Do we have free will?

I have been asked by Geoff and Ginny to talk for a whole hour on my understanding of weather we have a will, and if that was all I had to talk about, my speech would be very short, as I can answer that in one word: yes. However, I would like to delve a little deeper and try to ascertain if that will is free or not, and that is a question that have kept philosophers arguing for thousands of years. So obviously we do not have the right paradigm in the worlds as yet, to understand the whole concept. So I looked around for a different one that appear to supply a better answer than the one we have so far. So I checked out quantum theology, and found that they do have an answer, but it is not one that fits easily into our current paradigm as the answer is in fact a paradox, but we will get to that in due course. Quantum theology: A good place to start is with a brief overview of the basic concepts we're dealing with. It's important to point out that we're not just talking about ideas here, but about the very nature of God and creation itself. This isn't a frivolous mind-game for egg-heads either. The book of Proverbs exhorts us to get understanding. Our understanding of God and creation affects the way we relate to the Godhead and our world. So the two main established camps are predestination and free will. PREDESTINATION: In the New Testament the concept is applied only to God and expresses the thought of appointing a situation for a person, or a person for a situation, in advance. It means that God has already decided everyone's "fate" before the creation of the world. Everything's a done deal, even before it's done.

It's what we mean when we refer to God as sovereign. In fact, it's one of the things that makes God God. FREE-WILL: This refers to the idea that we humans can actually choose our destinies, that the outcome depends upon our actions. It means that our personal futures are open, as yet unmade. Our destinies are shaped by our own decisions. It's what our experience says is the case and what ultimately distinguishes us from the rest of creation. Genuine freedom is crucial to our understanding of what makes us human. If the Good Book had weighed in on one side or the other, we'd have no problem. (Well, actually we'd have a whole other set of problems, but that's not our problem.) Yet the Bible clearly and vigorously advocates both. In a nutshell, here's what the Scriptural battle line looks like: Predestination "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires (Ro 9:18) "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will Free will "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved" (John 10:9) God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4) "Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve" (Josh 24:15) "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his

cross, and follow Me (Matt. 16:24) (Eph 1:5) The problem, of course, is that they can't both be true at the same time. If God has already decided my future, I'm not free to choose it. And if I'm free to choose, God clearly can't have locked it in ahead of time. How are we to handle this?

To reconcile these contrary ideas, philosophers and theologians have often resorted to fudging definitions. In some discussions, predestination is no longer preemptive determination, but rather God's simple foreknowledge of all freely-chosen outcomes. He knows what we'll choose, but does not force us to do it. (For example, knowing that my kids will use the toilet before bedtime does not mean I'm causing them to do it.) The Bible does indeed affirm God's foreknowledge but clearly distinguishes it from predestination (see Romans 8:29). In other attempts at reconciliation, free-will is only sort of free. The narrowest interpretation suggests that we may choose, but only what God has already decided we will choose. It's like a multiple-choice question with only one answer option: 1. Free-will means a) choosing the inevitable A slightly looser perspective suggests that our specific choices may be free, but only within predetermined boundaries. Think of riding the dodgem cars at the fair: you can steer the little car anyway you want within the electrified arena. In this version, God allows you to choose your path; but, alas, all paths lead to the same place. There is a third approach to harmonizing these stubborn polarities which avoids cheating. Unfortunately, it also avoids answering. Briefly put, we might as well forget it. Nobody can figure it out. As a Reformed document poetically declares, "Predestination and free agency are the twin pillars of a great temple, and they meet above the clouds where the human gaze cannot penetrate." Lofty, but somewhat unsatisfying for inquiring minds. For two thousand years or more this whole discussion has been locked in the realm of the merely philosophical. It was idea versus idea, interpretation versus
3

interpretation, and like speculating on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. But now, a new paradigm is emerging. I offer you an amazing feat of doctrinal dexterity, one not only firmly rooted in Biblical orthodoxy, but brilliantly illuminated by hard, experimental science. Welcome to the world of quantum theology where the impossible is indeed possible and where infinite contradictions live together happily ever after. Quantum physics is the science of the inconceivably small. It deals with events at the sub-atomic level which form the building blocks for everything we experience as the material universe. In the quantum neighbourhood we meet a menagerie of odd players with funny names like quarks, leptons, and bosons. Since the 1920's, with the advance of technology, physicists have made a number of amazing and strange discoveries. Many of them run counter to our sense of how the world actually works. In fact, the more we learn about quantum reality, the more we begin to question assumptions about our own. It turns out that the universe is far stranger than we had thought. We are truly Alice in Wonderland where the wildly unorthodox explains the orthodox. One of the best known implications of quantum theory is uncertainty. In 1927 a man named Heisenberg argued that the key physical quantities position and momentum are linked. As a result, they cannot be accurately measured at the same time. The more precisely one is measured, the less precisely measured is the other. Take an electron, for example. Because it's so small, any method for measuring its position would alter its momentum. The energy used to locate it would also change its speed. In the same way, methods for measuring the velocity of the electron result in uncertainty about its precise location. In other words, we can know either of these two things about the electron, but not both at the same time.
4

