existence is as it is at face value and life goes on without needing a definitive answer.

That’s a good way to put it and I would say that, although I am way off the reservation in terms of my faith, I do trust God and am comfortable not knowing.

Contrary to some here, I do not find it a challenge to my faith to believe that God might stand aloof of human suffering, including my own. But this causes me to wonder if I’m missing something important. Others are convinced that God must be intimately involved in our lives to prove that he is good and omnipotent.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Even the use and exercise of our free will is under the control of God and divine providence as Jesus said 'without me you can do nothing," and St Paul says “it is God who works in you both to will and to accomplish for his good pleasure.”

You raise a lot of good points worthy of discussion but I want to focus here first. Although I grant that you are consistent in your view of creation you seem, here, to be advocating a theistic compatibalism that robs free will of its substance and reduces, ultimately, to predestination.

Before I address the more interesting parts of your post I’d like to ask if you really are saying what you seem to be saying here.

They are the result of coincidences that are not intended but permitted by God.

Yes, this is a key concept that stands in contrast to hard determinism and is akin to what I describe as God throwing dice.

 

[Richca]

You raise a lot of good points worthy of discussion but I want to focus here first. Although I grant that you are consistent in your view of creation you seem, here, to be advocating a theistic compatibalism that robs free will of its substance and reduces, ultimately, to predestination.

Before I address the more interesting parts of your post I’d like to ask if you really are saying what you seem to be saying here.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am not denying that human beings have true free will and that they are responsible for the choices they make otherwise reward and punishment, praise and blame, merit and demerit, the counsels and commandments of God, would make no sense. God is the first cause of the choices we make because He is the first efficient cause and without Him we can do nothing. However, God does not make the choices for us.

Let’s work out from here, then.

Human beings have free will and we are agreed that, as Tonyrey said, that human choices (e.g. sin) are “not intended but permitted by God”.

I agree that God is the “first efficient cause” because, of course, without God there would be nothing. God created something and we are just sorting through the nature of that something.

The rest of creation, besides the angels of course, which is devoid of reason and free will and so do not move themselves to an end, are directed to their acts and determinate ends by another, namely God, and by the natures He created these things with as an arrow flies to its mark by the archer. St Thomas says “For the entire irrational nature is in comparison to God as an instrument to the principle agent.”

So my question, then, is why do you insist that the rest of creation (excepting angels) must be determined? You are dividing up creation into two categories: reasoning creatures which have free will and the rest which is exactly and precisely determined by God.

What leads you to exclude the possibility that God could create non-reasoning creatures and elements of creation that are as indeterminate to his will as human beings? Note that I’m not asking what makes human being special. If, for example, we allow that a cast die is random in the sense that even God does not determine it’s outcome that is still not free will in the human sense, the die does not choose to turn a particular face, it has no intention or plan or goal, etc.

 

[Richca]

Let’s work out from here, then.

Human beings have free will and we are agreed that, as Tonyrey said, that human choices (e.g. sin) are “not intended but permitted by God”.

 

[Richca]

What leads you to exclude the possibility that God could create non-reasoning creatures and elements of creation that are as indeterminate to his will as human beings?

(continued)

For one thing, observation of the nature of the world and the things in it and the distinction between things that possess reason and free will and those things which do not. Two, the order we find in the universe among irrational things and irrational inanimate things which calls for some intelligent being directing them. Three, the doctrine of divine providence and a proper idea of it as we find in Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church. As the CCC says, God is the absolute Lord of the world and its history as it appears from the reading of the entire Bible from start to finish. The Scripture says “thou hast disposed all things in measure, number, and weight” which appears to me to be contrary to the idea of indeterminate elements of creation. Four, as human beings act for a purposeful end through their intellect and will, so does God whose operation in the world involves his intellect and will. Since God is the first efficient cause of whatever takes place in the world, all the effects of his universal causality are directed to some end established by his infinite wisdom and knowledge and which end is ultimately the divine goodness itself as the proper object of the divine will is the divine goodness itself.

I think we are, among maybe some other things, really discussing what is divine providence and its operation in the world. For St Thomas, he says, “Two things belong to providence, namely, the type [idea in the divine intellect] of the order of things foreordained towards an end *; and the execution of this order, which is called government.”

