A few weeks ago we had a discussion on list about religion because of 
evolution.

One view put forward was based on Dawkin's book refuting the 
existence of God.  I haven't read that book but after reading just a 
little more philosophy have a question.

There seems to be acceptance by many, including members of this list, 
of the concept of emergent properties, which I understand to have a 
meaning very similar to the proverb that the whole is greater than 
the sum of the parts.

Those who accept a view of emergent properties attribute human 
faculties such as consciousness to such a phenomenon.

So far as I know there is no evidence of emergent properties of 
matter on a greater scale, neither do I see any evidence against such 
emergent properties existing on an entirely different scale to the 
individual human, something that might, almost by definition, be 
incomprehensible to humans.  One might question whether such emergent 
properties would be relevant, but one might equally say, by analogy, 
that the difference in scale between a single white blood cell and a 
human individual is such that while they can affect each other 
neither can entirely "understand" the other.

Perhaps this is too obscure or too foolish, but it would be very 
interesting if anyone would like to try and answer the question:

"Why should we reject the concept of emergent properties at a scale 
greater than individual human organisms?"

It would seem to follow from this that if one accepts such a 
possibility, one must accept the possibility of something that might 
be called a god, or somethings that might be called gods, depending 
on definitions and importantly whether one has a unitary or pluralist view.

Julian