Liberation Theology: Marching to the true liberationIn

Introduction

Liberation Theology, which roots in Latin America theology, is a bottom up theology that concerns, through the life of Jesus, how theology should be standing by the oppressed or the poor. As most scholars agree, Liberation Theology is contextual, the only thing that shared by all tokens of Liberation Theology is the fact that theologians are dedicated to “liberating” the oppressed.[1] Since she is contextual, if someone lives in Hong Kong desires to follow the footsteps of Liberation Theologians and proposes a token of Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, it is one’s duty to articulate the theology, base on how things has been happening in Hong Kong. Put things otherwise, to do Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, one has to localize the concept. In this paper, I shall first argue the limitations of Contemporary Liberation Theology, second, I shall explain poverty in Hong Kong; third, I shall propose, what we need in Hong Kong is not a strong token of Practical Theology that concerns how we can liberate the non-human; what we need in Hong Kong is a theology that helps the misfortunes to enter the kingdom of God through a critical appreciation.

Part 1: Liberation Theology as means for the ends

Since the 60’s of the last century, theologies, mostly from Latin America have realized there is a huge gap between conventional theology and theology in their context. The gap, as theologian like Gutierrez has pointed out, is between doing theology for human and non-human.[2] Conventionally, theologians have been researching on how we could preach the Good News to a world that is fundamentally physical and where most of the citizens are free agents on religions; however, in a region where most citizens have been deprived from being called agents, Liberation Theology questions, if the traditional, top down theology is making any sense at all, it is because, to those being oppressed, they have been deviated from being something traditional western society defines as human, not only do they not having a choice on religions, they barely have an option as human. As a result, in response to the context, Liberation Theology was born. Most Liberation Theologians, for instance Leonardo Boff has been trying to parallel Jesus Christ as a liberator in articulating his theology.[3] While some other theologians, usually parallel the Exodus with the current era, has proposed that God was liberating the poor and oppressed at that moment.

As most scholars have agreed, Liberation Theology does not come with a univocal form, under different context, Liberation Theology flourishes distinctively. So the only common grounds for different tokens of Liberation Theology can be generally interpreted as:

1.     Liberation Theology is contextual.

2.     Liberation Theology is a bottom up theology that concerns the well-beings of the poor and the oppressed.

3.     Liberation Theology is not a political movement because it has strong biblical grounds.

4.     Liberation Theology is a practical theology (it is about praxis).[4]

Despite the facts that many theologians have criticized the metaphysics and methodology of the theology, I do not think these criticisms have made the theory less appealing.[5] I believe the most critical problem of contemporary Liberation Theologians, they seems letting the means as an end. When one put forward a theology on liberation, why do they try to liberate the oppressed and what ends do they eager to see? We have to be very caution, the premises of Liberation Theology, as I have argued else where is a biblical perspective, it is because by citing and paralleling the life of our savior Jesus, it is highly likely that churches should spend more time in helping those in need. However, the problem of Liberation Theology is that through liberation they just lead those being liberated to become less oppressed, they are not bringing them to the eternality.[6]

Paralleling the life of Moses, when Moses liberated God’s people from Egypt, he did not just liberated them from the wicked Pharaoh, brought them out of Egypt and concluded he has fulfilled God’s request. Alternatively, he was liberating the oppressed from the suppressed and leaded them back the realm of God, a political liberation is just a mean for the religious ends. So did our savior Jesus Christ, it is undoubted, as many Liberation Theologians have quoted, Jesus’ life was to liberate the oppressed; however, to say he has been liberating the oppressed does not capture the explicit desire of Jesus that He wanted to liberate them from being oppressed to the Kingdom of God. Put things otherwise, if there is anything call Liberation Theology, liberating the oppressed is and only is the very first step of the theology, if the theology just cares to fight for vague entities like common good and social justice, it is just obvious to ask, has Jesus literally fought for these ideologies? Or has He, through relieving the tension in the society, guided people to the Kingdom of God? To most theologians, the answer is self-evidence; Jesus through liberating the poor just and only just meant to lead his believers, through repenting themselves they could enter the Kingdom of God. So if Jesus’ ultimate goal is salvation of the afterlife, what grants those theologians the right to proclaim they have to move one step further than Jesus to care only things under the sunlight when Jesus cared so much more about the afterlives than the phenomenal lives?[7]