Some scientists believed that this was simply a limitation of our measuring techniques. But Heisenberg took a more radical view. He believed that this limitation is a property of nature itself, not the result of imperfect experimentation. We don't know both because we can't know both. According to Heisenberg, the mystery is built into the machine. Uncertainty is certain. One of the most intriguing experimental observations concerns the nature of light. The question was whether light was made up of distinct particles ("quanta" or "photons") or behaved in a wave-like manner like sound or radio. In experiments designed to test for wave-like properties, light created interference patterns just like waves do (like converging ripples in a pond). Particles don't do that. So, light is a wave-form. However, when experiments tested for particles, it was found that light was indeed made up of little, well-defined packets of energy. Photons are real and not at all like a wave. The conclusion: light is a particle. Both conclusions are verified by experiment. Light doesn't seem to mind that it breaks the rules. We get what we're looking for. The next step in this quantum worldview is even stranger. If light waves can act like particles, might there be situations in which sub-atomic particles acted like waves? A French physicist named Prince Louis de Broglie decided to find out. He discovered that, if a beam of electrons is passed through a pair of slits, diffraction and interference appear exactly what we'd expect of waves. If the beam is slowed to a single electron (particle) at a time, the detector on the other side of the slits will still gradually build a trace that looks like an interference or wave pattern. This is impossible to explain. If each electron goes through either one slit or the other, the pattern would look very different. The appearance of the interference pattern suggests that they don't simply go through one slit or the other. Does each
5

particle somehow "know" where to line up by studying the paths of previous electrons? More bizarre, the results seem to imply that not only light, but all subatomic citizens have two distinct natures. This observation, known as the Wave-Particle Duality, indicates that two "contradictory" realities can exist as one. Schrdinger's Cat As we've discussed, quantum uncertainty means that we can't know for sure where an electron will end up. All we can determine is the probability of finding one in one location rather than another. (The picture on your television, which is created by an electron gun, is only a probability.) True, a particle may actually end up someplace, but the distribution of all possible outcomes described mathematically looks like a wave. This mathematical description, formulated in 1925 by Erwin Schrdinger, is known as the Schrdinger Wave Equation. According to Schrdinger's equation, the final outcome may be determinate (the electron's ultimate location), but we can only know what that is by measuring. However, as we've also noted, the act of measuring affects the outcome we record. As long as we don't look, the whole spectrum of possibilities remains intact; when we peek, the wave function collapses. The act of observation transforms the world of possibility into one of destiny. The problem of the relationship between measurement and reality is illustrated by a famous thought-experiment involving a poor cat. (Remember, cat-lover's, this is just a thought experiment!) The cat is in a box together with a canister of poisonous gas connected to a radioactive device. If an atom in the device decays, the canister is opened and the cat dies. Suppose that there is a 50-50 chance of this happening. Clearly when we open the box we will observe a cat that is either alive or dead. But is the cat alive or dead prior to the opening of the box?
6

According to the dominant view (what is known as the Copenhagen interpretation), the probabilities become determinate only on measurement. This means that the cat is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened. The cat is in an indeterminate state. It merely has some probability of being alive or dead. Until the wave function collapses, there is simply no reality to be described. When we open the box, the wave crashes and the cat is one or the other. This interpretation raises all sorts of problems. How could both states be true at once? Maybe electrons can cross-dress, but a cat? And at just what level does the wave function actually collapse? Why should we assume that our observation is responsible for the collapse of the wave function? What level of consciousness is needed to determine something? Is the cat conscious enough to fix the outcome of the experiment? Doesn't it know whether it's dead or alive? Perhaps God collapses the wave function: For example the Godhead conceives ("Let there be light!") and it appears as all other unrealized options evaporate forever. If this is so, wouldn't his divine foresight be sufficient to predestine? (Somebody get me an aspirin.) You are here (probably) You may well ask, what do free-will and predestination have to do with Schrdinger's cat? Just this: the world of quantum physics demonstrates that irreconcilable realities do not necessarily need to be "reconciled." Contrary to human logic, conflicting ideas or beliefs that cannot be brought into harmony may be equally true. We do have the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by divine will. God has foreordained all things and is working out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (So says the bible in Ephesians 1:11). The particles of

our unrestricted capacity for self-determination co-exist with the wave of the Godheads absolute and meticulous sovereignty. But they cannot be reconciled. Quantum theology may help us negotiate other divine incompatibilities too, like love and wrath, grace and judgment, or faith and works, to mention a few. It might even help us entertain the greatest enigma of all: Jesus Christ the God/Man. Moreover, quantum theology might shed light on troubling disparities like unanswered prayer, unfulfilled promises, and the fate of those who never hear the Gospel. But it would be a mistake to assume that all questions have answers. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle reminds us that the root of existence is mystery, and it's here that quantum theology joins hands with its classical sibling. There are things we simply cannot know, not because we lack information, but because mystery is the foundation of knowledge itself. It's woven into the very fabric of being. As the writer of proverbs reminds us, it is deep respect for that mystery that opens the way to true wisdom. And so, perhaps, ignorance and knowledge can ultimately co-exist too. The Apostle Paul speaks of holding to the mystery of the faith, the mystery now revealed in the form of an even greater mystery: Christ in us, the hope of glory. The mystery can indeed be articulated, even verified, but it cannot be reduced. The Psalmist understood this and sang: Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it (139:6). Genius may be recognizing that it is the things we cannot see that give substance to the things we can. So far so good for the big picture, but there is other aspects Id like to mention which is much closer to us than the broader concepts of quantum theology. That of individual will and volition as arising from thought.

