Teilhard de Chardin

[Archaeopteryx]

As part of my religion & society course, I investigated the thoughts of priest, paleontologist and philosopher Piere Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), and it is really quite interesting. He views Christianity from an evolutionary perspective and thus is able to talk about evolution as a creative process.
Consider the evolution of the geosphere- inanimate matter, to the biosphere- life and diversity (our 'seed-stage'-I Cor. 15:38), and then onward toward an Omega Point (referenced in Rev. 22:13 - 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.') in the noosphere, which could perhaps be referred to as the technical term for the Kingdom, in which we are 'born anew' in a spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:44)

 

[busterdog]

As part of my religion & society course, I investigated the thoughts of priest, paleontologist and philosopher Piere Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), and it is really quite interesting. He views Christianity from an evolutionary perspective and thus is able to talk about evolution as a creative process.
Consider the evolution of the geosphere- inanimate matter, to the biosphere- life and diversity (our 'seed-stage'-I Cor. 15:38), and then onward toward an Omega Point (referenced in Rev. 22:13 - 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.') in the noosphere, which could perhaps be referred to as the technical term for the Kingdom, in which we are 'born anew' in a spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:44)

Yes, the guy is interesting. Difficult to read, but interesting.

The idea of the development of consciousness as something that evolved is an interesting bit of poetry. But there is no science behind it. It indeed stirs the imagination, like the warp drive and reading a tachyon emissions field on your tricorder.

The idea of self-consciousness had a definite interpretation in Genesis. Man became aware that he was naked and hid himself.

The reason that this is quite unlike evolution is that it demonstrates the difference between a man who was whole and complete and a man who was broken and corrupt. Evolution presumes that it will march toward the complete and whole man, but that presumes a different direction in man's progress than that which the Bible suggests.

If man fell from completion, which is what the Bible says, de Chardin has no business trying to tell us what the Bible says. The nature of salvation is also something completely different. It is something God does that gives real life, even eternal life. There is no meaningful continuity between evolution and eternal life. Only a real and living God can give the latter.

De Chardin was not a Christian. He was a pationate ecumenist in the worst sense. Loving buddhists is a great thing. But, there is no other name by which we are saved but Jesus Christ. You don't need to believe in the concept of enlightenment to love Buddhists. We should not pretend that things like enlightenment bear any practical comparison to true salvation.

For example, stuff like the following is barely readable, and just doesn't make any sense:

One particularly poignant observation in Teilhard's book entails the notion that evolution is becoming an increasingly optional process.[3] Teilhard points to the societal problems of isolation and marginalization as huge inhibitors of evolution, especially since evolution requires a unification of consciousness. He states that "no evolutionary future awaits anyone except in association with everyone else."[4] This statement can effectively be seen as Teilhard's demand for unity insofar as the human condition necessitates it. He also states that "evolution is an ascent toward consciousness," and therefore, signifies a continuous upsurge toward the Omega Point, which for all intents and purposes, is God.

I mean really. What is an "ascent toward consciousness?"

 

[gluadys]

As part of my religion & society course, I investigated the thoughts of priest, paleontologist and philosopher Piere Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), and it is really quite interesting. He views Christianity from an evolutionary perspective and thus is able to talk about evolution as a creative process.
Consider the evolution of the geosphere- inanimate matter, to the biosphere- life and diversity (our 'seed-stage'-I Cor. 15:38), and then onward toward an Omega Point (referenced in Rev. 22:13 - 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.') in the noosphere, which could perhaps be referred to as the technical term for the Kingdom, in which we are 'born anew' in a spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:44)

I have always had a soft spot in my heart for Chardin. I was quite enthralled by The Phenomenon of Man as a university student (please remember that I majored in arts not science). I had only recently come to accept the fact of evolution and his was the first presentation of a Christian approach to evolution I came across. Heady stuff.

I think it a great shame that the RCC did not permit him to publish in his lifetime. This meant that his ideas did not receive the strong critique needed to develop them to maturity. In particular his notion that evolution is moving inevitably toward a goal (the Omega Point) now seems inconsistent with our understanding of biological evolution. I don't think he is necessarily wrong, but it's a concept that needs to be clarified further.

