What Is Emergent Naturalism?

Naturalism/physicalism in its strictest sense says that the only things that exist are various arrangements of physical matter.  In this form, it is utterly incapable of being true [1].  This is because things like consciousness and logic are immaterial and are simply not composed of physical matter.

Just like seeing is different than an eyeball, consciousness is
different than a brain.  Consciousness cannot be an illusion,
 for perceiving an illusion requires consciousness [2].

Emergent naturalism, rather than deny outright that immaterial things like consciousness exist, holds that immaterial things are somehow generated by the physical world.  The word emergent refers to how nonphysical things like consciousness "emerge" when physical components are arranged in a certain way.  The dilemma of explaining just how this emergence occurs in terms of causality is called the hard problem of consciousness.

Consider the Internet as an example of the emergence concept.  The Internet is a vast series of pages and networks that one can access through a device like a desktop or laptop computer, smartphone, or tablet.  It itself is not a tangible, physical thing, although physical things are required to both generate and access it.

All computer software, like the Internet, is itself immaterial, yet
it only exists because of physical hardware.  One can grab the
 physical hardware because it is a tangible thing made of matter,
yet one cannot grab the software, only the thing that software
runs on.

At the very least, since a naturalism that denies the existence of immaterial things like consciousness simply cannot be true, emergent naturalism is the only form of naturalism that could even be legitimately considered by rational people.  Even this is only because, although it holds that the brain is the sole origin point of consciousness, it acknowledges that consciousness is objectively distinct from the brain.  Someone could be both an emergent naturalist and a mind-body dualist with regard to distinguishing consciousness/mind from the brain, although I rarely hear this clarified.  Emergent naturalism is still a kind of mind-body dualism!  Actually, depending on the scope of what one means by emergent naturalism, the emergent naturalist conception of consciousness is not logically incompatible with basic theism, free will, or the existence of immaterial entities like demons.  Emergent naturalism pertaining to consciousness is also, left to itself, not an intrinsically atheistic idea.

I must now explain that logic itself is immaterial, and it would exist even if there were neither conscious minds nor physical matter [3].  My conscious mind allows me to grasp logic, and the senses in my physical body allow me to grab matter; the immaterial grasps the immaterial and the material grasps the material.  Logic is not and cannot be some emergent phenomenon that comes about from the existence of matter because even if no matter existed logic, including the basic three laws of logic and the fact that certain things follow from others, still exists.  It cannot not exist!  It is intangible, transcends all physical things, and does not even rely on the existence of a mind for its own necessary existence.  Thus even if emergent naturalism is the correct explanation of consciousness there is still something immaterial that transcends all matter, meaning not all immaterial things are brought about by arrangements of matter.

How does Christianity relate to emergent naturalism?  Well, in Genesis 2:7 God himself is clearly credited with giving the breath of life--consciousness--to Adam.  Yet this does not in itself explain how consciousness is imbued into the next generation.  Does God specifically imbue each new baby with consciousness in the womb?  Did God make it so that each subsequent generation after Adam and Eve would receive consciousness in an emergent way?  Even the latter option would mean that God is at the very least still indirectly responsible for the emergence of consciousness after Adam and Eve.  Either way, even irrespective of the truth of Christianity, there is an uncaused cause, so whether or not emergent naturalism is the true explainer of consciousness there is a god if one uses "god" to mean the uncaused cause [4].  On a non-Christian theism, though, it is hypothetically possible that the uncaused cause created matter and that matter eventually produced mind.

Emergent naturalism (whether as pertaining to consciousness or the Internet or some other immaterial thing) must be distinguished from strict physicalism/naturalism because it actually admits the existence of some immaterial things.  As readers can hopefully see, while one can refute the strictest sort of naturalism rather easily, emergent naturalism requires more serious engagement.  There is still the enormous hurdle for emergent naturalists of solving the "hard problem," but, in the sense of logical proof or disproof, no one can actually verify or falsify emergent naturalism regarding human consciousness in its entirety.  But let's be clear: emergent naturalism does not contradict all theistic models.

What can a rationalist take away from studying emergent naturalism?  One can see that 1) consciousness is immaterial regardless of its exact origins, 2) consciousness is not the brain, 3) not all immaterial things (i.e. logic) are or even can be emergent, 4) and there is still an uncaused cause even if consciousness is emergent.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-refutation-of-naturalism.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/consciousness-cannot-be-illusory.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-immateriality-of-logic.html

[4].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html