係香港玩Sideshow Collectibles同 Star Wars Lego

玩左3個月，呢條路唔易行，不過其實幾好玩，係有限既地方同金錢既情況去玩玩具。而家我既Priority係：

1. Sideshow Marvel Line (PF>Com>Dio>Bust)
2. Sideshow Star Wars Line (12">Bust>PF>Com)
3. Lego Star Wars
4. Hot Toys 12"
5. Bowen, DC, Koto Busts
6. Koto Statues

另外玩STATUE同LEGO我既感覺係，一個真正既玩家最基本可以分成3部份：

1. Critically select the product
2. Display them
3. Taking cinema quality photos

中間沒左1部份，係我既覺度都唔係一個真正既玩家。（小基子我話你呀！！！！！！）

老大，你份正職係咩呀？

今日又見到一個高人：

- 大學畢業 - 曾於歐洲留學 - 任職全英語外國駐港機構 - 全職補習 - 女性 - 逢三五2000-2100

咁即係佢“曾任職”定係“現家重做緊呀”？咁基本既講法都講唔清楚 （喂PT FORM啦），我想問佢點教書呀。。。。。。。

收到學生會既EMAIL，笑左，又係平反六四

各位親愛的教牧長執和弟兄姊妹：

首先在主裏向你們問安！


一九八九年的東歐劇變，人民用自由選舉和平地推翻共產政權；二０一０年茉莉花革命的示威浪潮席捲整個北非與中東地區，逐一推翻獨截政權。一九八九年在天安門的廣場上，祖國同樣有無數熱血學生及勇敢的市民為著自由、民主、法治、為著反官倒及反腐敗等理念發起了民主運動，卻被血腥鎮壓下，犧牲數千的寶貴生命來告終。至今已廿二年了，六四仍未平反。本會繼續義無反顧主辦「六四祈禱會」，在報章刊登「六四紀念禱文」及推動「中國主日」，亦與基督徒團體合辦研討會探討中國民主的發展和出路。藉此讓弟兄姊妹一起紀念八九民運對我們作為中國人的意義，讓我們送上祝福及禱告，繼續記掛在民運中失去挈親的同胞、敢於表達意見而仍然被囚的異見及維權人士，相信主必帶領。

六四──至今廿二年了，已有無數天安門母親及家屬相繼離去，仍有大部份親屬未能獲准公開悼念當年失去的親人，犧牲了的英烈不知何時能沉寃得雪。今天，中國政府不斷提倡和諧社會，但維穩的費用卻比軍費還要高，而打壓人權的力度有增無減。我們盼望民主的春天早日來臨，自由之花能在全地盛開，民主、自由與法治在祖國得到建立和尊重，讓中國同胞享受有尊嚴而和諧的生活。

懇切盼望親愛的教牧長執和弟兄姊妹積極參與各項六四活動，讓我們在此地盡上一點棉力！附上六四22周年紀念禱文及活動資料以供參考。願主的國度降臨，願祂的旨意成就，願祂的平安和公義在我們祖國的土地上早日得到彰顯！

       此致
各堂會／機構／弟兄姊妹

主內
香港基督徒愛國民主運動　
全體執行委員
蔡元雲／胡丙杰／盧龍光／朱耀明／周榮富
林海盛／李信堅／劉子睿／梁恩榮／翁偉業

2011年4月15日　


自由之花？ 我怕生出來個D係花柳，椰菜花咋。

愛上玩玩具既小雞

自從1月中入伙開始，就愛上返玩玩具，而家玩緊既係Sideshow，Hottoys同Lego。作為一個玩家，我希望同人分享自己鐘意既野，所以由今日開始會不定期更新入手既玩具同我點樣去擺呢D玩具。（係我既覺度，放玩具係盒而不擺出來＝如放錢係銀行唔做投資）

人就係咁沒咁大個頭就係要帶咁大頂帽

有時真係唔係好明有D人點解要咁樣，本身屋企唔係有錢又要把到個頭大一大，帶G﹣SHOCK唔好咩？人帶RO，你又要帶RO，人有HERMES，你又要HERMES。咁多人死又唔見佢地死？

平反六四，平你條毛。

點解要平反六四？自問係一個唔識政治既人，不過就係睇唔過眼D泛淫年年都話要平反，最死係又有一堆自以為好LIBERAL既人又跟住要求平反。講真，我真係唔明要平反D咩。平反即係有野錯啦，咁係當日六四中國政府應該“人道”D咁KO佢地定係當時既中國政府應該下台？ 我就話唯一要平反既就係六四既鎮壓應該有一個正面既評價，而家中國可以一路順利發展，就係因為當日正義既一步。

There are too many ignorances who believe they have been illuminated. It is really pathetic that, those who get encroached by the mass media has no sense of how they have been manipulating by the media. They feel like they have been acting freely, standing by the virtue of justice and fighting the evil HKSAR government with the sword of liberation. However, in fact, they are just puppets being determined by the vague ideologies like democracy, freedom and so on and so forth. 

As a scholar who stand at the back of social issues, I cannot help but feel despair. You can teach those willing to learn, you can enlighten those who are less educated, but you can never ever discuss how fallible a self-righteous person has been. Logically speaking, what makes me different from them? Well, after everything I have said, including whether we should liberate 4/6 or setting free Ai WeiWei, I welcome counter arguments. As Plato has suggested, we should follow arguments where ever they lead.