You bring up a good question whether there are elements in creation which produce chance or indeterminate like effects such as throwing a pair of dice. The results of the throwing of the dice is ultimately going to depend on God and he knows beforehand what the results will be. The results also depend on specific laws and forces of nature such as gravity of which God obviously has intimate knowledge of. I’m not sure throwing dice is a pure random event, there are causes involved. Aquinas does speak of necessary and contingent causes. A contingent cause is one in which an effect may or may not happen probably due to a deficiency in the cause or some hindrance from another cause. If we take some indeterminate element of creation or say throwing dice as a contingent cause, the question arises whether the contingency of the effect resulting from the contingent cause is the product resulting solely from the contingent secondary and proximate cause. If you understand what I’m trying to say here, I think it is what you are inquiring about, for example, does God play with dice.

Aquinas’ offers two reasons for rejecting the thesis that contingent effects are simply due to the nature of secondary or intermediate contingent causes such as God playing with dice. Bypassing the first reason, he says, “if the distinction between the contingent and the necessary is to be referred only to secondary causes, this must be independent of the divine intention and will; which is inadmissable. It is better therefore to say that this happens on account of the efficacy of the divine will. For when a cause is efficacious to act, the effect follows upon the cause, not only as to the thing done, but also as to its manner of being done or being…Since then the divine will is perfectly efficacious, it follows not only that things are done, which God wills to be done, but also that they are done in the way that he wills…Hence it is not because the proximate causes are contingent that the effects willed by God happen contingently, but because God has prepared contingent causes for them, it being his will that they should happen contingently.” (ST, Part I, q.19, art. 8).

I agree with St Thomas here and this appears to me to be more in keeping with the divine providence of God who has care of all things and who is our Father. For example, I do not believe that I was born with sight and not blind simply because I was lucky due to secondary causes such as the material I received from my parents and the right DNA. No, I believe that from all eternity God chose me to be born not blind and that he prepared the right secondary causes to not be born blind. This was God’s will and I must thank Him for this gift. It was not a matter of blind chance. Now, the idea of God playing with dice and what I take from Tony is that I was just kind of lucky to be born with sight. God permitted this to somehow happen but did not will it so. I do not agree with this sort of idea of divine providence nor have I ever read it so from a saint, theologian, doctor of the Church, or reputable catholic author. Supposing that God did play with dice, where do you draw the line between what God really wills to happen in one’s life and merely permits to happen? It would appear to me that one’s whole life is a matter of chance, blind forces of nature, and God playing with dice. This is contrary to everything I have read concerning divine providence and what I have read from Holy Scripture, as well as taking the whole of the catholic faith in consideration. I mean, was it a matter of chance that our Blessed Lady was immaculately conceived and chosen by God from all eternity to be the mother of Jesus?

Thanks for the post. Blessings and peace, Richca*

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree with St Thomas here and this appears to me to be more in keeping with the divine providence of God who has care of all things and who is our Father. For example, I do not believe that I was born with sight and not blind simply because I was lucky due to secondary causes such as the material I received from my parents and the right DNA. No, I believe that from all eternity God chose me to be born not blind and that he prepared the right secondary causes to not be born blind. This was God’s will and I must thank Him for this gift. It was not a matter of blind chance. Now, the idea of God playing with dice and what I take from Tony is that I was just kind of lucky to be born with sight. God permitted this to somehow happen but did not will it so. I do not agree with this sort of idea of divine providence nor have I ever read it so from a saint, theologian, doctor of the Church, or reputable catholic author. Supposing that God did play with dice, where do you draw the line between what God really wills to happen in one’s life and merely permits to happen? It would appear to me that one’s whole life is a matter of chance, blind forces of nature, and God playing with dice. This is contrary to everything I have read concerning divine providence and what I have read from Holy Scripture, as well as taking the whole of the catholic faith in consideration. I mean, was it a matter of chance that our Blessed Lady was immaculately conceived and chosen by God from all eternity to be the mother of Jesus?

You make a number of fine points and provide a good summary of St. Thomas but I think the real substance of the discussion is packed in this last paragraph though some of the points are also mentioned earlier. If I were to argue with St. Thomas I would point out that the nature of a die is to randomly show a side.