Undoubtedly, as most theologians would argue, in a region when most of the citizens can barely function a normal life, it is just contingently impossible to preach the Good News to them. It is just like proclaiming the love of God to someone whose entire family has just been abused and killed brutally. Nonetheless, we cannot make ourselves God. It is true that the problem of evil and the injustice among the world are real and factual; nevertheless, it does not necessary mean everyone has to become a liberator of God’s creations. Put things otherwise, I believe the premises of Liberation Theology are sound, we need to bring a message to the poor and oppressed that God is liberating them; however, unlike most contemporary Liberation Theologians have been advocating, following the teachings of Jesus Christ, I suppose, when doing theology, liberation is just a political means for a religious ends The true liberation, as Jesus Christ and Paul has repeatedly suggesting, is to liberate God’s creation from sins so that they can be reunited with God.

If Liberation Theology’s end is to lead those being oppressed to God, unlike some theologians have suggested, there might be regions that do not need Liberation Theology. It is without a question that in every single place on earth, someone, some race, some gender and so on and so forth is going to be treated unfairly; however, it does not means that whenever someone has been treated unfairly, they should have been liberated, thus Liberation Theology is the only practical theology for any city that has oppression. It is because, the term liberation is  very strong, it presupposes someone or something, by using Gutierrez’s words again, is deviated as non-human. However, as I shall argue in due time, there are many cities, for instance Hong Kong, which even some citizens have been enjoying prestige more than the large rest of the citizens; nevertheless, rather than saying theology should liberate those citizens who are considered as less fortune, we have to rethink if the position of liberation is the best contextual way of doing theology. It is because, fighting with the less fortune against the evil entity that basically does not exist in the city might not be contextually necessary; on the very contrary, we can just simply walk with them. Put things otherwise, if Liberation Theology is contextual, I am going to suggest, in a city like Hong Kong, we may not need a radical form of liberation theology. It is because comparing with the harsh environment where most Liberation Theologies have been encountering, one should concluded, yes there are misfortunes in Hong Kong or even imbalances of how wealth has been disturbed; however, rather than liberation, Christian can simply lend these misfortunes a hand and lead them to the Kingdom of God. Thus, we do not need a Crusade in Hong Kong, what we need is bluntly simple: through appreciation, we march to the Kingdom of God together.[8] To sum up, I propose following Jesus Christ’s teachings, the ends of any Christian theology is to lead God’s creation to enter the Kingdom of God, if any theology has lost this focus, it is nothing more than a movement that only use Christianity as means to achieve one’s personal ends.[9]

Part 2: Poverty in Hong Kong

To most scholars in the field of social science, being largely influenced by the work of Marx, poverty is a result of class struggles. The existence of poverty has a deep social impact because the root of poverty is a result of social injustice and oppressions. Base on this agenda, it is not hard to understand why Liberation Theologians have always related oppressions with poverty, for, they believe that the existence of physical poverty is a result of human sin, greed. Following this line of thoughts, in articulating their theses, most Liberation Theologians divide poverty into levels, most importantly physical poverty and spiritual poverty. Unlike how one is going to interpret these terms by common sense, to Liberation Theologians, spiritual poverty is not about choices, it is not about an individual’s relationship with God, it is about how being physically poor, which roots from the evil of greediness, individuals have been ruled out from being able to have a spiritual life.[10] As a result, theologians’ task is not to articulate arguments about why one should believe in God or why believing in God is ethical, decent and so on and so forth, because being physically poor has already determined they are spiritually poor, so every Christian, if they believe God desires one to be spiritually rich, one has to fight against physical poverty.