There is nothing wrong to be an ignorance, we all born a blank paper, it is sinful if you are both ignorant and arrogant. 

鄭生你大約幾錢先會放你層樓？

呢個多月都不停收到地產代理打來問價，通常對話都係

A：鄭生你27C重放賣緊？

我：沒啦，自住。

A：如果好價會唔會CONSIDER？

我：唔會啦，唔該你。

其實我會問，點先算係好價？而家係香港島，你沒400萬我諗你都唔使想買樓。好啦，當銀行估層樓值＄200，即係＄200係最“低”我應該賣既價。正常來講好價即係25﹪﹣50﹪多過市價。但係最慘係我住緊個度係“日不升國”當全世界升，佢都係好堅持咁企係度。假設我用銀行個價加一半，即係＄300賣左而家層樓，如果我要係炮台山買返層樓，結果係：

1：居住還境差左，而家我頂樓有天台，開揚唔使樓對樓。

2：住既樓一定老過我而家個層。

OF COS，有人會話你而家賣，一層變兩層，二變四，沒人叫你賣左北角樓，買返北角樓，你可以買2層遠D既樓，人地幫你供埋。好就當呢樣野係真，我會問係唔係賺緊？係唔係一定有人租？如果呢個COLLECTION係一個真理，點解香港有窮人？

返到尾，即係好價，對我來講，如果我賣左呢度，我要買返一間居住還境比而家好既而唔係相對我買人樓價好既價錢。即係銀行話＄200，而家個市我要賣＄400，親愛既地產代理你話比我知點賣？

反對中國政府釋放艾未未！

我想問如果我咁講，得唔得先？如果唔得，點解唔得？ 講真，放，唔放，我沒跟開發生咩事，我亦唔係一個政客，正如成龍哥哥講，我得小六程度識D咩。我關心既係當一個人高舉人權，平等呢D所謂自證既CONCEPT時，其實有沒人去定義一下呢D野係咩來？如果呢堆野只係一堆口號去理性化一個人既喜好，咁呢堆野同把一把尚方寶劍比左個鐘意玩GTA既人有咩分別？

梅艷芳/張國榮 芳華絕代

芳華絕代
演唱：梅艷芳/張國榮 曲:溫應鴻 詞:黃偉文 編:溫應鴻

你想不想　吻一吻 傾國傾城　是我大名

蒙羅麗莎　只是一幅畫　如何艷壓天下
皇朝外的　伊莉莎伯　誰來跪拜她
夢露若果　莊重高雅　何來絕世佳話
紅顏　禍水　錦上添花　教你蕩產傾家

*唯獨是　天姿國色　不可一世
天生我高貴艷麗到底 顛倒眾生吹灰不費
收你做我的迷 (得我艷與天齊) *

你敢不敢　抱一抱
瘋魔一時　是我罪名

羅蘭自稱　芳名蘇菲亞　男孩就會倒下
如能獲得　芭鐸親一下　鐵塔亦會垮
怕你甚麼　稱王稱霸　來臣服我之下
銀河艷星　單人匹馬　勝過漫天煙花

Every Tue as Miann has to go to flower class, I always have a gap between picking her up and surfing purposely on the internet. The song, well to me is another legend, not because the song is of any speciality, it is unique because of the singer. It is undoubted, Gor Gor is THE most handsome artist in the 80's while Mui Cha, though might not be the prettiest female in the industry, is definitely the most charming and nature born star. When they stand on the stage, besides "Wow" there is just a moment of silence. The song's concept is as plain as it can be, finding 2 appealing people and sing sing sing. The lyrics, to summarize, "I am sublime and you are not, I am distinctive and you are not."  However, I cannot help but wonder, despite the facts that there are tones of handsome, beautiful people in the industry, can any pair of them proclaim that they are 天生我高貴艷麗到底 顛倒眾生吹灰不費 without any boos? Once again, maybe human have a tendency to idolize the death, granting one is not, they should sense the beauty of this song.

又要UPDATE下我既計劃啦！

昨日接多左一單補習，上有錢人住既賽西湖幫一個中二既學生補。係咁既情況，一個星期沒補習既只係星期二同日。預備教材又會難左。預計會好似咁樣

19/4-10/5 Finish Liberation Theology Term Essay
11/5-15/5 Finish re-decorating the roof
16/5-18/5 Finish Let's be Realistic about Philip Clayton's Emergent Monism
19/5-19/6 Finish Dissertation of M.A.T.S.
20/6-10/7 Finish Journal Article on Nancey Murphy's Non-Reductive Physicalism
11/7-11/8 Finish Journal Article Design argument and the Physical World

Every Week I would spend
20 hours on researches
10 hours on preparing course materials
15 hours on teaching
5  hours on Weight Lifting
5  hours on Cardio
2  hours on Church

Sideshow Toys Wish List

These are the items that I have been looking for

1. Thor PF Ex 

2. Yoda and Clone Trooper PF

3. Punisher Com EX

4. Spiderman Com EX

These are the items that I have pre-ordered

1. HT Indiana Jones 

2. HT Iron Man MK VI

3. HT Iron Man MK V

4. HT Thor

5. SS War Machine 1:1 bust

6. SS Clone Trooper 501 1:1 bust

7. SS Daredevil Com EX

8. SS Angel Com EX

9. SS The Beast Com EX

10. SS Captain America PF Reg

11. SS Rogue PF Reg

Reductive Physicalism, Emergentism and God.

