Dr. Philip Clayton on Emergence Theory and its relationship with theology:



Clayton's analysis of Emergence theory is particularly exciting. However I'm not sure it actually negates reductionism. Emergence must start by accepting the basic observations that lower level parts initiate (start, push, provide the building blocks for) the higher level emerging actions. Yet, it also adds the idea that higher order phenomenon can effect the lower level parts. When translated to theology, we are still left with a negation of supernatural theism, right? Doesn't Emergence negate the idea that we depend on a higher level "first cause" that necessarily existed before all other lower levels?

Clayton suggests that an atheist, like Richard Dawkins, might have problems with emergence. I don't see how. I imagine it might cause Dawkins to modify a few terms to accommodate newer science, but Dawkins' central theme still holds; there is no evidence or need for a "personal god". Emergence still appears to be a completely naturalistic position. It doesn't need an unnatural causation, does it?