So when localizing Liberation Theology, the first thing we should ask, rather than what is the definition of poverty or how many people are defined as being poor either absolute or relative poor in Hong Kong, is whether there are physical poverty in Hong Kong that deprived Hong Kong citizens from being spiritually rich. In most cases, critics in Hong Kong argues by using of Gini Coefficient the inequalities among classes have become more serious in years; nevertheless, I have to propose here, these figures, from the increase in Gini Coefficient to the number of relatively poverty in Hong Kong, is and not is the concern of theologians. It is because, to theologians, as I have been arguing since the Introduction, what makes theology, theology is the fact that we are obligated to preach the Good News to non-believers. In a context where human are deviated from human, liberation, fighting for social justice is the only means to achieve the religious ends. Nevertheless, in Hong Kong, where citizens enjoy freedom of religion, it is the obligation of the HKSAR, charity organizations, politicians to deal with social injustice; if churches spend too much time and effort on fighting ideologies, which they think God cares but ignore the most important command from Jesus Christ, one is just treating a mean as an end. [11]

Part 3: Appreciation, Criticism or Critical Appreciation

As I have discussed above, unlike Liberation Theologians have been suggesting, being physically poor does not necessary mean one is spiritually poor, it is because, in a city like Hong Kong, unquestionably, the wealth might have been disturbed unequally; nevertheless, unlike the cases in Latin America, poverty in Hong Kong does not prohibited one from being spiritually rich. At this point, we have to ask, does it necessary mean, Hong Kong does not need any token of Liberation Theology? The answer is both Yes and No. It is because, on the one hand, Liberation Theology has brought out a very profound message from Jesus’ life, Jesus is a liberator; however, on the other hand, as I have been repeatedly suggesting form the very beginning, liberation is and only is a means to a religious ends.[12] Thus, if we want to localize Liberation Theology, we have to be realistic that, Hong Kong is nothing likes Latin America, we do not need radical liberation, instead,  we need to do theology through a critical appreciation.

In Genesis chapter 1, God has proclaimed that everything, which he had made is very good; however, as we all know, human fell, and in chapter 6, even God Himself regretted of creating us. However, we have to ask, isn’t God omniscience? He should have known that we would have fallen before He planned to create us, isn’t it an obvious case of contradiction? Whether God knew that or not or whether how God could regretted is out of the scoop of this paper, the important point that we can learn is that: unlike generally beliefs, God enjoys appreciating, He is critical but also appreciative.[13] To illustrate the point, let’s look at the life of Jesus. In Jesus’ life, it is true that He has been quite judgmental; nonetheless, if we read clearly, it was not rare that Jesus praised and appreciated those who were faithful and innocent. Put things otherwise, in contemporary theology, especially Liberation Theology, they have largely missed out this side of Jesus. Yes, it is true that Jesus has come to liberate the oppressed; however, it is also true that Jesus has sent a clear signal that we should have to appreciate with the good qualities one has, even it is just a very minor one and in many cases these minor things are leading one to heaven.

For instance, in John 20:24-29, it is about Thomas questioning the resurrected Jesus, asking Jesus to let him examine the wounds so that he could confirmed the identity of his Lord.  This is how Jesus commented Thomas, “Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief through they have not seen me.” Compare to others who believed in Jesus’ resurrection without questions, Thomas, rigidly speaking is blasphemy; however, not only did Jesus not scold Thomas, He immediately proclaimed through Thomas misbehaving, what constituted a blessing. To me Jesus has made a critical appreciation, through criticizing Thomas, He first ascertained the good qualities of some sort of faith, second, He illuminated Thomas about how he could become better.[14] It was not the case that Thomas’ questioning was wrong, it was just there might be a better option. Another example can be quoted from the next chapter in the same book, when Jesus asked Peter if Peter has any love for Him. Surely, He can blamed Peter for not asserting Him three times; however, once again, Jesus knowing that there was something good inside Peter, He wanted to enhanced this love to a level that Peter can one day become the foundation of the Church. [15]