Introduction

Does God exist?[1] The question demands an answer, to most Christians, the existence of God is self-evidence, through different religious activities, a Christian interacts with God. Logically, the interaction with X implies the existence of X. By that logic it is not hard to deduce to the conclusion that the existence of God is true. However, since the Enlightenment, scholars have been questioning the reliability of religious experiences and the accuracy of the Bible; the enhancement of scientific knowledge seems suggesting that the existence of God is highly unlikely.[2] In response to that, theologians have articulated many arguments for the existence of God. It is then reasonable for us to ask, “Do these arguments serve the purpose in inducing the existence of God?”[3] Among all these arguments, the design arguments or some time being called the fine tuning argument is probably the most important argument that has been discussed by scientist, theologians and philosophers. It is because, unlike other arguments like the ontological arguments or moral arguments, the premises of the design argument rest upon how we should interpret scientific discoveries scientifically, theologically and philosophically.[4] Put things otherwise, the design argument should be best interpret as an argument, which through the discoveries of scientific researches, either through the simplicity of the universe or the existence of mental beings, it is more reasonable for a rational agent to conclude that the existence of God is highly possible.[5] However, to make the argument successful, it has to provide a decent answer from the challenge of Reductive Physicalism (RP). As most scholars agree, RP does not just eliminate the existence of God, it basically eliminates the existence of mentality. Some scholars have argued, since the 80’s of the last century, RP is fallible because of the existence of consciousness. However, philosopher Donald Davidson and Kim Jargon have argued that consciousness, even exists, is epiphenomenal. To sum up these discussions, theologians who advocate the design arguments have to show how:

1.     RP is wrong or how RP makes the existence of God highly likely.

2.     If RP is wrong because there exist non-reductive events, how these events are causally influencing.[6]

In this paper, I shall argue that some scholars, notably Philip Clayton, seeking light from the researches on Emergence in natural science, has recently articulated a position, Emergent Monism (EM). According to Clayton, RP is wrong because of the existence of non-reductive emergent events; furthermore, these events are causally influencing through top down causations. If Clayton is right, scientific researches on Emergence points to the conclusion that:

The design argument serves the purpose, it inductively induce that the existence of God is highly likely. It is because, through the understanding of emergence, RP is false and the scientific discoveries cohere with theologians’ interpretation of God.

However, Clayton might have been behaving too positive about the discoveries, it is because the notion of emergence does not necessary lead to the failure of RP; furthermore, as I have argued else where, Clayton’s thesis on top down causation is seriously flawed. Not to mention that even granting emergence, do, in fact regenerate the design argument for the existence of God, we have to question, is the God the God we have been discussing? In this essay, I shall first outline how RP has made the design argument a weak inductive argument; secondly, I shall argue if Clayton’s EM’s premises lead to his conclusion. Thirdly, I shall argue granting the concept of Emergence has provided an alternative way for understanding God in the physical world, what type of god the theory postulate? And how theologians are facing the worst moment since the history of the Church.

Reductive Physicalism

Most scientists in the field of Physics believe in a certain token of RD. In the field of Philosophy of Mind, RD is generally defined as a thesis that:

1.     There is only one substance, physical substance and one type of event, physical event.

2.     All events at upper science can be reduced to basic science through bridge laws and all causation are bottom up.[7]

According to RD, they believe in the unity of science that Physical laws can aptly explained every events that has happened and going to happen in this universe. For instance, suppose a Christian X desires to pray to God, according to RD the mental event, the desire of X to pray to God, is determined by a biological urge of being a human that is determined by chemical compounds that determined by physical laws.[8] Furthermore, when we say the desire of X make X prays to God, since only the base level exhibit causal power, the parts determines the whole, it is not the mental event that causes X to pray, it is the basic physical elements that determines the chemical structure that determines the brain that determines the desire of X in praying. To most theologians, RD must be wrong, the rigid materialistic understanding to the universe seems leaving very little room for God, it is because according to RP there is no such things as a spiritual God and Miracle. It is because firstly, if RP is correct, every thing that ever existed in this universe is physical, the saying of a spiritual God is at best a categorical mistake. Worst, even we may allow there exist an entity “outside” our physical universe in a non-physical form, it is questionable how the entity can interact with us.[9] Secondly, to make sense of Miracles, assuming there exist a god, the god must be, as I have pointed out, physical like you and me, because all events are physical events; secondly, the action (miracle) that the god performed is determined by physical laws. Put things otherwise, miracle is not something special, with a proper understanding towards our universe, any person can perform the action once again. For example, suppose the resurrection of Jesus is true, let’s suppose by having property Y, even one is certified as dead under modern medicine, in 3 days, every damaged cells, organs and so on and so forth will be repaired because of the special property Y that determined by a chemical compound determined by physical laws. So if we can re-create property Y, not only Jesus, every single person is going to have a resurrection.[10]

Here, one might argue that RP does not mutually excluded theism or the existence of God. The saying is right, however, as I have pointed out in the beginning, the challenge of contemporary theologians is to make sense of God in a physical world. It is true that RP does not deductively denounced theism but if we believe the design argument serves the purpose in inductively induce the existence of God through natural science, the validity of RP makes the design argument a weak inductive argument. It is because, unless we are going to conclude that God is a physical substance in this universe whose actions are entirely determined by physical laws, RP has contingently excluded God.[11]

