Ship of Fools: Pierre De Chardin's "Christianity and Evolution"

Thread: Pierre De Chardin's "Christianity and Evolution" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026669

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Has this amazing book ever been discussed on The Ship? I found a paperback copy of this book in a used book bin and decided to try reading it as one of my favorite "persons", the late Father Andrew M. Greeley was clearly influenced by De Chardin's beliefs. This book is blowing my mind, what parts I can actually understand! Before I get into it, has anyone else read it? What did you think of it? The entire notion of there being no Fall and that sin didn't, in fact, come from one man named Adam and one woman named Eve is just flooring me. I gave up on the whole "Original Sin" concept years ago but it's a shock to read similar conclusions in this book. Any thoughts? Commentaries? Discussions?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I picked up a copy from a second hand shop at least 15 years ago. I read it, but I admit to not having any definite memories of what he says. I suspect, like most of what I've read over the years, I've assimilated what I read into my thinking even though I don't remember the precise sources.

I've just confirmed my copy is on the bookshelves here. Perhaps it's time to read it again.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

You had me briefly confused there with reference to one "Pierre De Chardin", until I googled and realized that "Pierre" was the first name of Teilhard de Chardin. The man is usually referred to as "Teilhard de Chardin" or "Teilhard" for short. Since I have not read the book in question, nor any of his other works, I will not comment on that. I'm just mildly curious why a denial of original sin would be so shocking to you. That's modern heresy 101, isn't it?

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

I am inspired by Teilhard's outlook on humanity and the cosmos. I am very attracted to the idea of the Cosmic Christ and it seems to me it can speak well to modern science.

His language can be complex but there have been some works explaining him.

It would indeed be good to discuss more.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Clotilde: I am very attracted to the idea of the Cosmic Christ and it seems to me it can speak well to modern science.

What would the Cosmic Christ be?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I haven't read him for a long time but as a (no doubt arrogant) teenager my impression was "This guy doesn't understand Christianity or evolution".

As best as I could understand it, he was saying that the kingdom of God would be emergent from the natural development of the cosmos, as shown by the evolutionary ladder, order emerging out of chaos, the life-force self-organising principle etcetera (or something) culminating in an Omega Point where man/the universe as a whole undergoes apotheosis/identification with God (or something).

From an evolutionary point of view this is one of those things that makes you go "Whut". At the time I had been reading lots of Stephen Jay Gould - one of his major emphases is the undirected nature of natural selection, so that life is a bush rather than a ladder; it's not aiming at anything. Teilhard didn't seem to understand this - it looked like he was just trying to smuggle in some sort of Intelligent Design. One could argue further about this - perhaps along the lines of convergent evolution (a la Simon Conway Morris) but Dead Horses would probably be the place for that.

Similarly the whole concept of Omega Point/ salvation resulting from the natural progress of the universe seemed to be a big "duh" also. It seemed to be a denial not just of Original Sin but of sin in general. If everything is just going to develop wonderfully well of its own nature, why bother with Jesus or God at all, let alone all that painful crucifixion stuff?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I guess that if you can discuss the theology of Teihard de Chardin without making it all about creation and evolution, this can stay here, otherwise Lousie and TonyK will have the pleasure of Hosting you in in Dead Horses.

B62, Purg Host

[ 06. January 2014, 11:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I read it about 40 years ago but i still think it is relevant.

However, it is all a bit poetic and pseudoscience (and I DO know that he was a scientist but his use of scientific words reminds me of Matthew Fox - seductive until you realise that it is heretical.)

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

I first came across him by reading the fantasy/SF series by Julian May - the Milieu Trilogy of Jack the Bodiless, Diamond Mask and Magnificat - which uses some of Teilhard de Chardin's ideas.

Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on :

It seems to me that there are a rnade of being heretical. There are people who just want to have the bits they agree with and drop or mythologise the rest, there are people off on their own agenda and then there are those who strike out in an original way and maybe don't succeed a proper balance in the eyes of those who follow them but have nevertheless enabled genuine growth in thought - Origin being the obvious example. Teilhard bridged an opening divide between science and theology and tried to use scientific thought as what Harry Williams would call a 'dancing partenr' of theology instead of our old partner of Graeco-Roman Western philosophy. its a path that needs following.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

That "dancing partner" idea is a very interesting one, Chas-otD, and maybe worthy of a thread of its own. My first reaction is that Graeco-Roman philosophy was a rather good dancing partner for Christian theology, whereas current scientific thought is a really bad one - they stomp around treading on each other's feet, not even doing the same sort of dance. Teilhard would then appear to me as an well-meaning matchmaker sort who tries to makes them do a weird new dance of his own invention, but which doesn't really suit either of them.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Old joke that the theologians thought he was a good palaeontologist and the palaeontologists thought he was a good theologian.

He has often been accused of having something to do with the Piltodown Man scam, which is at least interesting, even if not true.

Frank Tipler took his theologicocosmical speculations to new highs, or possibly lows, though no-one much seems to believe him (apart from perhaps a few retro-nutty Mormons, whose traditional cosmology fits quite well with that sort of stuff)

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Oh. I didn't even realize I might be skirting the whole Evolution thing. Sorry about that. Yes, I suppose this topic does belong in Dead Horses because I would be mentioning evolution. And, IngoB., thanks for the clarification of his name. I wasn't sure about it but I was taking his name off of the book jacket.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

I am a great fan of Teilhard. Read him first as an older teenager and he is one of the few writers/thinkers who have 'accompanied' me ever since.