So we ask ourselves how free are our choices, do we have free will? Do we actively choose what makes us free? We need to consider the influence of ego, higher ego, emotions and discarnate entities on our choices. In order to see if our choices are an active participation in free will we need to exercise discernment in each of the above categories. Discernment means that we should consciously and carefully evaluate our own thoughts to check if these are positive and constructive for the good of all. Ego (or body consciousness) which is concerned with decisions about our material wellbeing, social status, and being successful. About making choices that maintain the status quo to suit the ego. The ego will make us feel insecure, so we try to bolster it up by buying the best of everything. We aim to keep up appearances and maintain or increase our social standing, sometimes by belittling others to get there. There need not be a great conflict between the little and higher ego, although the aim may be the same the reasons and the pathway may be quite different. The higher ego looks at lessons as a whole as development of talents whereas the little ego may exploit these talents to its own end. The higher self works in concert whereas the little ego takes over. Higher self (Higher ego) can show you what is the best choices, but it doesnt make you do these, unless specifically asked to help. Im unsure of its jurisdiction but I think it can show you your life plan blue print, but we can choose to follow directives or not. Higher self Discernment You can only make a free will choice if you are aligned with your higher self. Ask yourself if your choice reflects the choice that is for the good of all.

Emotions Emotions are created by our bodys chemical cocktail resulting from the interplay of our chakras. Strong emotions can override reason and we then make choices that reflect that state. We often allow our choices to be influenced by negative emotions such as fear, fear of loss, of love and personal rejections. Ego and emotions are somewhat tied together, emotions can be activated by the ego in order for it to get you moving in the direction it wants to go. We also tend to be influenced by the positive emotions we have experienced, the ones that appear to bring rewards and this will undoubtedly influence future choice to appear to be free ones. Emotional - Discernment Refrain from making decisions when emotionally upset, or experiencing any strong emotion. Gather your energies into your heart chakra for a while so that your energetic system may become balanced, then make an impartial choice. Our choice of actions are often a reaction to circumstances we find ourselves, that is, karmic situations that come into play in our life, but we make decisions based on emotional defence mechanisms and we may think we are free to choose, but they are not free choices, but just reactions. [Entities] Most people are not aware of where their thoughts originate from and why. They have not developed the deeper sensitivity to determine this. Therefore, there is the danger that any thought thrown our way from an outside agency, however spiritually evolved that outside entity may be, will gain ownership inside us. I say danger with good reason. If the discarnate entity is not very evolved we may become its playground, and vehicle for working off its Karma, which is not our own. This is not allowed in
10

polite spiritual realms and I know that the hierarchy of spiritual beings that works through me wage a constant war on this kind of behaviour. We dont easily know if some discarnate entity is using our body as a vehicle to work off their Karma. [Entities - Discernment] We have to bring greater thought to any action we choose and discern if it has arisen from our own self or from an outside influence. I we do not discern our thought patterns we leave ourselves wide open to outside influences and possible abuse. Our actions will not be our own and we may suffer physical pain and mental cloudiness as we cannot reconcile our being with our thoughts and consequent actions. Entities are attracted to us when we experience strong emotions. If we actively refuse to comply with the choice presented to us by an entity, and/or are sensitive enough to feel the presence in our system of such an entity. We may actively try to remove it. The entity may spitefully and actively cause pain as it is chased around our energetic system. So how will we know if our thoughts are our own? We need to ask ourself a few questions, and often. Am I experiencing spirallic or circular thought forms that may be caused by the smaller ego or a discarnate entity. Does my choice feel right, is it for the good of all? Are my thoughts full of negativity and weighed down by depression? The more thought we bring to bear on any decision we make, however small, will effectively eliminate a discarnate entitys ability to curb our thought patterns to their desires, if these differ from our own. If we make it a habit to discern our reasons for willing anything, it will soon prove impossible for a discarnate entity to use us against our will so to speak, they will give up trying, and we will be free of such influences.

11

Conclusion The concept of having free or not so free will are both correct. But... At any given moment we have the power to choose how we feel about anything, and this can change a situation. That is the only truly free choice we have. The energy bound up in any given situation, can if we chose become liberated and be redirected and this may affect change. Ultimately we are free to choose to move closer towards freedom of choice inherent in the godhead.

12