Non-reductive events and the exclusion argument

To most theologians, for instance Richard Swinburne and J. P. Moreland, consciousness is one of the most important counter examples against RP, because conscious experience is non-reductive.[12] Let’s illustrate the non-reductive property of consciousness in detail. Suppose A feels pain, according to RP, the feeling of pain is trigger by C-fiber in A’s brain and there are bridge laws linking the trigger of C-fiber to basic physical law. However, as everyone who has experienced pain has to agree, being in pain is a mental state that different from other experiences, it is nothing like feeling thrilled, excited and so on and so forth. Furthermore, it is a first person experience, unless you are the person who feels the pain, an observer can hardly be certain whether the individual is in fact feeling pain.[13] Put things in another manner, there are two levels to say one is being in pain (conscious of in pain), firstly, there is an objective events that happened in one’s brain, secondly, there is a subjective first person experience that cannot be reduced to a physical explanation. The gap between the objective explanation and the subjective experience is called the hard problem of consciousness. The problem is hard not because scientists do not know what has been happening when a human is conscious, what they do not know is how they can elaborate the experience of being conscious.

RP is in jeopardy if there exist at least one property in the universe that is non-reductive, it is because according to RP all events and properties can be reduced to basic physic through bridge laws, and all causation are bottom up. As a result, since the 90’s of the last century, many scholars, theologians or not have started to abandon RP and advocate Non-Reductive Physicalism (NRP), because it is counter intuitive to suggest every events in the world can be reduced to a base physic when we experience conscious experience like seeing red, feeling pain, being aware of one’s hardship and so on. However, as philosopher Davidson and Kim have rightly pointed out, the common sense approach on consciousness, though might sound sensible, should be examined by counter arguments.[14] So to them, they might not have denied the existence of non-reductive property like consciousness experiences; what they deny is the causality of these properties.

In 90’s of the last century, following Davidson’s monism, Kim has articulated a counter argument to NRP, which he calls it exclusion argument or supervenience argument. The argument, siding with the findings from natural science, has two premises:

1.     The Causal Closure of the physical domain: if a physical event has a cause occurring at time t, it has a sufficient physical cause at t.

2.     The exclusion principle: no event can have more than two or more sufficient causes, all occurring at the same time unless it is genuine case of over determinism. [15]

To most scientists, both the premises just postulate a universe, which they are familiar with. The Casual Closure and the exclusion simply entails if something has a cause at t, since our universe is monolithic in substance (physical substance), it must be a physical cause unless it is a genuine case of over-determinism.[16]

 If conscious experience has shown that some properties are non-reductive, the exclusion argument suggests that the property is epiphenomal. Because:

1.     X is a non-reductive non physical property.

2.     There must be a physical base for X. (X must be a property of a physical substance.)

3.     X is supervenience on P. (the base property that X supervenience on.)

4.     X causes Y.

5.     Y is a physical property, the Causal Closure suggests X is not the cause of Y.

6.     The exclusion rule suggests unless it is a case of over-determinism, M is sufficient in causing Y.

The exclusion argument is a deductive argument, so if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Despite the facts that different scholars have been challenging the validity of Kim’s premises, I would have to agree with Kim that his argument is valid for the obvious reason that the argument enjoys the benefits of innocent before proven guilty because it is both a scientific based and philosophical grounded argument.[17]

Base on the argument, unlike RP, it does not deny the existence of properties that NRP usually calls, mental property or emergent property, what it denies is the causal power of the property. Here, I shall suggested that, even though some scholars might find the conclusion acceptable, it is really hard for theologians, especially those who believe in the profoundness and validity of the design argument to accept the materialistic conclusion. In the very beginning, as I have argued elsewhere, the conclusion basically denies that God can communicate with us and we can communicate back. The reason is very plain, if mental realism (the beliefs that our mentality has causal power) is illusive, our use of the word “communication”, has been mistaken since the very beginning. Secondly, as the design argument proposed, through understanding our universe, it is more reasonable for a human, either from its simplicity or tidiness, to conclude that the existence of God is highly likely. However, the validity of the exclusion argument explicitly points to a different conclusion, even God and non-reductive conscious property exist, the property is epiphenomenal, God has created an useless “thing” that since the beginning of time, human beings have treasured.[18] So to theologians who want to argue the existence of God through the design argument, either they have to accept the materialistic conclusion and rationalize how God’s existence is still highly likely or they have to provide a response arguing, considering other scientific understanding, how the view is false. 

Top down causation and efficiency of emergent events

In the field of natural science, especially the field on Evolutionary Biology, scholars have come to realize that some events cannot be understood through traditional scientific methodology. As I have briefly discussed above, scientist believes in a bottom up causation, even there are special sciences like Chemistry and Biology, knowing the details in the bottom level allows one to predict what is going to happen at the upper level.[19] By using an analogy, when one assemble a car, there are thousand of fragments, which each of them might exist perfectly fine on their own. After decently set up the parts, first it might come the engine, which can also be used by other machines. However, by putting it right with other setup parts, it gradually become the vehicle one has been planning to built. Parallel to the case, traditionally, physics tells us how the building blocks of the universe exist, then through understanding Chemistry we come to know how these building blocks come to form different chemical and by using the chemicals rightly, we can make many things, for instance atomic bombs or even biological weapons. Thus, if one has all the knowledge of physics (the unity of physics) one can predict whether certain chemical will seize to exist under certain circumstances or whether an individual can build the atomic bombs or not.

