Is religion “superstition”?

That’s outside of the “normal” situation I am talking about. You could probably design a machine that precisely tosses a set of dice and could get the same outcome every time, but that’s not what we usually mean by a roll of the dice. In fact, one could argue that the randomness of a roll of the dice is a circular definition.

1 Like

I certainly hope that we have at least made it clear what we mean by “truly random,” that even Laplace’s demon cannot calculate the results.

This time I found this study of dice rolls. If I had found this the first time I looked, I might have been more confident in making the same claim you did. The question is whether die rolls are complex and sensitive enough to involve quantum fluctuations, and that is why I was looking for some experimental backup to say it wasn’t.

Laplace, the ultimate spoiler alert. :wink:

Not by quantum noise, but who can say whether the ‘indeterminate’ nature of quantum events couldn’t affect the die every now and then?

That assumes a theoretical accuracy that doesn’t exist.

How long is the moment?

Right. For a long time we assumed that all the noise cancelled out because this what our linear approximations to equations of motion was telling us. Then we realized we goofed because this is one of the things on which the non-linear equations of motion deviate from the linear approximations. This is the whole science of chaos revolution which invalidated Schrodinger’s conclusions in his little book “What is Life?”

And while we might think simple mechanical interactions are fairly linear, it actually only takes three interacting bodies to make the equations of motion non-linear.

If you can theoretically predict the outcome using classical mechanics then it isn’t random.

As long as any other well founded theory in physics will last.

I was thinking about how quantum events might affect a predictable outcome. Like with a machine precisely rolling the dice in a controlled environment.

I’ll take that as a “No”.

With respect to the action, it’s a yes.

1 Like

Romans 7:19 “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.”

A couple of my favorite quotes from two dyed in the wool Calvinists:

“God’s providential direction as an unseen, behind the scenes, ‘primary cause,’ should not lead us to deny the reality of our choices and actions.”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology

“This divine activity accompanies the action of man at every point, but without robbing man in any way of his freedom. The action remains the free act of man, an act for which he is held responsible.”

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology

1 Like

Interesting.

  • The first quote is a command.That’s not a good thing or a bad thing, here; but … a command is not an explanation. And explanations are the topic, no?
  • As for the second quote: That’s determinism’s doctrinal “non-exculpatory clause”: paraphrased, it says: “Just because our actions are determined, we are not excused for our determined actions.”
  • Paul simply says: “What the heck…I’m involuntarily determined and don’t want to be. How can I do anything freely?”
  • One of my favorite quotes is from a now-deceased Christian friend, not to be confused with my now-deceased agnostic atheist “teacher”. The former once said: “Free men do not rebel.”
    Moral? Rebels aren’t free.
  • Point of order: historically, I believe, the actions of humans are commonly classified as: voluntary or involuntary. [I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that you have no objection to that classification of human acts. You’ll let me know if I assume incorrectly, okay?]
    • Given that classification, I’d be surprised to hear that anyone believes that involuntary acts are not determined acts. How about you? Do you agree with that or not?
    • So, if involuntary acts are determined, what about voluntary acts? That’s the real question at the heart of the discussion here, no?
      • As I noted previously and believe, outputs of emotion certainly aren’t voluntary. Wouldn’t you agree?
3 Likes

P.S. Isn’t “Total Depravity” a ‘dyed in the wool’ Calvinist belief?

I can believe that because I think God doesn’t choose to control everything but allows our own choices to have some impact on events.

Likewise…

Natural law and physical events as an unseen, behind the scenes cause (some possibly even primary), should not lead us to deny the reality of our choices and actions.

And I can believe that because quantum physics shows that the laws of nature do not control everything but allows for the possibility of our own choices having an impact on events.

Likewise…

The laws of nature accompanies the action of man at every point, but USUALLY without robbing man in any way of his freedom. The action USUALLY remains the free act of man, an act for which he is held responsible. There are less common circumstances like drugs and medical conditions which CAN rob man of the freedom to choose his actions. And then the habits of sin can also rob man of the freedom to choose, but it is likely he is responsible for those habits.

Obviously, unlike the laws of nature I don’t believe God robs people of their freedom to act, though this doesn’t mean God might not use conditions such as our own sins to manipulate us when He deems this necessary (thinking of Exodus 9:12 when God hardened Pharoah’s heart). The aim of God’s manipulations is to set us free.

In messages he explained that if quantum fluctuations affect our behavior then he thinks that means our intent to act is controlling these quantum fluctuations. He was equating this kind of mind over matter to solipsism.

In fact when you search for “philosophy everything is mind” this calls up solipsism, meaning that only the mind is certain to exist. But clearly there is a difference between thinking that the mind can have a magical effect on matter (not that I believe in any such thing) and believing that only the mind exists.

BUT… Ilya Prigogine proved that you cannot calculate what will happen in non-linear systems without knowing the initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision. This means quantum effects cannot be excluded by the difference in size. Non-linear equations have a tendency of selectively amplifying some of the “inputs” in the so called “butterfly effect.”

Now whether this has an effect on the firing of neurons is another question. On the other hand these are neurochemical reactions and thus it does depend on the motion of molecules and it is only too likely for quantum fluctuations to have an impact on the motion of molecules. To be sure these tend to cancel each other out and it is yet to be demonstrated how nonlinear the behavior of neurons might be. There is likely no impact of quantum fluctuations on neurons 99.99% of the time, but I don’t think we can make that 100%.

I did think to compare neurocircuitry with computer circuitry. And it seems neurons are rather big. Big enough to fit 40 of our smallest transistors side by side within the width of the main body of the neuron. However… computer circuitry is the product of design and neurons are not and I don’t think this size comparison quite captures the complexity of the living neuron.

As for where I think you’re going, you’re not going to get much more out of me than I know I can act and I trust God.

As much as I like those quotes, I like even more how David said “such knowledge is too wonderful for me.”

As for Calvinist beliefs, Sproul summarized it best, when said the basic belief of reformed theology is that regeneration precedes faith

1 Like

Just so we’re clear, where I’m going is here:

  • Acts that are voluntary are conscious, acts that are conscious are voluntary.
  • Voluntary/conscious acts are either motivated or they are unmotivated.
    • An unmotivated voluntary/conscious act is either a conundrum or a married bachelor.
    • A motivated voluntary/conscious act is a married bachelor, IMO.
  • A will that thinks it is free apart from God is deluded.
  • A quote from Martin Luther: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject of all, subject to all.”
  • As for trust, Jeremiah 17:8 tells us:
    • This is what the Lord says:
      “Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
      who draws strength from mere flesh
      and whose heart turns away from the Lord.
      That person will be like a bush in the wastelands;
      they will not see prosperity when it comes.
      They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
      in a salt land where no one lives.
      “But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,
      whose confidence is in him.
      They will be like a tree planted by the water
      that sends out its roots by the stream.
      It does not fear when heat comes;
      its leaves are always green.
      It has no worries in a year of drought
      and never fails to bear fruit.”
3 Likes

It is still a rational possibility, but I shudder at the cost.

Isaiah 14:12. " How you have fallen from heaven, star of the morning, son of the dawn!"