I think here one has to understand the two size of Jesus, Jesus is a strict teacher but he is also an inspiring mentor. He does not just criticize you and then leave you with despair and frustration, He always tells you through the good quality of you how you can repent and enter the Kingdom of God. One problem of Liberation Theology, or those who share the root of Liberation Theology is that: they have been viewing things just from a judgmental side, they are critical but fail to be appreciative. They have been very paranoid and sensitive about the things they define as wicked and evil. This standpoint has missed out a very important part of the Good News, you have to be critically appreciative, it might be true that there are flaws in a system, flaws inside human beings; however, it doesn’t mean that the only decent thing theologians can do is to fight against the system, it might be way more effective to amend the flaws through realizing the system’s advantages in itself.[16] For instance, in Hong Kong, as I have argued, the social phenomenon of poverty is factual; however, we cannot parallel the condition we encountered in Hong Kong with those in Latin America for we enjoy freedom of religion. As a result if both liberation and appreciation is biblically corrected, we have to choose, if theology is contextual, appreciation is more suitable and effective to Hong Kong in introducing God to His people.

Part 4: Appreciation Theology in Hong Kong

Granting we should be more appreciative than just being critical, we should then ask, “How does that matter to theology in Hong Kong?”[17] I think at the very beginning, we have to deliberate, generally speaking, what are the good qualities of local churches, which can benefit non-believers in Hong Kong?[18] Here like it or not churches in Hong Kong are rich, many critics accused that conventional churches in Hong Kong care only about the middle classes but have largely ignored the lower classes even these churches considered as “rich”. However, if we evaluate the condition appreciatively, we should come to the conclusion, which, rather than saying it is wrong for the churches to care so much about the rich because they are rich, or even being rich means these group of people have been depriving and oppressed the others, these churches and the prosperous can factually play a critical role in leading non-believers to God.

According to a local research in 2004, there were on average 220000 believers participating at the weekly sermon.[19] The weekly one tenth tribute at a local middle class church in North Point, which has around 300 believers participate at the Sunday sermon is $110000.[20] Suppose, roughly speaking, considering there are 100 believers have followed the tribute, it means each believer is devoting $1100 a month, which is close to the average domestic income of around $8000 per residents per month.[21] By using this rough figure, considering one third of the believers, which is 73000 of them who is earning close to $9000 a month is going to tribute one tenth, which is $900 to the church. Each month, bottom line cases,  Protestants churches in Hong Kong should have received not less than $60 million cash, not to mention the large group of upper middle class who have been labeled as greedy earn many times more than the median income.[22]

Base on this reading, in Hong Kong, churches are rich and they can gather resources in helping non-believers effectively. Next question we should ask, how do we make good use of the money in helping non-believers? I believe many people is going to suggest, like most traditional churches have been doing, setting up social services centers, schools, food banks and so on and so forth for those who are in need. However, I believe, as I have brought out in the beginning, when we are doing theology practically, whenever we are doing social services in the name of God, we can never lost sight of the reason why we have to do that: the only reason of doing that is to let people repent. When we put things like this, churches have to balance out the time and money being used between  physically assistances and spiritually assistances to the non-believers. As a result, practically, granting we have the resources from the prestige and prosperous, in allocating these resources in helping the non-believers in Hong Kong, we should not share the belief that because someone is poor and misfortune, they need the Good News more and only through being a charity the Good News can be preached.[23] 

One can see the differences of methodology between liberation and appreciation theology. To Liberation Theology, being rich is most likely the result of greediness, which is a sin that every Christian has to fight against; furthermore, to lead non-human to the Kingdom of God, one can only do that through liberation, a radical reform, thus, is necessary. However, when we critically appreciate the context of Hong Kong, we should realize the well being of an individual can be a result of God’s blessing or individual’s hard working; and in a capitalistic society, it is unfair to label and parallel those who earns a living legally and ethically as the dictators in Latin America.[24] Furthermore, I propose that, if the well being of an individual is not a sin; we have to make good use of these resources in leading the non-believers to the Kingdom of God. A parallel analogy is, in the book of Acts, there were many rich believers who functioned the church physically, for instance, by letting believers gather at their houses. If, using contemporary Liberation Theological attitude, these believers, who most likely have slaves working for them, were just evil in God’s eyes. Yet, anyone know the Bible should have come to the conclusion, God does not prefer slavery; however, God does critically appreciate them, under that context they have been using their means to achieve the religious ends of the Good News.