However, evidence by recent discoveries form natural science, scholars have come to conclude some events are emergent.[20] Following the contemporary discussions, I shall suggest that emergent events are events that:

1.     Some events are too complicated and novel.

2.     The complicated and the novel events are not determined by laws. (The existence of these events is unpredicted even knowing everything about all physical laws.)[21]

Put things otherwise, the first unique feature of emergent events is their unpredictability and being non-determining by physical laws. However, scholars, though agree the existence of emergent events come to differ in how they should read these event. Some scholars, which Clayton define them as weak emergent’s, believe that the conclusion just implies that contingently speaking there are some scientific events that are too complex for human minds to process. The unpredictability is a result of the limitation of human knowledge, it is a logical possible that the events, though are not lawful, an omnipotent being is still able to predict the results.

Some scholars, who we called them strong emergentists, believe that emergent events do not just show that the traditional science methodology is limited, it indicates that it is wrong.  It is because emergent events do exhibit causal power, even though most events scientists have researched are having bottom up causation and bounded by physical laws; nonetheless, there are still many events that are not bounded by physical laws and exhibiting top down causations.[22] Put things otherwise, according to strong emergentists, consciousness is probably one of the most important emergent event that exhibit top down causation. (Having causal power.)[23]

To many theologians, notably Philip Clayton, the position of strong emergentism provides a rational way for us to interpret the entities of God in a purely physical world and they call their position Emergent Monism. So to them, unlike scholars like Swinburne and Moreland, they have not presented a design argument for God, on the contrary, they have just tried to explain how human beings can understand God considering the threat from RP.[24] However, I believe though they do not mean to argue from design, their position might have reinforced the validity of the design argument. As I have discussed, RP makes the design argument improper. The existence of non-reductive properties than try to show the fallibility of RP, but the exclusion argument, which originated from RP, presents that these properties are epiphenomenal and as a result, undermines the inductive power of the design argument. If  there exist emergent events that are causally powerful and consciousness is among them the most important events, then it is rational for a theologian who advocate the design argument to propose:

1.     RP and the exclusion argument are fallible because some events are non-reductive and casually influencing. (Not epiphenomenal.)

2.     Through the concept of emergence, theologian can articulate a scientific views that coheres with how God is being portrayed in the Bible. For instance, miracles might be an one time emergent events performed by God that no matter how much we understand about the universe or even we are able to re-create the scene, we cannot perform the emergent event (miracle) again.

3.     As a result, the design argument is a strong inductive argument that points to the existence of God. It is because, RP is fallible and other reasons that scholars think favor the design argument are inductively strong.

The problem of Emergent Monism

At glance, I believe we have to agree that EM is an excellent position for the design argument; furthermore, it is even better of being a counter-argument against RP. However, as I have argued elsewhere, Clayton’s EM is seriously flawed, both methodologically and metaphysically and unlike those scholars who defend EM has proposed, EM should be best view as a token of NRP and as a result share the burden to counter the epiphenomenal charges.[25]

According to Philip Clayton, EM is a position neither could be categorized as Physicalism or Substance Dualism, it is a pluralistic monism that believes in the monolithic substance, physical substance and the pluralistic of properties, at least including physical properties and emergent properties. Furthermore, not only does physical properties exhibit causal power, emergent properties can also be the cause of an event. As I have discussed above, not all RP denies properties dualism or pluralism, what they reject is the causal power of them and the exclusion argument has shown us how, considering the Casual Closure and the exclusion is true, all properties besides physical properties are epiphenomenal. As Clayton himself has agreed, as a result, the validity of EM rest upon whether he can convince other rational minds that top down causation, the causations that generate at the upper level of science, irreducible to any lower level science in facts exhibit causal power.[26]

Clayton’s arguments for EM come from two angles, firstly, the methodological angle about how the scientific discoveries support top down causations that deny RP; secondly, the metaphysical angle about how these scientific discoveries imply the fallibility of RP. Let’s illustrate in detail, to Clayton, as a strong emergentist, he believes that some of the phenomenon that scientist define as emergence are cases of top down causation. For instance, X is a kind of animal, in the history, some of X migrate to Q and some of X stay in P, granting the theory of evolution is true, in this long history, those X living in Q, in response to the unique environment of Q, exhibit a change of Y and become X1. To Clayton, X and X1 both have the same physical base; however, the existence of X1 is an emergent event, because even knowing everything about X, one cannot predict the emergent property Y of X1 and as a result some of X1’s property are not determined by X1’s physical base and since the changing from X to X1, X1 enjoys top down causation. However, if we are careful enough, we have to conclude that, the existence of top down causation, unless Clayton has make the point explicit, is question begging.[27] The change of X to X1 from Y justifies the validity of top down causation that justifies the existence of top down causation. As a result, Clayton’s methodological grounds, either is question begging or demand further elaborations.[28] Besides the problem from the methodological angle, EM’s problem on the metaphysical angle, as I have to conclude, constitute the failure of EM. Clayton has been a theologian who has spent a lot of time in articulating a position that neither falls into the category of Physicalism nor Substance Dualism. In order to prevent himself from being a part of the flux, he concludes EM is a monism, yet not Physicalism, Pluralism yet not substance dualism. However, as I have argued in detail, barely dodging from being called P, does not mean something is not a token of P.  As I have shown elsewhere, EM is in fact a token of NRP and as a result top down causation is metaphysically impossible. [29]

As a result, the concept of emergence might have created EM; nevertheless, unlike Clayton has been suggesting, EM does not provide a rationale for how we can understand God in a physical world. As a result, if a theologian wants to appeal to EM in loosening the tension RP has created, either they have to provide grounds on how the scientific discoveries lead to a strong emergentist conclusion or argue how EM and top down causations are metaphysically possible.