Chardin apparently owes a fair deal to an earlier school of evolutionary thought called "orthogenesis" which tended to see evolution as a drive toward improvement and perfection, especially through the human lineage. It was a sort of 19th century philosophy of Progress in pseudo-biological dress.

Stephen J. Gould often discusses how scientific ideas have changed over the years and he has several essays on this topic. Two of them are "The Wheel of Fortune and the Wedge of Progress" and "A Tale of Three Pictures" both found in Eight Little Piggies. The latter includes an illustration of an orthogenic phylogeny which makes arthropods ancestral to vertebrates--not something you will find on any cladistic tree today.

 

[gluadys]

De Chardin was not a Christian.

Please, busterdog. Do you not mean that he was not an evangelical Christian? He was certainly a devout Catholic Christian.

So he had an interest in Buddhism. There can be few Christians who have spent much time in Asian cultures who have not had to consider Buddhism. Thomas Merton was another Catholic monk who spent a lot of time studying Buddhism and in fact died in Asia on an excursion there to study it more deeply. I have heard of more than one person who considers themselves a Buddhist Christian.

Of course, there are both Buddhists and Christians who say that is an impossibility, and I dare say they are right, but there may not be as great a divide between Buddhism and Christianity as extremists would claim.

Nothing I know of restricts the Holy Spirit to working only in the lives of Christians.

 

[KerrMetric]

Nothing I know of restricts the Holy Spirit to working only in the lives of Christians.

Ridiculous. We all know, and just ask them, that only American evangelical/fundamentalists are the true portals for the Holy Spirit and the rest of us are spawn of Satan.

 

[FranciscanJ]

Kerr, you are not the spawn of Satan, at least not usually . I know I will spend the rest of my life promoting a stronger ecumenecism. Hey by the way, sorry if I ever seemed to accuse you of anything Kerr. Seriously.

You may have an interesting way of expressing yourself, and your theological views may be different, but you fight bad science from a right scientific perspective, and that I can agree is a good thing.

 

[gluadys]

. I know I will spend the rest of my life promoting a stronger ecumenecism. Hey by the way, sorry if I ever seemed to accuse you of anything Kerr. Seriously. .

That's a good thing to hear. Being a child of the United Church of Canada, I grew up with ecumenism and in later life most of my Christian ministry was in ecumenical circles. I am a strong believer in overcoming denominational barriers.

My husband was raised in a church that was suspicious of ecumenism, but before he met me, he had found those suspicions groundless and made close friendships even with people as suspect as "gasp" Catholics! "gasp".

Good thing, as I probably would not have given him a second glance otherwise.

Ecumenism originated on the mission field. It was driven by the need (not felt much back in Europe) for Christians to stick together and give a united witness to unbelievers. I think today that is even more necessary as now Europe and America are as much mission fields as India and China.

 

[Assyrian]

If man fell from completion, which is what the Bible says, de Chardin has no business trying to tell us what the Bible says.

Does it?

I mean really. What is an "ascent toward consciousness?"

A newborn might be the best person to ask, though you won't get a very coherent answer. Unfortunately by the time people are old enough to answer they have forgotten. Ask me again when I wake up.

 

[busterdog]

Please, busterdog. Do you not mean that he was not an evangelical Christian? He was certainly a devout Catholic Christian.

So he had an interest in Buddhism. There can be few Christians who have spent much time in Asian cultures who have not had to consider Buddhism.
Thomas Merton was another Catholic monk who spent a lot of time studying Buddhism and in fact died in Asia on an excursion there to study it more deeply. I have heard of more than one person who considers themselves a Buddhist Christian.

Of course, there are both Buddhists and Christians who say that is an impossibility, and I dare say they are right, but there may not be as great a divide between Buddhism and Christianity as extremists would claim.

Nothing I know of restricts the Holy Spirit to working only in the lives of Christians.

