Randomness Isn't Freedom
Determinism, predictability and the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
Determinism Misunderstood
In conversations about free will, people often confuse determinism with a lack of freedom. However, the term determinism is largely misunderstood. It does not mean that every action is forced by some external power as if we are just puppets on string. Determinism merely means that all events are caused by prior events — therefore our actions are predictable.
Some still hold that if our decisions are predictable, then we aren’t truly free. However, many of us realize that our choices are heavily predictable based on genetics, environment, laws of physics, past events or personal preferences. We know that atoms move in a certain way, our brain synapses fire instinctually to certain stimuli and our desires guide all our choices.
Even recognizing God's omniscience suggests that He has perfect foreknowledge of our actions, regardless of whether He directly causes them or not. God is the author of the universe and He has written the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9–10)
If we wind back the clock one year, given all possible variables being identical, every event would play out exactly as it did. There would be no change in the universe or our biology that would cause us to do anything different than what we had done. This is determinism, even if the actions are determined by ourselves.
Can Consciousness Change Our Choices
Some argue that the existence of our consciousness through the human soul introduces agency that allows us to do differently — but I would ask what would cause our soul to do anything different than what we wanted to do in the first place?
As created creatures we still have a desire to preserve our agency. We want to hold onto the idea that we could have truly done different than what we did. In order to preserve free will, randomness is introduced into the equation. But where does this randomness come from?
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
This field of quantum mechanics suggests that you cannot precisely know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. Heisenberg’s principle introduces genuine indeterminacy and unpredictability at the quantum level. This is the closest we have come to theorizing true randomness.
However, leaving room for future scientific discovery, even though quantum particles behave randomly, that randomness is still governed by strict mathematical laws and a recognition of God’s sovereignty behind it.
“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” — Proverbs 16:33
Randomness is Slavery
The argument is that if there's just a little uncertainty — something unpredictable happens in the wiring of our brains or the fabric of the universe — then perhaps we really could have done other than what we chose to do, and therefore have a sort of libertarian free will.
But randomness isn’t freedom — its slavery.
A random choice is not a rational one. It’s not even a choice at all.
If our decisions were the result of chaotic quantum indeterminacy, we wouldn’t be free agents. We’d be unpredictable beings unable to even know what we would do.
The irony is that this so-called “freedom” removes everything meaningful from human will. It evacuates responsibility, coherence, and even personality. A decision grounded in nothing is a decision that means nothing.
True Freedom
True freedom is not the power to act against our nature or without reason. It's the ability to act in accordance with who we are — minds, hearts, and wills shaped by God. Randomness offers only chaos.
With determinism, we have the upmost freedom because every event is fully caused by our choices and our understanding of the variables of the universe. Contrary to how it makes us feel, this freedom is so intact, that it makes every action completely predictable.
Really appreciated this piece — especially the clarity in dismantling the idea that randomness equals freedom. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on a different angle: have you considered approaching this from an epistemological rather than causal framework?
In other words, instead of asking what causes a choice, what if the more foundational question is what constitutes a choice — that is, what makes it intelligible as a rational act in the first place?
Freedom might not rest in the chain of causation behind a choice, but in the agent’s rationale — in how he perceives and weighs competing goods. This reframes the issue away from determinism vs. indeterminism, and toward the nature of deliberation itself.
Would love your take on that.
Randomness does not exists.