Emergence and God

The failure of EM does not mean that the concept of emergence can never help theologians in articulating a reviewed design argument; however, before thinking whether the concept of Emergence can benefit theology or our understand to God, we have to ask what type of god are we talking about?  In this part, despite the fact that I have already refuted EM, I would like to suppose EM, at the bottom line provide an alternative way to interpret the world. Although I do not find Clayton’s argument that through emergence in the natural science it points to some causally powerful emergent properties or events; for the sake of argument let’s suppose, inductively, the existence of emergent event, open the possibility that RP, unlike most scientists have believed, is fallible and the hope of the unity of science is also highly unlikely. As a result, an alternative way to understanding the universe, the theistic way is at least decently possible.[30]

However, when theologians are concluding the existence of God is highly likely, evidence by their agenda, the attributes of God may differ dramatically. Traditionally, God has been understood as supra-human, He is omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience; furthermore, God is immutability, unity and self-existence. However, Philip Clayton does not believe in all these traditional understanding of God, he has been advocating a position calls Panentheism that simply mean God in the world and the world in God, the perfection of God is result in being in the world while the world is dependent to God. Like many contemporary theological perspective, theologians mean to bridge the gap between the sublime God and the interpersonal Being; here, I am not going to argue whether the traditional perspective or the contemporary perspective is more biblical, here I would like to point out the hardship of doing theology in a physical world.

Granting the universe does exhibit an enough amount of emergent events that possibly exercise top down causation. The first thing we have to ask, as emergentists have been suggesting, the most important feature of emergentism is the unpredictability and the complex of emergent events; as a result, even assuming God is omniscience, if we are going to argue that the concept of emergence undermines RP, so does it undermines the omniscience of God.[31] Here, one has to be very caution, the conclusion is not a metaphysical one, it is not asking whether the omnipotence God can create something that He cannot create; on the very contrary, theologians have to solve the paradox, either they give up the omniscience of God or they give up the existence of God as inductively strong.[32]

Let’s illustrate the point with a hypothesis, suppose using the concept of emergence, a theologian tries to articulate a view that miracles are not super-natural, it is naturally emergent but irreducible event. Put things otherwise, RP suggests that miracle is impossible unless it is cased by a physical cause; however, the discover of irreducible emergent events seem suggesting that despite the fact that a certain event that have traditionally be viewed as miracle are a physical event, there might be spiritual or divine properties that are casually influencing. Furthermore, despite the facts that one cannot predict or understand the event, even the devil who is nearly powerful as God who can create the exact same scene, it is impossible for him to repeat the event. So, base on this interpretation, the resurrection of Jesus could have been viewed as an unique event that it is emergent, irreducible and express divine causality.[33]

However, if emergent events are novel and unpredictable, how could Jesus predict His death and resurrection? Once again, either we give up the omnipotence of God or we give up the existence of God as inductively highly likely. It is because, if we want to provide a rationale of God in a physical world, since SD lacks the scientific support and RP lacks the theological support, the only candidate for us now is EM or relying on the discoveries of Emergence. Nevertheless, in adapting the thesis, it is a contingent must for theologians to give in, to once again assert that God does not exist in a  way we have been shaping. So it is decent for anyone to ask, when we say the design argument has successfully deduced that the existence of God is highly likely, is the god the God we have been referring?

For sure, one might argue that I might have fallen into a false dilemma. I believe in certain extent, I did, I did put the discussion on edge and making the situation an either or. It is true that the validity of RD does not eliminate theism, it is also true that other than the design argument, theologians still might have other ways to provide rationale for the existence of God and so on and so forth. However, as I have stressed since the beginning, I believe theologians’ task is to show that how Christians, who live in the fundamental physical world, can cohere their religious commitments with scientific findings. Many theologians who propose the design argument believes that, through understanding more about the universe and the existence of human mentality, the existence of God is obvious and the universe proclaims His existence; however, if what I have said is right, it is not the case, God is not obvious and the universe seems suggesting we are nothing more than a conscious robot, determined by physical laws.

Furthermore, one might also suggests that giving up certain traditional understanding of God might not be a bad thing, it is possible that the traditional interpretation of God was reinforced by political agendas. As a result, if we can understand more about God through scientific discoveries, isn’t it coheres with the sayings that God created and run the universe? I think the saying is decent IFF we choose to believe God should be understood otherwise. However, reviewing contemporary discussions, as I have shown, it is not theologians who wants to present God otherwise, it is the world that forces them to do that. I believe to most theologians, they would be excited if all the evidence we have pointed to SD. Sadly, it is not the case, the evidence point to either a god that we are not familiar with or God’s existence is highly unlikely. When science discoveries something, theologians retreat a little bit more.