Buddhism teaches great things that do in fact help understand the Bible. Not that it needs my impratur, but obviously there is a lot of wisdom there. In Hinduism, the concept of Brahmin is very helpful to some understandings of Genesis, but you are still standing on the brink of a very destructive idolatry. There is great moral teaching in all of this, but again, there is poison in the well.

As for "Buddhist Christians" one of those views of who God is must be completely metaphorical and the other must be historically true. They can't both be true.

Personally, I found de Chardin's writing to be too much word salad. It was sort of inspiration witout content. Now, in a different wrapper, say Zen Buddhism, very similar ideas are more interesting to a crumudgeon like me. So, I acknowledge part of the problem is my proclivity.

The problem is when we start to confuse wisdom and morals with salvation. Chardin is an example of how bad origins theology can be of one piece with a complete corruption of the Gospel -- which occurs at the point where the basis for true salvation is denied:
>>

De Chardin further acknowledges a disbelief in the Creation, Adam, Eve and original sin as taught to us in Scripture and in our Catechism. Evil and sin, he asserts, is not the result of a historical Fall from grace but rather a natural and inevitable byproduct of the evolutionary process that culminates in the Omega point. If this be correct, what need is there for redemption and the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus? De Chardin himself refers to the Creation, miracles, original sin and Resurrection as “vulgar notions.” Are these the beliefs of an orthodox and “holy priest?”

>>
>> http://www.thevillagenews.com/story.asp?story_ID=6204

Not every Christian makes this mistake, but de Chardin replaces the resurrection and the Romans 10 confession with a different path to salvation. And he does this in part with ideas from Darwin and Eastern religion. Others can remain Christian and traffic in these ideas to their benefit.

Obviously the YECs believe the use of Darwin is an example of why Darwin is best avoided -- it errs on the nature of our need for salvation and thus flirts with a basis to deny the One who is our salvation. The Bible is clear who He is: not just some "god", but the One who rose from the dead. THat is His identity. So, I am not moved by de Chardin's devotion to "God".

Having found a new basis for salvation, Paul is pretty clear about how to regard this teaching. The man is anathema (or at least his teachings are).

Not coincidentally, de Chardin is a perfect example of why the "knowledge of good and evil" was a problem. De Chardin wants more of that fruit, ie, greater "consciousness". You know where this pursuit of the "omega point" leads? To people shivering in the bushes, clothed in fig leaves, hiding from God and waiting to die. Perhaps worse yet, the "consciousness" he wants is to be "like the most high."

"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

 

[busterdog]

Please, busterdog. Do you not mean that he was not an evangelical Christian? He was certainly a devout Catholic Christian.

So he had an interest in Buddhism. There can be few Christians who have spent much time in Asian cultures who have not had to consider Buddhism.
Thomas Merton was another Catholic monk who spent a lot of time studying Buddhism and in fact died in Asia on an excursion there to study it more deeply. I have heard of more than one person who considers themselves a Buddhist Christian.

Of course, there are both Buddhists and Christians who say that is an impossibility, and I dare say they are right, but there may not be as great a divide between Buddhism and Christianity as extremists would claim.

Nothing I know of restricts the Holy Spirit to working only in the lives of Christians.

Buddhism teaches great things that do in fact help understand the Bible. Not that it needs my impratur, but obviously there is a lot of wisdom there. In Hinduism, the concept of Brahmin is very helpful to some understandings of Genesis, but you are still standing on the brink of a very destructive idolatry. There is great moral teaching in all of this, but again, there is poison in the well.

As for "Buddhist Christians" one of those views of who God is must be completely metaphorical and the other must be historically true. They can't both be true.

Personally, I found de Chardin's writing to be too much word salad. It was sort of inspiration witout content. Now, in a different wrapper, say Zen Buddhism, very similar ideas are more interesting to a crumudgeon like me. So, I acknowledge part of the problem is my proclivity.

