Making (non)sense of predestination.

Predestination is an issue that divides some Christians. It is probably fair to say that the majority ignore the issue, and who can blame them? However, others get extremely uptight about the matter. There are three main camps: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism (or middle knowledge). I am not a theologian nor philosopher (and no doubt that will show), so if you want real in-depth insight on these matters you need to go elsewhere, but I will seek to offer a few thoughts that some might find helpful.

The crux of the matter is the apparent conflict between the sovereignty of God and human freewill. Calvinism stresses the sovereignty of God and Arminianism stresses human freewill. Molinism seeks to do justice to both, and William Lane Craig is perhaps the most well-known proponent of Molinism.

The problem arises when we see things through only one lens. God is sovereign, it is His will that will prevail. The Bible is abundantly clear on this point, from beginning to end. The issue arises when we view things through that lens alone, for then it seems to negate freewill. It can also be accused of making God the author of evil, and turning us into little more than automatons. (By the way, the freewill problem is not confined to theology, it is a general philosophical problem.) If there is no human freewill then that goes against the glory of God. For the Bible teaches us that we were made in His image, and the whole goal of the Bible is a people who freely choose to love the Lord ("I will be their God, and they will be my people"). So Calvinism can easily slip into taking away the glory of God that it seeks to proclaim.

While the Bible is clear on the sovereignty of God it is equally clear that our attitudes and our actions matter. There are also numerous examples where God's actions are influenced by our actions, and even cases where the Bible presents God as having changed His mind. So we do have freewill and how we live our lives really does matter. The danger arises when if make this the overriding lens through which we view things, for then it can easily end up negating the sovereignty of God, making God subject to us.

Molinism seeks to do justice to both, respecting freewill while fully honouring the sovereignty of God. So that is something very much in its favour. However, it does seem to fall into philosophical and theological traps. Reasons to Believe had a couple of very good programmes on it recently, and James White makes frequent valid criticisms.

So where does that leave us? My approach is this. Take the Bible as your guide. Believe everything it proclaims. So we should believe we were chosen before the creation of the world, we should believe that our decisions matter. 

What about seeking to understand it. Well we need to recognise that we cannot fully understand it, but that does not mean we cannot understand anything. Nor does it mean that we should not seek to understand anything. What it does mean is that we learn to recognise when we are coming up against the limits of our understanding. The problems arise when we seek to push beyond these limits.

Is this a cop-out? No, it is actually philosophically and mathematically reasonable. Godel has a famous incompleteness theorem that states that in any logically consistent system there will be some things that are true but that cannot be proven to be true. Now that most definitely does not mean that we throw logic out of the window. It does mean that we recognise the limits of logic. In fact, logic is very useful for atheists and evolutionists can sometimes be the most illogical people on earth.

The whole Christian world view (more generally theistic world view) is that the universe was created by someone or something outside of the universe. So we should not actually expect to be able to understand everything (Deut 29:29). 

Thoughts - Chance, Evolution and Predestination

So what have chance, evolution and predestination got to do with each other? Well let’s start by looking at some of the thoughts (and fears) behind evolution and predestination. Now many people working on evolution are just scientists trying to do good science, but there are others for whom Darwinian evolution seems to be a vehicle for “proving” there isn’t a God. I intend to show that even if evolution is true then it in no way proves that God did use evolution as part of a design process. In fact evolution could be part of an intelligent design process. Since creation and evolution is such a contentious topic let me lay my cards on the table. If you want to put a label on me then old-earth creationist would probably be the best, but it would not be a perfect fit. With regards to evolution, if evolution is “true” then that holds no fear for me. However, I have severe doubts about neo-Darwinian evolution and random mutations and survival of the fittest seem totally incapable of explaining the development of life upon the earth. I would strongly recommend Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwins Doubt.