No easy way out

So either emergence is success or not success, it appears to me that there is no easy way out for theologians. If theologians give up the theory of emergence, either they go back to SD, which is a mysterious theory, or RD, which is not overwhelmingly to suggest has excluded most of the theism. Alternatively, suppose the concept of emergence is at least inductively strong in yielding that there are top down causations and emergent events, it does not necessary mean, as the design argument has suggested, the existence of God is highly likely. It is because, it is well possible that the god the theory is point to might not be the God we have been referring. We might end up find out that god is unfamiliar, nothing like how the Bible has postulated.[34]

Giving up the omniscience of God while adoring the theory of emergence is not the only thing theologians have given up since the last century and I predict it is not going to be the last. The problems of contemporary theologians are either they care too little about bridging the gap among natural science, philosophy and theology or they just care about conducting researches in a certain field and ignore the big picture.[35] I believe if I, someone who has been rejected by the MPhil course in HK for two years have found the problem factual but lacking of  decent answers, there should be thousands of theologians who should have realized the problem.  However, as I have been conducting the research on the problem of mental causation, emergentism and theism, I come to realize in the field only 4 theologians have published materials on the issue.[36]

It might be true that, the question I find intriguing might not be intriguing at all. However, I believe for bottom-line cases, I should have outlined the relationship between natural science, theology and philosophy that:

1.     The world is fundamentally physical (from natural science)

2.     The design argument is an inductive weak argument because of RD and the problem of non-physical properties (From theology and philosophy)

3.     Neither SD nor RD is a preferable metaphysical position for theism (from theology and philosophy.)

4.     EM though success portrays a god who we are not very familiar with. (from natural science, theology and philosophy.)

Conclusion:

If theologians want to make sense of God in a physical world, either they give in, accepting a God who is at least different from how the Bible might have been suggesting.[37] Or they have to give up the design argument and propose other deductive arguments, which is highly likely already detached from the scientific discoveries.[38]

As a Christian, I have to cry out, “There is no easy way out, in fact there is no way out.” To make sense of God by considering contemporary scientific researches, the only things left for us is faith and the feeling of the presence of God, faith that is irrational and the feeling that cannot be justified. We might want to believe that there is at least a rationale for us to believe that the existence of God is at least a rational choice. However, it is illusive, we might have the feeling of the presence of God, but it is epiphenomenal. God might have revealed Himself in the history, but the revelation is determined by physical laws.

---

[1] In this essay, God refers to the Christian God.

[2] For instance, David Hume has challenged the concept on miracle and Stephen Hawking, if he has successfully shown from String Theory we should conclude that the universe is self-sufficient, the existence of God or the necessity of God becomes inferior.

[3] Some theologians believe that we cannot discuss the existence of God. I have to make a few remarks here. First, I suppose human are rational. Second, we should accept and follow the arguments wherever they lead. Third, religions are located in a public sphere. Put things together, it might be true that if someone is going to believe, they will believe, but, it does not mean Theology does not need to provide a rationale towards different enquires from other groups. For instance, as I have argued elsewhere, theologian can, in fact, neglecting all scientific discoveries and conduct their researches purely base on what they find important; however, I would have to ask, is this a responsible attitude? I believe it is not.

[4] Here I am not suggesting that the other arguments do not do not consider scientific discoveries in articulating the arguments. However, since my focuses on this paper are how can theologian provide a rationale towards contemporary scientific researches, the design argument is the only candidate that dialogues with the findings.

[5] For detail of the design argument one can refer to:

[6] I shall discuss in due time, the existence of non-reductive events do not favor the existence of God. It is because if the arguments for epiphenomenal is correct, God has created an illusion, there is no mental causations, and it is then doubtful how we can interact with him. For more on the topic, please read my article.

[7]

[8] Not every scholar is using the strict word determined; many scholars prefer the term supervenience. Nonetheless, either it is supervenience or determined, for advocators of RD, every events in this universe can be explained by physical law, either it is determined by the physical law or supervene on the basic scientific level.

[9] As I shall discuss below, if RP is right, mental causation is eliminated, it further suggests that human’s desire of God and religious experiences that we meet God are all illusive. One might still want to argue if we the string can be relieved by appealing to Substance Dualism; however, unless there are further evidences that motivate the position, I do not think it is a position that can run well with contemporary scientific researches.

[10] To some scholars, like David Hume, the non-repeatable event is highly unlikely. Here I just want to stress, to say God performs a miracle, if RP stays, we can only understood it as a event performed by a physical agent that we can perform again if we have the knowledge and right tools.

[11] I suppose some theologians can accept the conclusion that God follows physical laws, the laws that created by Him/Her in the beginning of the universe; however, RP does not just mean to say God has chosen to follow the laws, God is under the law and in a rigid sense, everybody can become God with appropriate knowledge, God is nothing unique, God is just something, we are not.

[12]

[13] A lot of thought experiments on inverted qualitative experience have been conducted since the 80’s of the last century.  For instance, the inverted earth argument by Ned Block.

[14] Common sense is one of the tools that human being shaped the world, through common senses human have discovered many mysterious of the universe; nevertheless, history also tells us that, common sense unless being justified by epistemic arguments, is insecure. Following this line of thought, I have to argue, if one wants to refute RP through a common experience, it is their burden in showing how RP is wrong. For instance, how through inverted spectrum arguments, there exist a non-reductive property, and base on that property how RP is fallible.

[15]

[16] Kim’s argument allows things that happen in the universe in uncaused; what he has been insisting is the monolithic of causation, which means, even there exists, as some scholar has argued, non-physical events or properties, only the physical properties are the causes of events.