Granting what I have been saying is true, I believe through appreciation, local theology should be less critical and judgmental; furthermore, neither we should try dividing local citizens into groups. It is because, the first premises of doing theology: is to let non-believers repent from sins, it is never decent to divide them by classes, genders and races. Furthermore, even if there are inequalities in Hong Kong, we have to be very caution not to fall into the slippery slope that all inequalities are resulted from a single hegemony or only through liberating the oppressed things can be changed. It is because, theology itself cannot create an utopia on earth, the only thing we should do is to preach.

Consequently, in helping spiritual poor in Hong Kong, which refers to someone lacking the passion to God, churches have to send a very clear message to the non-believers that life without God is no life for human and Hong Kong is a very blessed city, there might be inequalities but none of us is going to die because we don’t have food or being executed because we say Donald Tsang sucks big. Though the social securities is not perfect and we do not have a comprehensive medical and retirement system, most importantly to Christianity, all citizens in Hong Kong enjoy freedom of religion that permits one to choose what one believes, which means being spiritual poor is a matter of choose, it is not determined. So, considering the resources on hand, rather than spending a lot of money on charity, fighting for inequalities and social justices. Churches should have used their resources in preaching the Good News. Certainly, in some cases through charity, Good News is spread flourishingly while in some cases mass media can be an effective means. To sum up, what I have been stressing here is that, the target of the resources is neither the physical poor nor the physical oppressed, it is because Hong Kong is a city where all citizens have freedom in choosing their religion and the only religious ends for Christianity is to lead these non-believers, rich or poor, through any possible means to understand the grace and love of our Creator.

Undoubtedly, someone might object what I have said because I might have been too optimistic, living in Hong Kong is not as good as I have said and I am just fortunate not seeing the dark side of city. Here, as I have been arguing since part 2, I assert there are inequalities, I assert there are misfortunes; but I deny there is non human, there is spiritual poor like Liberation Theology has defined. So if there is anything we need to liberate, it is not the system itself, it is about the value we share in Hong Kong, the value that believing in God is useless. Here one might further argue, “This is exactly why we should fight against Capitalism, which is the root of atheism.” As the paper is about theology, I just want to discuss in brief how we should react to this line of thoughts. I suppose, following the Bible thoughts, criticisms without an answer is just vain. So it might be true that Capitalism is limited, but it might also be true that this is already the best contingent system for Hong Kong..[25]

As a result, following Jesus’ teaching on appreciation, appreciating the good quality of local churches, being having the resources to preach the good news in Hong Kong, a place where citizens’ spiritual poverty is not a result from physical oppression, is contextually effective and appropriate. It is because, if we adapt Liberation Theology in Hong Kong, we might have ignored the fact that theology’s goal is to liberate the spiritual poor but not the physical poor and theology is also about appreciating virtue, for instance, we can interpret the prosperous are willing to share with the poor rather than just oppressing the poor.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have argued how contextually, Liberation Theology is not a preferable way in conducting theology in Hong Kong. Still, there are a few things that worth to be discussed. At the very beginning, as I have argued in this paper, my primary concern is the spiritual poverty in Hong Kong; nevertheless, as a Christian, it is our obligation to ask, what is Hong Kong Churches’ role in a globalized world? For instance, just talk about Mainland China; it might be the case that spiritual poverty is a result of physical poverty, since we are that close to China, is there anything local theologians should do or what is the role of local theology concerning China? Furthermore, as I have argued appreciation is very important to theology; nevertheless, since the enlightenment, the world has become more judgmental than ever. I just wonder, if being critically appreciative rather than strongly critical can be a unique quality or fragment of Christianity. All these things demand and answer and I believe it is theology’s work to examine them so that God’s will can be served.

