Skip to main content

Emergence: A Primer

OK, as promised here is a little primer on emergence as its theological relevance. And I totally disavow any pretensions of authority on this subject, this is the noddy version from noddy himself.

Alongside the exciting discoveries being made about the smallest parts of the universe in quantum mechanics there has also been the development of complexity theory, which deals not with the parts but with the whole that those parts make. What has become more and more aparent is that a purely mechanistic description of many complex systems (both articificial and naturally occuring) observed is not adequate. Put another way, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. So the most common examples of this are the patterns that form on sand when driven by the wind or the patterns that form on computer generated displays of thousands of lights flashing at random. In a purely mechanistic universe these pattern should not occur (at least not a often as they do). The whole appears to have an effect on the parts.

Emergence is a related idea. In a purely mechanistic universe all cause and effect flows from the bottom up. So if you can fully understand the laws of physics then you should be able to predict the laws of chemistry, and if you can understand chemistry then you should be able to predict the laws of biology. Why? because chemicals are constituted of physical components, and biological matter is constituted of chemicals. In (mechanistic) theory all biology should be reducible to physics. . . except it's not.

What seems to be the case is that at greater levels of complexity (e.g. atoms forming molecules, or chemicals forming protein chains) new properties are added whch could never be predicted from the component parts. This has led some to suggest that when new levels of complexity are reached new information is actually added to the universe. Rather than the parts dictating what the whole will be, the complexity of the whole emerges as something more than the sum of the parts. This suggests a cause and effect that works from the top-down rather than the mechanistic botttom-up.

The reason some theologians find this very exciting is that the top-down cause and effect suggest a force at work in the universe that is external to the observable laws of physics, and some have not been shy to suggest that this force could be the Spirit of God at work in the ongoing process of creating and sustaining the universe. Personally, the jury is still out, but it is very interesting stuff.

Further reading:

Yong, Amos, ‘Ruach, the Primordial Chaos, and the Breath of Life: Emergence Theory and the
Creation Narrative in Pneumatological Perspective.’
and
John Polkinghorne ‘The Hidden spirit and the Cosmos’
both in Michael Welker (ed) The Work of the Spirit, (Grand rapids: Eerdmans, 2007)

Pannenberg, Wolfhart ‘God as Spirit—and Natural Science.’ in Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, (2001, 36:4), 783-95

Most of the books on this page by Philip Clayton

Let me know what you think, :-)

Comments

  1. I am not sure that everyone who considers emergence important would agree that it implies "a force at work in the universe that is external to the observable laws of physics." The "more" that is there at higher levels of organization is not necessarily an "additional something or substance." Nevertheless I agree that it is an important concept with intriguing possibilities for theology!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks James, good point. Although, I did say "some theologians" rather than "everyone who considers it important"! I had only encountered emergence in discussion of pneumatology, but now you make me think about it, anthropology and cosmology would be obvious areas where it might also have important application. I wonder if there might even be mileage in relating it to a theology of scripture? hmmmm . . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonathan, linked here via James Mac's blog. I was drawn by the "Kiaora".

    Scott McKnight had a series of posts on Philip Clayton's thinking recently too. Worth a read if you hadn't seen them already.

    I'm currently reading Simon Conway Morris' "Life's Solution", which has some cross-over ideas.

    Ka Kite!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Phil S, and welcome.
    Phil B: I give up, life is too short. :-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Dr Charles Stanley is not a biblical preacher

Unusually for me I was watching the tele early on Sunday morning and I caught an episode of Dr Charles Stanley preaching on his television program. Now I know this guy has come under some criticism for his personal life, and that is not unimportant, but it is also not something i can comment on, not knowing the facts. His preaching is however something I can comment on, at least the one sermon I did watch.

He started off by reading 2 Timothy 1:3-7. Which is a passage from the Bible, so far so good. He then spent the next 30 minutes or so talking about his mum and what a great example of a Christian mother she was. Now nothing he said or suggested was wrong, but none of it actually came from scripture, least of all the scripture he read from at the beginning. It was a lovely talk on how Stanley's mother raised him as a Christian despite considerable difficulties and it contained many useful nuggets of advice on raising Christian kids. All very nice, it might have made a nice…

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

The Addictive Power of End Times Speculation

The mighty Rhett Snell has picked up his blog again (I wonder how long he'll last this time), check out his theory on why people get so into annoyingly unbiblical end times nonsense.

I think that where codes-and-calendars end times theology is dangerous, is that it can give a sense of false growth. We read a theory online, or hear it from some bible teacher, and we come to think that we have mastered an area of our faith. A bit like levelling up in a computer game, or Popeye after he’s eaten some spinach. At worst, we begin to believe that we’ve taken a step that other Christians have not; that we’ve entered an elite class of Christianity.