[17] The exclusion argument, though rely heavily on 2 metaphysical premises are in fact a scientific argument. Through scientific findings on the monolithic physical universe, it summarizes on how events in the universe have to be caused. Though many scholars have challenged the validity of the premises, for the time being, as far as I am concern, they have been trying to postulate the picture with the same color while interpreting the conclusion differently. So unless those arguments are inductively stronger than the argument, it should stay.

[18] To illustrate the string, many theologians have argued one’s desire to God or the feeling with God is among many reasons that point to the conclusion that human being desires God. (Despite His/Her existence) The exclusion argument presents a very different interpretation. Firstly, the desire causes an action is mistaken, we might have the conscious feeling that we desire God; nevertheless, the desire is, though not determined by, supervenience on a physical property and even we want to say the desire causes us to seek for God or let God fills us, it is not the desire, but the base property of the desire that causes the action. Secondly, even if God reveals himself to us, not the revelation (suppose we interpret that as a message form God.) but the base property of the message that causes an individual to perform certain thing. As a result, one has to accept that what the Bible has said, though have literally happened, is just the sugar coat of the real thing that has been happening, there is something other than what we have been perceiving that factually changing/causing/influencing our religious lives.

[19] In this paper I am paralleling the traditional scientific methodology with RP, it might be true that RP have many tokens, but a bottom up causation implies reductionism, which most tokens of RP advocate.

[20]

[21]

[22] To say an emergent event is not bounded by physical law, it is not the event is breaking the law, it points to the condition that a physical law cannot predict the existence of the emergent event, because the event is novel and unpredicted. Even suppose one has the ability to create the exact moment that an emergent event has taken place, the result might not be the same. Thus knowing the details (the laws), does not necessary let us know the whole (the emergent event), only through knowing the whole we come to understand what the whole is.

[23]

[24] As I shall argue in due time, evident by their methodology, EM cannot be read as a token of the design argument, it is because, for instance, they believe that some events are emergent in a way that non-even the omnipotent God can predict and so it is doubtful whether we should project them as pioneers of a emergent design argument. However, the existence of causally influencing emergent events do weaken the validity of the exclusion argument and RP, which relies heavily on the unity of science and the no exceptional cause of bottom up causations.

[25]

[26]

[27] Though I have just summarized Clayton’s argument, this is in fact how he has argued for top down causation, for detail, read Philip Clayton’s.

[28] The problem of Clayton is not he has not discussed what top down causation is and what top down causation can do, the problem is without clarifications, what top down causation is “is” what top down causation can do. Worst, to make sense of EM, the validity of top down causation is a must and as a result to make sense of EM, showing what top down causation can do and how we can understand top down causation is a logical necessity.

[29] To say it is metaphysically impossible, I refer to the condition that if the exclusion argument is true then top down causation is a contingent impossible, because all causations in this universe are bottom up causation.

[30] Suppose without RP, through the design arguments, the probability of the existence of God is 75%. When RP and exclusion argument is in the calculation, the probability of the existence of God is 25%; however, through the concept of emergence, the validity of RP is reduced and as a result, coherently, since some of the issues are inconclusive through the design argument the probability of the existence of God is 45%.

[31] Clayton himself does not think it is a serious offend, here I just want to bring out

[32] Supposing RP is valid and theologians accept the concept of emergence, it is well possible that theologians are going to argue the problem from other angles. But as far as I am aware, in contemporary discussion, Moreland, Clayton and Murphy are the only theologians who have been relating RP with the epiphenomenal non-reductive property and none of them seems providing other alternatives other than a simple give or take.

[33] The use of divine might not be the most appropriate word, here I would like to suggest, the resurrection of Jesus, though Jesus is a part of the physical world and might be 100% like us; however, in his resurrection, the event is not determined by the causal power of its part, there is something top down that causes the emergence. Following the Bible I call it a divine causality.

[34] It might be a slippery slope that since one has to give up the omniscience of God, the God the design argument points to is completely different from our understanding. What I want to point out here is, as I shall argue in the rest of the essay, the feeling of despair of believers concerning scientific discoveries and the lack of responses from theologians.

[35] If the existence of God is highly unlikely, what is the point in conducting Christian spirituality? If human mentality has gone, what is the point in praying? I agree the problem might be too remote to general believers but if we believe faith seeks for understanding, the only rational answer we have is: God’s existence is highly unlikely or god’s existence is highly likely.

[36] I  have used these search engines in searching for related articles and search about individually and combine of these key words: mental causation, emergence, emergentism and physicalism.

[37] Giving up or changing our view of God, though I might have been sounding as something very negative, can be in fact a positive thing. Because as truth seekers, epistemologically speaking, we amend our knowledge from time to time. However, back to the basic, why do we have to change our image of God, especially when the new image can be quite different from our understanding from the Bible?

[38] If one wants to articulate an inductive argument of God through scientific research, as I have shown, it is very likely they have to give up traditional attribute of God. Furthermore, if there is a deductive argument of God, first they have to deductively show that RP and the problem of non-reductive properties are invalid. Second, they have to suggest how the view coheres with scientific finding, which RP is having a nearly absolute upper hand at it. And as I have shown, when using scientific discoveries, theologians tend to give in, so to maintain the traditional God, it is highly possible that one has to detached from scientific researches unless scientific researches favor SD or other theological metaphysical positions.