Reference

Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1987)

Christopher Rowland ed., The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007),

ESCOBAR, SAMUEL. "liberation theology." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. McGrath, Alister E. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1

Goizueta, Roberto S. "Gustavo Gutiérrez." The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Scott, Peter and William T. Cavanaugh (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922

liberation theology." A Dictionary of Contemporary History. Townson, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631209379_chunk_g978063120937913_ss1-9>

---

[1] "liberation theology." A Dictionary of Contemporary History. Townson, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1999. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631209379_chunk_g978063120937913_ss1-9>

[2] Goizueta, Roberto S. "Gustavo Gutiérrez." The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Scott, Peter and William T. Cavanaugh (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.
lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9780631223429_chunk_g978063122342922>

[3] Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1987)

[4] ESCOBAR, SAMUEL. "liberation theology." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought. McGrath, Alister E. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Blackwell Reference Online. 09 May 2011 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.easyaccess1.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/subscriber/
tocnode?id=g9780631198963_chunk_g978063119896314_ss8-1>

[5] The criticisms come from a lot of angles, in the very beginning, some have questioned whether borrowing terms like class struggles from Marxism is appropriate. Furthermore, some have questioned if theology is all about the oppressed, it has reverse discriminated those who are of well beings. Last but not least, some share the worry that a contextual reading of theology leads to relativism. As I have to agree, all these concerns make sense; however, I shall explain in due time, the limitation of Liberation Theology.

[6] A fair reading to contemporary Liberation Theology is that: they have always included repenting from sins and re-union with God into their agenda. However, having something in the agenda is a thing, executing it is another. As Liberation Theology prior practice to truth, it is just a logical inevitable that when doing the theology, most of the concerns have been focused on liberation. Nevertheless, what I desire to discuss in this paper is that: it might be true that in a context like Latin America, it might be decent; however, in a city like Hong Kong, granting we follow the premises of Liberation Theology, we may not need a radical liberation and I shall examined the thesis in due time.

[7] Undoubtedly, it is very possible that, as Liberation Theology claims to be contextual, under certain circumstances, a theologian can proclaim, liberation in context is a must and they should have moved a step further than Jesus. I assert, it can be the case, but one has to be very caution, as it is clearly stated in the Bible, non-believers and those who do not repent is evil in God’s view, so liberating non-human to human and leaving them as the sinner in God’s eye can be even worst then leaving them being non-human. By using a slimily, it is like one brings them out from the dictator but directly gives them to the devil. Furthermore, it is not a straw man, because rather than criticizing it is the case, I believe it is worthy to point out, that, base on the metaphysics of Liberation Theology (like it or not there is always a metaphysical side of anything.) there is a danger that one will  confuse the means of liberation as the ends.

[8] Here I am suggesting both the Kingdom of God on earth and in the afterlife. I believe this is just different side of the same coin. I suppose most Liberation Theologians have the same mindset like I do. Their original premises, there is no church when there is no human; however, as I have argued above, in most cases, Liberation Theology slight becomes a political movement more than a religious movement when theologians have been fighting against the injustice and lost the track that, the only goal of theology is to lead people to God. So the means can be liberation or appreciation but the ends must be leading them to the Kingdom of God, if we can work with God in this life, great, but it is just not the end of the story.

[9] As a believer, I believe only God is able to judge the intention of an individual. I do not think and do not dare to accuse any theologians, who have spending their effort or even their lives dedicated to theology, as someone who is fighting for his/her own benefit. What I mean to suggest here, if we read from the history, a good intention, even a biblical based intention, can turn ugly when one becomes think their words are God’s words. In this paper, rather than being a critic criticizing any particular theologian guilty of something, I am trying to give warnings. It might not have happened but it is something we should be as careful as we can.

[10] To Liberation Theologians like Gutierrez, it is appropriate to say that in dividing poverty, he does not mean there are different ways in interpreting poverty. Being spiritually poor is a contingent consequence of physically poor.

[11] However, one should not take this as churches accept and tolerate inequalities; on the very contrary, in a society where justice can never be done, we have to put faith in the afterlife, as the Bible has clearly stated. So theologians have to put priorities and as I shall examine in due time, if one wants to fight against inequalities, liberation is neither the necessary or effective means in Hong Kong.

