I’m currently reading through authors who discuss the nature of a theological anthropology which starts with pneumatology. In ‘The Work of the Spirit: Pneumatology and Pentecostalism‘ (edited by Michael Welker) Amos Yong authored a chapter in which he discusses the insights gained from Emergence Theory put forward by Philip Clayton and applies them to the creation narrative. Since I haven’t posted anything for a while – dispite a list of possible topics that is lengthening – I thought I would put up these principles here. This is something I would have liked to have come across earlier in my studies, so I’m thinking someone else may do as well.
- Creation, in all its complexities, is made up of one kind of stuff. This is opposed to either Cartesian or substance Dualism and outright materialism. Unity in diversity essentially.
- It accounts for hierarchical complexities and ontological dualisms (for example; a person is made up of the physical, biological, psychological, spiritual etc).
- ‘Recognition of the temporal dimension of emergentist monism’ which as I read this means that it accounts for the unpredictability of the evolving world in the temporal which cannot be ontologically or epistemologically reduced. Each new evolution is dependant on the configuration of the previous.
- It recognizes that within the varying levels of complexity there are observable systems occuring that cannot be derived from fundamental physical principles – such as conductivity or the prediction of the pattern that will occur on a snowflake from an observation and study of their chemical structures.
- Emergence theory coherently links all of what occurs in point 4 together (the significance of this being that the linking is inter-disciplinary).
- ‘Downward causation is exercised by higher levels on lower levels.” For example, the mind is dependant, but not reducible to, the lower functionings of the body as it exercises causal agency on such lower functions which may be noted feed back and affect the mind.
- Emergence theory combines points 2 and 3 in such a way that new ontological levels of reality present themselves which whilst are aggregates of the lower levels, are not reducible to them.
- And the final point is that emergence theory put forward by Clayton proposes that the mind is emergent as it is dependent on all the lower levels of human existence, but is not reducible to them. (Taken from pgs 184 – 188)
This is my reading of what Amos Yong puts forward of Clayton’s emergence theory. I am not familiar with emergence theory but I do find it a very interesting theory that has alot of traction. The beauty of it being it’s inter-disciplinary nature. I hope this benefits someone somewhere in their thinking.
//Jimmy