Let’s look at the example of your sight and whether or not that was “lucky”. If someone had blinded you as a child you would be without sight. God might have permitted without intending that. Would we call that “lucky”? As soon as human beings are introducted into the mix we have sin which, by definition, is (in some sense) a violation of God’s will. So I don’t think we can say that you are sighted because of God’s eternal intent but also because reasoning creatures did not do something which God permitted without intending. (Not to mention all the decisions of your ancestors to bear children resulting in your existence.)

One related idea is from Pope Benedict (in one of his pre-papal books). What he argued was that, essentially, revelation to the Jews consisted of God repeatedly holding out his hand, being rejected, and then making a new offer. The history of revelation did not go according to a set plan but consisted of this interplay of God and Man.

Consider, for example Abraham. We might suppose that Abraham was selected from the moment of creation or we might suppose that Abraham was the right person at the right time who showed whatever promise God saw in him. (I won’t even hazard to make the same argument for Mary, that is much more complicated but even then there are genuine human choices involved and Mary is reverred for accepting her mission which must have involved free will to be valued.)

Your argument for a particular view of providence flounders on free will alone. The question, then, is whether reasoning humans with free will are unique in this respect. Is humanity an island of free will in a sea of Providential determination?

I have reason to think not but let’s think about this in terms of what it implies for human action. If the universe is operating according to God’s intent save the actions of human beings which may or may not be sinning then that creates a bias against action and for passivity. All human beings can do is mess things up.

I’m not sure if I’m venturing into heterodoxy or even heresy but I am curious.

 

[tonyrey]

They are the result of coincidences that are not intended but** permitted**

The difference is that God knows the outcome whereas we don’t because our knowledge and understanding are limited. Apart from the sheer complexity of life on earth human choices and decisions are often unpredictable and lead to unexpected accidents and disasters. Coincidences are not random events; they are the result of intersecting chains of events. There is** no reason **for the convergence of an avalanche and a mountain expedition - unless of course the climbers started the snowfall unintentionally. It is an irrational event that can be understood but not explained. Why not? Because there is no explanation!

Theism is incompatible with determinism because it presupposes self-determinism on the part of God and every rational person. Biological machines are incapable of thinking or acting for themselves nor are they responsible for their behaviour. They are certainly not the result of divine incompetence or negligence…

 

[oldcelt]

The difference is that God knows the outcome whereas we don’t because our knowledge and understanding are limited. Apart from the sheer complexity of life on earth human choices and decisions are often unpredictable and lead to unexpected accidents and disasters. Coincidences are not random events; they are the result of intersecting chains of events. There is** no reason **for the convergence of an avalanche and a mountain expedition - unless of course the climbers started the snowfall unintentionally. It is an irrational event that can be understood but not explained. Why not? Because there is no explanation!

Theism is incompatible with determinism because it presupposes self-determinism on the part of God and every rational person. Biological machines are incapable of thinking or acting for themselves nor are they responsible for their behaviour. They are certainly not the result of divine incompetence or negligence…

Sounds very Deistic, Tony. Hope you and yours are well.

John1

 

[Aloysium]

My view would be that free will applies only to morality, and determines whether or not you have chosen to be a loving person. Most other choices, such as a preference for apples or oranges, is physiologically/biologically/neurologically determined. We can also be creative, producing great works of beauty and there is divine inspiration.

 

[tonyrey]

The difference is that God knows the outcome whereas we don’t because our knowledge and understanding are limited. Apart from the sheer complexity of life on earth human choices and decisions are often unpredictable and lead to unexpected accidents and disasters. Coincidences are not random events; they are the result of intersecting chains of events. There is** no reason **for the convergence of an avalanche and a mountain expedition - unless of course the climbers started the snowfall unintentionally. It is an irrational event that can be understood but not explained. Why not? Because there is no explanation!

Theism is incompatible with determinism because it presupposes self-determinism on the part of God and every rational person. Biological machines are incapable of thinking or acting for themselves nor are they responsible for their behaviour. They are certainly not the result of divine incompetence or negligence…

It would be clearer if I had written:

Nothing in the entire universe is the result of divine incompetence or negligence. All God’s creatures have their limitations.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Nothing in the entire universe is the result of divine incompetence or negligence. All God’s creatures have their limitations.

I would hope that we could all agree on that. That seems to be a baseline.

An assertion that God plays with dice implies that chance is introduced by design and for some good reason just as humans, in all their incompetence and negligence, are given free will and the ability to defy God’s will for good reason.