[12] Granting the premises of Liberation Theology true, if lives are excluded from the salvation because of dictatorship or other political repressions, a radical form of theology, which concerns how to better off the environment so that individuals can have a choice could be the only option of theologians. Certainly, conventional theology might beg to differ because they believe God is in charge and these unfairness can be viewed as tests of God. Here, I am not going to settle the dispute about which way in doing theology in that context is biblical, what I am interested in is: Hong Kong is not a place like Latin America, as a result, even churches are more keen on participating politically, we cannot detached ourselves from the religious ends.

[13] God being appreciative is very different from God being Love. Conventionally, human being is defined as something not worthy of God’s loves but the benevolent God mercies us and made us dear because He loves us.  Saying God appreciate mankind does not necessary mean we are worthy or we can be righteous by one’s effort. On the very contra, to say God is appreciative suggests that God does not just criticize our wrong doing, if we do something good, even just a simple act, God appreciates. When we interpret God this way, it is inevitable for us to question, do we need to try to appreciate the other like God has been doing?

[14] Here Jesus has been made use of the foundation good quality of Thomas, though a second level faith, but still something Jesus treasured.

[15] More examples can be found:

[16] I believe most scholars, especially those critics who have been accusing the flaws of Capitalism would disagree my saying that there is something intrinsic good of Capitalism; however, it is not important to my discussion here, because what I am pointing out is that, in some systems, liberating and fighting against the system is decent while under certain circumstances, using amendments is a more effective means to achieve the religious ends. It is because, if we believe theology is contextual and theology’s goal is to find a way to preach to Good News to every individual, an effective means is what we should look for. If we just being stubborn claiming we have to defeat the social injustice, sexual discrimination and so on and so forth so that we can create an utopia on earth, plainly, it is just unrealistic and just violate the basic principles of Liberation Theology.

[17] Here I have parallel a critical spirit as the essence of Liberation Theology. As I have argued in this paper, being critical to different social values can be contextually right; however, as I have argued, it is not the case in Hong Kong.

[18] In this essay, I shall concern the theology of Protestant Churches only.

[19] http://research.hkchurch.org/stats/stats_5.htm

[20] 懷恩浸信教會，周會報告。

[21]Census and Statistics Department, social data: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/
products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_report/social_data/index_tc_cd_B1130301_dt_latest.jsp

[22] It is an over simplified version of how much protestants churches is receiving in Hong Kong. What I mean to show is that, being rich is not evil, to run a church and other social services, we need capitals and this is something we already have and should not be deviated and labeled as evil.

[23] Unlike Liberation Theology, I do not believe there is priority between poor non-believer and rich non-believer, it is because in Hong Kong, as  I have argued, there is poverty, there is misfortune; but, not much of these people can be defined as the spiritually poor by using Gutierrez’s definition.  It is because some citizens in Hong Kong are enjoying less than the median; however, it doesn’t make their journey to the Kingdom of God harder. As Jesus has also suggested in Mark 19, “It is simpler for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a man with much money to go into the Kingdom of God.”  Put things otherwise, we have one mission and one mission only, leading non-believer to the Kingdom of God, in Hong Kong when everybody shares this opportunity, saying the poor deserves more time and effort is just reverse discriminating the prosperous.

[24] I do not mean poverty is a result of laziness, there are many reasons for poverty in Hong Kong. As I have suggested above, some are intrinsic and some are extrinsic. What is important here is that, in a city where we have a fair judicial system and relatively fair opportunities among gender, races and ages, it is paranoid and injustice to call those who get rich off as oppressors.

[25] I am open to a system that is better than Capitalism; however, as far as I know, Capitalism, though has it weakness is already one of the best workable systems we can use in Hong Kong. It is pretty much like I have criticized the limitation of Liberation Theology but I have to agree, in a region like Latin America, Liberation Theology is basically the best contextual theology theologians can advocate.

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&#23491;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。

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.