THE FUTILE QUEST FOR THE MEANINGLESS
RANDOMNESS, DETERMINATION, AND WILL
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. – Proverbs 16:33
Youth today often refer to each other’s bizarre, out -of-place behavior as “random,” usually as a compliment. Yet randomness is actually quite sophisticated and elusive. If asked for a random number from one to ten, your choice is not likely to be random, because you might consider what others are choosing, or perhaps rule out “1” or “10” because, as the limits, they seem less random. Or you might rule out “5” because it is right in the middle (even though “6” is just as much in the middle). Or maybe you are partial to even numbers, or the elegance of the number “3” or “7”, or maybe you have fond memories of your eighth birthday. And finally, you may consider what you chose the last time someone requested such a number.
As creatures designed to live with purpose, in a purposeful, orderly universe, randomness is surprisingly difficult to create or identify. One researcher has even devised a challenge: assign one hundred coin flips in a row (heads or tails, you choose each time), as randomly as possible. And interestingly, it is very difficult to generate a sequence that is statistically random. In other words, his computer program can tell the difference between your virtual coin flips and real coin flips. More technically, our lack of randomness is exposed by our ratio of heads to tails, number and length of runs, and “serial dependencies” or “autocorrelations” (apparently a stupid coin understan
ds these better).
As another example of the elusiveness of randomness, consider the nighttime sky. Star distribution appears rather random but it is far from it. And yet the non-uniform clustering of the visible universe, as imaged by our best telescopes, is anything but a predictable pattern either. I thought about this on two occasions when I had to peel glow-in-the-dark stars off of the ceilings of bedrooms. The children that had lived in those rooms had tried to create a little nighttime sky scene, but it simply did not look realistic. The same goes for teepee mountain drawings and attempts at something as “simple” as a cloud outline. Our attempts at randomness are usurped by the inherent order of things, or our own imposition of order of a different or simpler kind.
According to random.org, true random numbers are at a premium for drawings, lotteries, games, and applications in science, art, and music, and these must be generated in sophisticated ways that even a home computer cannot provide. The website, run by the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, utilizes real-time “atmospheric noise” to generate true random numbers. These researchers do a pretty good job of explaining the difference between true randomness and pseudo-random numbers, and provide further discussion and links into the higher physics and philosophy of the whole concept. An excellent article in Wired magazine in August of 2003 also elaborated on the science and philosophy of randomness, along the way concluding that “true randomness is a stern taskmaster.”
So why would left-brained physicists, statisticians, and computer scientists want to get all philosophical about the very definition and existence of randomness? Perhaps because the deeper one gets into the topic, the more vexing questions it raises about the nature of free-will versus determinism. The basic argument goes something like this: If all outcomes ultimately have a cause, and that cause had a prior cause, and so on, then are not all events predetermined, including so-called “free will”? Or, conversely, if one believes in free will—truly free will—then one’s choices are not predetermined by anything, and thus are ultimately random. At least that is how the thing is often framed. Either conclusion, however, tells us we live a meaningless existence.
Now, if you are student of Scripture, you know the immense importance of human will, alongside God’s will, sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence. Age-old lines between Christian denominations are still drawn from this mutually-exclusive supposition: predestination or free will. We seem to think that one must either demote God and exalt human will, or exalt God and demote humans to robotic participation. Since God’s Word is accurate, exacting, and illuminating, we must reject the idea that it presents a false dichotomy in which we must choose “which side of Scripture” we fall on. So we should explore this further to make sense of it. To do so, I would like to consider the nature of randomness by examining its opposite: predictability.
If something is truly random, then it is completely unpredictable. So, suppose a truly random (as claimed) list of numbers was generated through random.org’s atmospheric noise algorithm, and written down for later use. That list would now become a pseudo-random list, because even though it was at once random, it is now known and predictable to whatever agency makes use of it. If I randomize a classroom student list, and bring it to school the next day for the purpose of putting kids into workgroups, the list is no longer truly random (particularly to me), but predictable (and I am likely to modify it somewhat after I see it anyway). Or, I could assign students based on an arbitrary criterion such as the fourth 
letter in their names. The result would appear random to them, but I would know otherwise. Now consider further the atmospheric noise from which random.org generates its values. This phenomenon is not predictable to the average person, and even though an informed physicist could in theory—with enough information and computing power—predict its outcomes, it is clearly not predictable due to its amazingly complex array of causes. Yet atmospheric noise is predictable to God—and not just because He knows it, but because He does it—and so to Him it is not truly random! And thus we find strangely that randomness can be described by degrees of predictability. As such, randomness is not an inherent property of an event or series of events, but a function of how well the events are understood. It may thus be that nothing is ultimately random (from God’s perspective), and that anything could be sufficiently random (from human perspective).