The important thing is to read him in context, and by that I mean the context of the language in which he writes (it sounds much more solid in the original French) and also the context of his times.

Thirdly, and importantly, he must be taken for what he was: A polymath scientist grounded in the Classics, with great intuition (inductive capability?), and the fact that this kind of person has (most unfortunately) been weeded out almost completely in the post-modern world of academe (or what's left of it) makes his writings seem strange to today's reader.

Reading him is an adventure for the mind and the soul. It gives one a grasp of the mystery of incarnation. And it is a powerful invitation to at least consider process theology.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I've always thought that Teillard more or less purveyed bullshit dressed up in flowery language, and have to confess that I only managed to struggle through a bit of his oeuvre.

For a good knockabout review of one of his books I would recommend Peter Medawar's review

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Rats. The URL didn't work.

The link is! http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

45+ years ago, Teilhard de Chardin was very chic among youngish religious thinkers, clergy etc., most of whom would now be over 75 or, as the SA is alleged to put it, promoted to glory. We were always being told how significant he was. I tried to read something by him, and couldn't see it. So I regret (no, that's untrue, I don't really regret) that I've never looked at him since. It seems you either find him exciting or you can't see the point, and I fall in the latter category.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The specifics de Chardin went into might be wrong, but I think the bigger picture is true and useful:

The history of the universe is moving in a direction towards the renewal of all things: the New Heaven and the New Earth. We'll never completely get there until the Second Coming when things will change radically, but the universe is still moving in that direction here and now. The Kingdom of God is here on Earth, but it is not in the completion that it will have when Christ returns and Good vanquishes Evil forever.

As for Sin and Redemption, I think that those ideas are still good and necessary in the worldview I described above. Even if creation is developing towards the final fulfillment of the Kingdom of God, it is still broken, and humans still live with the consequences of Sin. So we need the redemption offered by Christ.

I don't want to send this thread into DH, so I won't go into the whole Intelligent Design debate. But suffice to say that the ideas I describe above have nothing to do with the mechanism of natural selection and should not influence what scientists, even scientists with deep religious faith, think about the mechanism of natural selection.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The specifics de Chardin went into might be wrong, but I think the bigger picture is true and useful:

The history of the universe is moving in a direction towards the renewal of all things: the New Heaven and the New Earth. We'll never completely get there until the Second Coming when things will change radically, but the universe is still moving in that direction here and now. The Kingdom of God is here on Earth, but it is not in the completion that it will have when Christ returns and Good vanquishes Evil forever.

As for Sin and Redemption, I think that those ideas are still good and necessary in the worldview I described above. Even if creation is developing towards the final fulfillment of the Kingdom of God, it is still broken, and humans still live with the consequences of Sin. So we need the redemption offered by Christ.

I don't want to send this thread into DH, so I won't go into the whole Intelligent Design debate. But suffice to say that the ideas I describe above have nothing to do with the mechanism of natural selection and should not influence what scientists, even scientists with deep religious faith, think about the mechanism of natural selection.

Thank you for this. It's what I would've said if I had had the words for it! I was especially taken with his idea that humanity, in Christ, is heading towards an "Omega point" where we will truly be ourselves, that is fully human but with Christ's essence living in us. Ooops, there I go again, kind of being clunky. I think you know what I mean. Teilhard did say a few things that made me not so enchanted with him but I've gone back, after the strong emotions subsided, to think about things some more. What got me lathered up? He says something to the effect of: Only the Roman Catholic church is really capable of moving humanity along towards this Omega point. Only the Roman Catholic church, with its sacraments is the "vehicle" by which all will come to recognize the truth.

Boy, that rankled me! I'm an ex-Roman Catholic and I consider myself more non-denominational Protestant, more than anything. Somehow, though, reading that got me longing for the majesty and mystery inherent in the Catholic Mass. Believe it or not, I may have to visit a Catholic church again very soon. Read what he has to say about Communion. If you've not been raised Catholic, it probably won't hit you quite the same way it hit me. Going to various non-denominational Protestant churches HAS left a void in me. There's just something profoundly holy about Catholic Communion.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

As an RC (albeit a very heterodox one) I would be happy to see you pay a visit to an RC Mass, but I am sure that there must be Episcopal parishes or parishes of other non-RC traditions not too far from you that have a very High understanding of the Eucharist and are very reverent of the Mystery of its celebration. (I'm not going into the whole "What denomination has the real Eucharist?" debate.)

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
As an RC (albeit a very heterodox one) I would be happy to see you pay a visit to an RC Mass, but I am sure that there must be Episcopal parishes or parishes of other non-RC traditions not too far from you that have a very High understanding of the Eucharist and are very reverent of the Mystery of its celebration. (I'm not going into the whole "What denomination has the real Eucharist?" debate.)

Yes, I realized this after I wrote it. I need to find a church where I feel welcome, my partner feels welcome, should she decide to attend, etc. When we lived in the city of Atlanta, there was a lovely Episcopal church that we went to a few times and quite liked but the location is too far for us to travel to on the bus/train now. I'll have to do some questing in our own area. I shall make that one of my new year's resolutions! [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0