Predestination is a doctrine that seems to hold much fear and misunderstanding. The common misunderstanding is that it obviates man’s free will. It does not. The Bible is very clear. The doctrine of predestination states that there are primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause of everything. The Bible attributes all sorts of things to God’s will, but this is in no way takes away our free will and responsibility. We struggle to get to grips with this concept, and the reaction of some (many?) is to reject, or at least ignore, predestination.

What we are going to do is a little thought experiment. It is going to involve some mathematics, but fear not, there won’t be any equations. We are going to look at genetic algorithms.

Genetic Algorithms

Genetic algorithms are an optimization technique used in mathematics and are an example of what are called heuristic algorithms. The idea behind genetic algorithms is inspired by evolution. The following is a very basic explanation, if you want more in depth information there is plenty out there on the web. A population is generated randomly. Then pairs of individuals mate and produce offspring. When two individuals mate there is crossover of “genetic” information, there is also an element of random mutation. All this creates a new population. A fitness function is then applied and the fittest members survive, the others don’t. This is just a basic description, there are numerous variations. This process is repeated many times and after many generations the optimum solution, or something close to it, is arrived at.

So you can probably see the affinities with evolution, especially the fitness function (survival of the fittest) and random mutation. Let’s consider the process a little.

First, it is a mixture of design and randomness. The initial selection of the population is random, mutation is random. However, there is also much design. The initial structure of the members is designed, the fitness function is designed.

Secondly, the outcome is, to a large extent at least, predetermined. If we consider a mathematical function which we are trying to minimise (consider a curve), then the outcome of the process, if the algorithm is designed properly, is predetermined. It will converge on the minimum point of the curve. So even though the process is random the outcome is not.

Thirdly, processes involving randomness can sometimes be more effective than more guided processes. The most popular optimisation methods use “hill-climbing” methods. You start from a point on a curve, calculate the gradient and then move in that direction to a new estimate. This process is repeated until the minimum (or maximum, depending what we are trying to do) is reached. For a simple curve this works well, but suppose the curve has lots of local minima. What will happen? The hill-climbing methods have a habit of getting stuck a local minima. Algorithms with a degree of randomness built into them tend to be better at reaching the true (or global) minima.

Now let’s consider how these impinge on evolution and predestination. Before going further let me make clear that this example is just intended to help us think clearly. With evolution and predestination we are considering “life, the universe and everything”. Genetic algorithms are simple mathematical tools dealing with specific problems. Nevertheless, consideration of it can help us to think.

Evolution

Many of those who consider the theological/philosophical implications of evolution seem to think that because of the randomness of the process then either (i) there isn’t a God (from the atheist side), or (ii) God cannot have used an evolutionary process as part of creation (from the creationist side).  Both of these views are wrong. Genetic algorithms illustrate that a process with much randomness built in can be used to reach a predetermined outcome, and may even be better at doing so than a more clearly directed process. As mentioned earlier, I have serious doubts about many of the claims for evolution, but even if evolution is completely true, it does not “disprove God”. Conversely, those theologians who use randomness as an objection to theistic evolutionists are making a false argument.

Predestination

So what can this teach us about predestination? In the genetic algorithm we have a process where individual steps are random, yet the outcome is not. This is something that we mere humans have invented. Surely God, who is infinitely cleverer than we are, can do much greater things. So it is may well be possible for God to predetermine the outcome of something and still allow the individuals free will with decisions within the process.

It seems to me that two of the things the Bible is absolutely clear about are:

1. God is in complete charge of everything, and He chose us for salvation before the creation of the world.
2. The decisions, actions and attitudes that we have and make matter and have an effect.

We sometimes find it hard to reconcile the two as at times they seem to be contradictory. Our reaction tends to be to favour one (Calvanism or Arminianism) or the other. Genetic algorithms should help us to realise that it might just be possible for both to be true, at least to some extent.

I do emphasise that I realise that evolution and predestination are much more complex than what I have presented here, I just encourage you to think and not to let God be limited by the limits of our intellect.