Randomness and bad luck
Numbers chosen "at random" are chosen without pattern or
principle; sheer chance is the only "principle" operating. No one
purposed or arranged for that sequence of numbers to be chosen.
When we call an event "random" we mean it happened without purpose or
aim or principle. It was a raw event, isolated, a simple link in a
chain of causes and effects, devoid of purpose or aim, it wasn’t "meant"
and therefore it’s meaningless.
We might be able to trace many of the links, the causes and the
effects that in turn became causes of other effects. But since these
causes and effects are usually simple physical forces and since we can
find no evidence that there is a purposing or choosing
agent involved we call the events "random". An animal high above the
snowline is startled, cries out, dislodges some snow, which dislodges
some more and we have an avalanche. No purpose, no choosing agent—it’s
all mere "chance". Some skiers and people in the valley below die but no
one holds anyone responsible. To look for "meaning" within the series of physical causes/effects is a waste of time. We may grieve deeply over loss of life but we regard this isolated event as meaningless.
A building, old electric wiring, wear and tear, a spark, a fire and
the building’s destroyed. Random! A building, a man with match, a
purpose and the building’s destroyed. Arson! A child near a cliff edge, a
strong gust of wind, a dead child. Tragic. Random. A child near a cliff
edge, a vicious bully, a deliberate push, a dead child. Tragic. Murder.
As soon as we uncover purpose and conscious involvement, the event we
formerly saw as "random" is not the same event. The wind and the bully
may both make the child fall but everyone knows that "fall" doesn’t mean
the same thing in both cases.
When we say an event is chance or random we don’t mean it defies
"natural law". Mindless forces remain mindless even in the hands of
someone that consciously uses them. But when a conscious mind uses the
mindless forces then the mindless forces must not be abstracted from the
event and made to stand in isolation. They become part of the conscious purpose of a choosing being.
The wind blows according to strict physical laws and it’s entirely
mindless and without purpose. A man in a sailing boat adjusts his sails
and arrives at the harbour he wants. He doesn’t control or obliterate
the wind nor does he give the wind a mind or purposing ability. He uses
the mindless force to gain his purpose and we praise him for his skill.
An observer perceives an event as sheer chance but the discovery of a
motive can change the quality and nature of the event for the observer.
A court case, what looks like a sheer accident begins to look sinister
when vested interests and/or feelings of rage or revenge are uncovered. A
court case, what looks like the brutal murder of someone inoffensive
begins to look like plain self-defence when evidence of past criminal
abuse and a clear threat to the life of the accused emerges.
Sometimes when the whole story is pieced together the "sheer
accident" is cruelly and carefully planned murder. Without the motive,
without knowledge of certain objectives to be gained we’d be happy to
say "accident, chance, bad luck" or whatever. Now that we know the
bigger story the heart attack (which remains a heart attack) is no
longer just a heart attack—it was induced and it’s murder. The heart
attack no longer functions in the narrative in the way it did earlier.
Imagine some sort of volcanic eruption (you remember the history of
Krakatoa?). Think of the blind forces that go to generating one of these
awful eruptions. There’s randomness everywhere! But what if it is in
the biblical record and Genesis says it is God at work in judgement on
Sodom?
Imagine that in the judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah out of 60,000
inhabitants fifty or sixty people survived. One child, for example, got
trapped in a cellar and others were thrown deep into a cave by a ground
tremor and it happened that the cellar and cave protected them from the
fires that raged above and around them. It makes sense to say that it
was simply "good luck" (chance, random occurrences) that occasioned
their survival. But the same ground tremor that trapped the child in the
cellar and threw some into the cave brought the roof of a building down
on others, killing them. It makes sense to say that it was simply "bad
luck" (chance, random occurrences) that brought their death. We say
those things because the same mindless ground tremor resulted in two
different fates—one is "bad" and the other is "good". The tremor didn’t
purpose or choose to save or kill the people.
Within this purposed judgement of God it would be easy to find what
we might call "random" events. (The ash and salt filled air overwhelmed
Lot’s wife but not Lot or any other family member.) To isolate specific
incidents as if they stood alone and to use them to prove that
God did not purpose the event as a whole, as a judgement on Sodom, is
shoddy thinking and undermines our credibility.
We might say the child in the cellar and the people in the cave were
"lucky" to be alive. We might say the people on whom the roof fell were
"unlucky" to die. But speech like that makes sense only when we isolate some parts from the whole. When we isolate some parts from the whole, the parts are no longer what they were when seen as a part of the whole.
If indeed we believe that the cataclysm was a purposed act of God
then it makes more sense to say that those that died died at God’s hand.
And it wouldn’t matter how, precisely, they met death at that moment—a
falling rock, a collapsing house or a river of lava. And it would make
more sense to say that God spared some people than to think that they
luckily escaped his judgement. In fact, their friends would almost
certainly thank God for protecting them. They’re not likely to call it
"good luck".
(Jesus spoke of God’s judgement on Israel via the invading Roman
armies and spoke of some being taken and others left as survivors,
people in the same families and close friends. Compare Matthew
24:22,40-41 and Luke 17:26-37.)
Yes, but why would this person rather than that one survive? How is
it that the stone missed that person and hit the one beside her? How is
it that a Roman arrow ricocheted off a wall and killed a child hidden
under a blanket? These are interesting questions but they’re completely beside the point!
If indeed the invading army is God’s instrument of judgement no
difficult question alters that truth. To say, "You can’t explain why in
the battle that this person died and the one next to her didn’t" is no
doubt true. But it doesn’t change the fact that the entire proceeding
was God acting in judgement.
To call a famine in Amos 4 or the flood in Genesis 6 or the plagues
on Egypt random because they were "nature" calamities with rigid cause
and effect links is silly. Might as well call the sailor’s arrival in
the harbour "random". If these were indeed (as the Bible claims them to
be) God acting in judgement the case is closed for a believer.
For believers, it is enough for the Bible to affirm that an event was
purposed. Whatever we call "random" within that event cannot be used to
offset the biblical witness that the event is purposed.
If God purposes to use mindless forces randomly then "random" takes
on a different complexion. It doesn’t matter that he could make it
"rain" out of a clear blue and cloudless sky; if he chooses to use winds
and temperatures, sunlight and whatever to bring rain to a specific
locality (Elijah story here) it’s no surprise to us and it’s what he
normally does. He says he brings the rain, and it doesn’t matter that we
can "prove" that every step in the development and delivery of rainfall
is the result of a chain of physical causes and effects that "could
have gone either way". The arrival of rain is the work of God! He says
so and the psalmists and prophets praise him for it.
"But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel
between the sections of his armor...and that evening he died." (1 Kings
22:34-35) Imagine a bored soldier, minding the horses, wanting to get in
on it, shoots an arrow in the direction of the battle and hits Ahab. He
didn’t purpose to kill the king. The arrow could have hit anyone or no
one. If we’re consistent we say it was all "bad luck". But when you read
the whole story of God and Ahab...
What if we discovered that the hurt and loss, the tragedies and
catastrophes experienced by the human family were not just bad luck but
the redeeming work of a gracious God who is working to bring the human
family to glory and righteousness beyond our imagining?
If you had a choice between that and "it’s just bad luck" which would you choose?
Something needs to be said about "randomness" and "good luck".
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.