The problem is when we start to confuse wisdom and morals with salvation. Chardin is an example of how bad origins theology can be of one piece with a complete corruption of the Gospel -- which occurs at the point where the basis for true salvation is denied:
>>

De Chardin further acknowledges a disbelief in the Creation, Adam, Eve and original sin as taught to us in Scripture and in our Catechism. Evil and sin, he asserts, is not the result of a historical Fall from grace but rather a natural and inevitable byproduct of the evolutionary process that culminates in the Omega point. If this be correct, what need is there for redemption and the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus? De Chardin himself refers to the Creation, miracles, original sin and Resurrection as “vulgar notions.” Are these the beliefs of an orthodox and “holy priest?”

>>
>> http://www.thevillagenews.com/story.asp?story_ID=6204

Not every Christian makes this mistake, but de Chardin replaces the resurrection and the Romans 10 confession with a different path to salvation. And he does this in part with ideas from Darwin and Eastern religion. Others can remain Christian and traffic in these ideas to their benefit.

Obviously the YECs believe the use of Darwin is an example of why Darwin is best avoided -- it errs on the nature of our need for salvation and thus flirts with a basis to deny the One who is our salvation. The Bible is clear who He is: not just some "god", but the One who rose from the dead. THat is His identity. So, I am not moved by de Chardin's devotion to "God".

Having found a new basis for salvation, Paul is pretty clear about how to regard this teaching. The man is anathema (or at least his teachings are).

Not coincidentally, de Chardin is a perfect example of why the "knowledge of good and evil" was a problem. De Chardin wants more of that fruit, ie, greater "consciousness". You know where this pursuit of the "omega point" leads? To people shivering in the bushes, clothed in fig leaves, hiding from God and waiting to die. Perhaps worse yet, the "consciousness" he wants is to be "like the most high."

"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

 

[Assyrian]

So you think God really did create an 'omega point' tree in the garden whose fruit is a poison that leads to evil and sin?

 

[busterdog]

So you think God really did create an 'omega point' tree in the garden whose fruit is a poison that leads to evil and sin?

Yes of course.

Now, Charles Heston was also Moses, so de Chardin does have credibility on this one.

Unfortunately, I have inadvertently proven the theory of evolution, since he was Taylor in Planet of the Apes.

I am trying to be funny, since I am otherwise recoiling in pain from the horrifically contrived and pretensious concept of the "Omega Point". Its a pretty stupid idea. Its like the painful experience of a really bad singer at Church that you try to be nice to. Except here you don't have to be nice.

 

[gluadys]

As for "Buddhist Christians" one of those views of who God is must be completely metaphorical and the other must be historically true. They can't both be true.

I would tend to agree with you here, yet I also see a lot of commonalities in Buddhist and Christian perspectives too. As you say, Buddhism does provide some very helpful food for thought even if a Christian cannot truly be a "Buddhist Christian" (or vice versa).

Personally, I found de Chardin's writing to be too much word salad. It was sort of inspiration witout content.

This is why I regret that he was unable to publish during his lifetime. A genuine scholarly dialogue would have forced him to clarify many of his mystical concepts or consigned him to irrelevancy. As it is, he is stranded somewhere between.

The problem is when we start to confuse wisdom and morals with salvation. Chardin is an example of how bad origins theology can be of one piece with a complete corruption of the Gospel -- which occurs at the point where the basis for true salvation is denied:

A diatribe from one highly opinionated critic who has to admit the Church never found Chardin to be heretical. Furthermore, not a word in his list says anything of Chardin's beliefs about Christ, the atonement, the resurrection or salvation. So it doesn't make the link you allege between "bad origins theology" and "complete corruption of the gospel."

Obviously, the Church did have troubles with Chardin's work--hence the refusal of an Imprimatur. But this is not evidence that he questioned Church dogma at all.

Not every Christian makes this mistake, but de Chardin replaces the resurrection and the Romans 10 confession with a different path to salvation. And he does this in part with ideas from Darwin and Eastern religion. Others can remain Christian and traffic in these ideas to their benefit.

I am certainly not here to defend everything Chardin said. I don't see him as a strong theologian, but as someone struggling, not always successfully, to bring together the various extra-biblical sources of truth he was discovering with the truth of the Christian faith. I think he does overstate himself sometimes. But I don't think his weaknesses amount to a mandate to exile him from the Christian community.