Still, most attempts to define the universe as a deterministic machine, or conversely as a chaotic system, are looking exclusively at physical processes. When we consider the very real entity of “will,” and the fluidity of nonmaterial causes (e.g. prayer), then all that is not random is not necessarily determined. Consider the theological worldview of “deism” as discussed in a previous essay. This views God as the one who created and set all in motion, including laws and principles which govern in the present, while Himself remaining detached and uninvolved in the present. This misconception of God allows for two extremes in the perception of randomness. In one deistic perspective, God predetermined everything through the initial conditions and laws he originated, such that when He stepped away, nothing could be truly random, and neither would there exist true free will. At the other extreme of deism, God only makes the laws and is not so intentional or even knowledgeable about outcomes, such that randomness exists (even from God’s perspective), and human will is the only directive, possibly itself random. So it seems that these historical divisions in the church may have emerged from deism’s detrimental influence. On the contrary, if we regard God as actively involved in the present, in which natural laws are merely descriptions of His typical modes of operation, then we know a world in which God is sovereign and purposeful, even while interacting with the human will and complexity of outcomes:
Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. – Romans 8:27-30
So, rather than an “either-or” or even a “both-and” proposition, the question of randomness and determination is a “neither -completely” issue. By this I mean that 1) nothing is truly random, only “sufficiently random” for various human applications and our limited human understanding, and 2) all is not determined, but instead God embeds and absorbs human will, and the seemingly arbitrary, into His purposes. Consider Proverbs 16:33 mentioned above, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” Einstein, in a passionate response to a particular interpretation of quantam physics declared “God does not play dice with the universe!” If God used the roll of the dice to establish an outcome that He did not know, then Einstein, and Proverbs 16:33, would be in error. But the proverb is not saying that God uses randomness to make His decision, but rather to reveal it.
An excellent example comes in the exposing of Achan’s sin. The Israelites were specifically instructed to destroy everything in Jericho, with the exception of the bronze, iron, silver, and gold articles, which were to be kept for the Lord’s treasury. This they did, with the exception of Achan, the consequence of which was a defeat at Ai. Joshua and the elders inquired of God as to why they were defeated, as Achan’s disobedience was not yet revealed. So God called Achan out, but not through lightning or disease, or anything that direct. Rather, God had the entire people consecrate themselves, wait until morning, and then systematically “take out” (presumably by casting lots) Achan’s tribe, clan, family, and then Achan himself. The specifics of casting lots is not known; it may be similar to drawing straws or numbers. Nevertheless, despite its seemingly arbitrary nature, it was used to determine important matters such as this in both the Old and New Testament record. And in addition to these, it is even given as a practical method for conflict prevention: “Casting lots causes contentions to cease, and keeps the mighty apart” (Proverbs 18:18). My friend Robert Moore still refers to this scripture when initiating “rock-paper-scissors” to determine the day’s trash-bearer on our backpack trips.
We might look at this further in Scripture by examining the word “chance” as it emerges in translation. If we ignore the usage synonymous with “opportunity” (such as “they had no chance to escape” or “my father Saul is looking for a chance to 
kill you”), then we get only a few occurrences. In one (1 Samuel 6), the ark is turned loose to determine whether God brought their destruction (if the oxen traveled toward Beth Shemesh), or whether it happened “by chance” (if the ark was taken a different way). This was an interesting test to say the least: asking for a sign from God as to whether He was involved at all. The ark was indeed pulled toward Beth Shemesh, settling that matter.
Another reference to “chance” comes in Ecclesiastes 9:11, where Solomon muses,
I returned and saw under the sun that—The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all.
So, not surprisingly, we find our strongest possible proof-text for the meaningless (and randomness) of existence among Solomon’s disillusionment in the quest for meaning. But what is he really saying? Despite his downcast tone (he is still thinking aloud here, and has yet to reach the bigger conclusions), if we look at verse 9, we see that he acknowledges God as the giver. If we look at verse 10, we see that he acknowledges the importance of man’s will in the midst of what God does. And a reading of verse 12 suggests that the apparent futility is not so much arbitrary, but due to a limited knowledge of one’s own life in the midst of an evil time. Furthermore, for the slow, weak, foolish, ignorant, and unskilled, verse 11 may be spun in a positive way: that all still have a “chance,” and again the “opportunity” meaning emerges. So try as we might to thrust Scripture into full-on determinism or the notion of true randomness, it speaks of human will and deficiency, and God’s will and sovereignty throughout.
Chaos is not comforting. And if we are honest, neither is the idea that human will drives all outcomes. Only the God-fearing are okay with the reality that things are ordered, yet beyond our understanding or complete control. Our peace and purpose come from recognizing a determined God of excellent purpose, who can and does take care of everything we need, and allows our willful participation. God is completely in control, which makes His invitation to faithful obedience all the more appealing.
© 2010 Chard Berndt.
All Scriptures NKJV.