 

[tonyrey]

I would hope that we could all agree on that. That seems to be a baseline.

An assertion that God plays with dice implies that chance is introduced by design and for some good reason just as humans, in all their incompetence and negligence, are given free will and the ability to defy God’s will for good reason.

There is undoubtedly an element of chance within the framework of Design. Surely God is capable of creating such a universe! It is difficult to see how a physical universe could be otherwise and the onus is on the sceptic to explain how all misfortunes could be prevented.

Calvin believed not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God. The atheist believes everything is ultimately due to Chance. The truth lies between the two extremes…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There is undoubtedly an element of chance within the framework of Design. Surely God is capable of creating such a universe! It is difficult to see how a physical universe could be otherwise and the onus is on the sceptic to explain how all misfortunes could be prevented.

Calvin believed not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God. The atheist believes everything is ultimately due to Chance. The truth lies between the two extremes…

That is my inclination but I want to better understand the theological implications of and arguments for this position. There are Catholics, too, who seem to prefer the view that God commands the rain and, as I noted earlier, we could easily ascribe every seemingly random tweak of quantum particles to God’s deliberate hand.

One way to approach this is to say that although God created the universe and saw that it was good there were other possible outcomes that would have been as good. If God threw dice any faces up would have been as good as another.

Why would we want to entertain this view? Because man changes nature. If I go into the woods and cut down trees to build a cabin then I have altered God’s creation. Is that sin? Am I goinig against God’s will rearranging what he carefully created? Certainly there are those who would argue ‘yes’. If God had wanted a cabin in the forest he would have created it that way.

Another way to approach the issue is as information theory. If you know the starting point of creation and everything is deterministic then there is a fixed amount of information and everything is predictable. But if there is genuine randomness then new information is introduced over time (either directly by God or by chance because the universe is inherently creative).

 

[tonyrey]

There is undoubtedly an element of chance within the framework of Design. Surely God is capable of creating such a universe! It is difficult to see how a physical universe could be otherwise and the onus is on the sceptic to explain how all misfortunes could be prevented.

Probably most alternatives wouldn’t make much difference but if some would result in an immense disaster God would intervene. Life on this planet has almost become extinct several times

Why would we want to entertain this view? Because man changes nature. If I go into the woods and cut down trees to build a cabin then I have altered God’s creation. Is that sin? Am I going against God’s will rearranging what he carefully created? Certainly there are those who would argue ‘yes’. If God had wanted a cabin in the forest he would have created it that way.

Im sure God isn’t a Puritan! A moderate number of cabins wouldn’t affect the beauty of the forest but too many would lead to deforestation and contribute to global warming.

Another way to approach the issue is as information theory. If you know the starting point of creation and everything is deterministic then there is a fixed amount of information and everything is predictable. But if there is genuine randomness then new information is introduced over time (either directly by God or by chance because the universe is inherently creative).

I don’t think the universe would be inherently creative if it lacked purpose. That is the supreme obstacle the materialist has to overcome. It might be successful for a limited period but not to the extent we have discovered over billions of years. To produce rational beings from mindless molecules is surely the summit of absurdity, don’t you think?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Probably most alternatives wouldn’t make much difference but if some would result in an immense disaster God would intervene. Life on this planet has almost become extinct several times

Im sure God isn’t a Puritan! A moderate number of cabins wouldn’t affect the beauty of the forest but too many would lead to deforestation and contribute to global warming.

The thing, though, is how would you know? You know the present arrangement is according to God’s will. If you actively alter nature you risk something that would not be risked by remaining passive.

I don’t think the universe would be inherently creative if it lacked purpose. That is the supreme obstacle the materialist has to overcome. It might be successful for a limited period but not to the extent we have discovered over billions of years. To produce rational beings from mindless molecules is surely the summit of absurdity, don’t you think?

That’s a good distinction. I’m not sure what to call it, this possibilty of genuinely random behavior of the universe. Youre right, its not purpuseful creation.

But I’m on the fence with respect to evolution. I can see an argument both ways. It’s one of the subjects that lead me to speculate on God throwing dice.

 

[Richca]

Let’s look at the example of your sight and whether or not that was “lucky”. If someone had blinded you as a child you would be without sight. God might have permitted without intending that.