Why Emergence Matters -- Transforming Theology
Why Emergence Matters:
A New Paradigm for Relating the Sciences.
A New Paradigm for Relating the Sciences.
We hear a lot about emergent and emergence. We have evangelicals using such language and non-evangelicals as well. Phyllis Tickle speaks of the Great Emergence, that paradigm shifting event that happens every half-millennium or so when the way we think and practice our faith changes dramatically. Of course, nothing happens that quickly – it’s something that happens over time – building on what came before, but then perhaps in the twinkling of the eye everything appears to have changed.
As I pick up the Second Section of Philip Clayton's book Adventures in the Spirit (Fortress, 2008), for the Transforming Theology project, the book moves into a more specific area of exploration, a new paradigm for doing science called "emergence." Clayton believes this new paradigm has the potential to be transformative for theology and for the practice of Christian faith.
We are told by the New Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, that Darwin and evolutionary biology has done away with God. We’re now free from the constraints of superstition. While Dawkins seems to have little time for theologians – whether or not they teach at Oxford along with him – theologians, such as Clayton, wish to continue the dialogue with science. In this fourth chapter of Clayton’s Adventures in the Spirit, we are introduced to emergence of the scientific kind. Emergence is a new paradigm for doing science, one that contrasts with the reductionism of Neo-Darwinism. Whereas Dawkins reduces everything to genes, with genes controlling everything, this new paradigm suggests that systems help shape and define evolution.
Emergence theory splits the difference between reductionism and dualism – the latter being the belief that minds and bodies are of a different order from each other. Emergence grants “the downward dependence of the reductionists, but they challenge the achievability of downward explanatory reduction. Rather, they maintain that it is a contingent fact of natural history that new levels of organization emerge, which because they are novel, are not predictable or explainable in terms of any lower-level laws, forces, or particles. Emergence does not justify talk of souls and spirits, but it does help one make sense of the real causal (and hence explanatory) role of psychological and religious qualities” (Adventures in the Spirit, p. 65).
I’m not going to go into detail into the science that’s present in this chapter – in part because it’s a bit beyond my level of understanding, but I want to underscore the importance of this discovery – that systems act on the parts, and thus drive evolution. We can’t separate body and mind, for instance, but we can assume that we’re not simply random developments. There is some ordering principle, even if it’s not necessary divine. But, this new direction in science, does offer a fruitful point of contact between theology and biology.
In contrast to both reductionism and dualism, emergence theory allows for both continuity and discontinuity. Continuity suggests that “everything in the natural world is composed of the same ‘stuff’ of matter and energy, and no new substances are added along the way” (Adventures in the Spirit, 74). Thus, there’s no room for adding souls and spirits into the equation. If I understand this correctly, Clayton seems to be saying that we can’t have our cake and eat it too. We can’t have a materialistic evolution going on, with God infusing at certain points spirit or soul into the equation. Now, this has been the Catholic view of evolution. Evolution produces the product (the body) and God infuses the body with the Spirit/Soul creating a human being. Now, I’ve found that perspective attractive, but Clayton suggests that as helpful as it may seem, it lacks scientific value.
If there is continuity, there is also a place for discontinuity. That is, there is a place for competing explanatory frameworks – that which best explains the phenomenon wins the day. Here, he believes that rather than choose the reductionist way, we can embrace a more open emergent way, one that invites us to consider how the systems influence the evolutionary development. Believing that this is the direction that science is taking today, he believes that it offers theology a much more compatible conversation partner – but we must wait to see how this plays out. That said, we are invited to consider how “emergence” has the potential to transform theology and the church.
So, we wait to see how this will work out! If this new paradigm is a fruitful explanation for reality, we may have to adapt to it, but it may offer a place for theology in the conversation.
As I pick up the Second Section of Philip Clayton's book Adventures in the Spirit (Fortress, 2008), for the Transforming Theology project, the book moves into a more specific area of exploration, a new paradigm for doing science called "emergence." Clayton believes this new paradigm has the potential to be transformative for theology and for the practice of Christian faith.
We are told by the New Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, that Darwin and evolutionary biology has done away with God. We’re now free from the constraints of superstition. While Dawkins seems to have little time for theologians – whether or not they teach at Oxford along with him – theologians, such as Clayton, wish to continue the dialogue with science. In this fourth chapter of Clayton’s Adventures in the Spirit, we are introduced to emergence of the scientific kind. Emergence is a new paradigm for doing science, one that contrasts with the reductionism of Neo-Darwinism. Whereas Dawkins reduces everything to genes, with genes controlling everything, this new paradigm suggests that systems help shape and define evolution.
Emergence theory splits the difference between reductionism and dualism – the latter being the belief that minds and bodies are of a different order from each other. Emergence grants “the downward dependence of the reductionists, but they challenge the achievability of downward explanatory reduction. Rather, they maintain that it is a contingent fact of natural history that new levels of organization emerge, which because they are novel, are not predictable or explainable in terms of any lower-level laws, forces, or particles. Emergence does not justify talk of souls and spirits, but it does help one make sense of the real causal (and hence explanatory) role of psychological and religious qualities” (Adventures in the Spirit, p. 65).
I’m not going to go into detail into the science that’s present in this chapter – in part because it’s a bit beyond my level of understanding, but I want to underscore the importance of this discovery – that systems act on the parts, and thus drive evolution. We can’t separate body and mind, for instance, but we can assume that we’re not simply random developments. There is some ordering principle, even if it’s not necessary divine. But, this new direction in science, does offer a fruitful point of contact between theology and biology.
In contrast to both reductionism and dualism, emergence theory allows for both continuity and discontinuity. Continuity suggests that “everything in the natural world is composed of the same ‘stuff’ of matter and energy, and no new substances are added along the way” (Adventures in the Spirit, 74). Thus, there’s no room for adding souls and spirits into the equation. If I understand this correctly, Clayton seems to be saying that we can’t have our cake and eat it too. We can’t have a materialistic evolution going on, with God infusing at certain points spirit or soul into the equation. Now, this has been the Catholic view of evolution. Evolution produces the product (the body) and God infuses the body with the Spirit/Soul creating a human being. Now, I’ve found that perspective attractive, but Clayton suggests that as helpful as it may seem, it lacks scientific value.
If there is continuity, there is also a place for discontinuity. That is, there is a place for competing explanatory frameworks – that which best explains the phenomenon wins the day. Here, he believes that rather than choose the reductionist way, we can embrace a more open emergent way, one that invites us to consider how the systems influence the evolutionary development. Believing that this is the direction that science is taking today, he believes that it offers theology a much more compatible conversation partner – but we must wait to see how this plays out. That said, we are invited to consider how “emergence” has the potential to transform theology and the church.
So, we wait to see how this will work out! If this new paradigm is a fruitful explanation for reality, we may have to adapt to it, but it may offer a place for theology in the conversation.
Comments