Having found a new basis for salvation, Paul is pretty clear about how to regard this teaching. The man is anathema (or at least his teachings are).

A step in the right direction. Perhaps some of his teachings are anathema. Though let us note that the Church has never formally defined any as such. But that doesn't mean the man is. And it was the condemnation of the man I questioned.

I also do not find a basis for claiming Chardin found a new basis for salvation. That looks to me more like a misinterpretation of Chardin than a teaching of Chardin.

You know where this pursuit of the "omega point" leads? To people shivering in the bushes, clothed in fig leaves, hiding from God and waiting to die.

Given that the Omega Point is Christ, I think you are mistaking where pursuing it will take you.

Perhaps worse yet, the "consciousness" he wants is to be "like the most high."

"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

I think you are equivocating again. The prophet's description of ambition does not pertain to expansion of consciousness at all.

And if a Christian is not seeking greater conscious awareness (especially of God) and to be more and more like Christ who is the express image of God, s/he is surely not maturing in the faith.

In short there are ways of seeking to be like the most High that are rebellious and blasphemous and ways of seeking to be like the most High that are positively enjoined on us. "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." "You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy." "Beloved, since God loved us so much, we ought also to love one another."

 

[Assyrian]

Yes of course.

And he's still carrying a rifle.

Now, Charles Heston was also Moses, so de Chardin does have credibility on this one.

Unfortunately, I have inadvertently proven the theory of evolution, since he was Taylor in Planet of the Apes.

I am trying to be funny, since I am otherwise recoiling in pain from the horrifically contrived and pretensious concept of the "Omega Point". Its a pretty stupid idea. Its like the painful experience of a really bad singer at Church that you try to be nice to. Except here you don't have to be nice.

Busterdog not nice? Never.

Anyway it was good seeing you run out an allegorical interpretation of the tree of knowledge.

 

[busterdog]

I would tend to agree with you here, yet I also see a lot of commonalities in Buddhist and Christian perspectives too. As you say, Buddhism does provide some very helpful food for thought even if a Christian cannot truly be a "Buddhist Christian" (or vice versa).



This is why I regret that he was unable to publish during his lifetime. A genuine scholarly dialogue would have forced him to clarify many of his mystical concepts or consigned him to irrelevancy. As it is, he is stranded somewhere between.




A diatribe from one highly opinionated critic who has to admit the Church never found Chardin to be heretical. Furthermore, not a word in his list says anything of Chardin's beliefs about Christ, the atonement, the resurrection or salvation. So it doesn't make the link you allege between "bad origins theology" and "complete corruption of the gospel."

Obviously, the Church did have troubles with Chardin's work--hence the refusal of an Imprimatur. But this is not evidence that he questioned Church dogma at all.



I am certainly not here to defend everything Chardin said. I don't see him as a strong theologian, but as someone struggling, not always successfully, to bring together the various extra-biblical sources of truth he was discovering with the truth of the Christian faith. I think he does overstate himself sometimes. But I don't think his weaknesses amount to a mandate to exile him from the Christian community.



A step in the right direction. Perhaps some of his teachings are anathema. Though let us note that the Church has never formally defined any as such. But that doesn't mean the man is. And it was the condemnation of the man I questioned.

I also do not find a basis for claiming Chardin found a new basis for salvation. That looks to me more like a misinterpretation of Chardin than a teaching of Chardin.



Given that the Omega Point is Christ, I think you are mistaking where pursuing it will take you.



I think you are equivocating again. The prophet's description of ambition does not pertain to expansion of consciousness at all.

And if a Christian is not seeking greater conscious awareness (especially of God) and to be more and more like Christ who is the express image of God, s/he is surely not maturing in the faith.

In short there are ways of seeking to be like the most High that are rebellious and blasphemous and ways of seeking to be like the most High that are positively enjoined on us. "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." "You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy." "Beloved, since God loved us so much, we ought also to love one another."

Sounds pretty fair, until we get to the end. Well, its all fair, I guess, but I don't think we have the liberty of being too favorable on a number of points.

While, we all appreciate and benefit from grace. We are saved by grace and carried through our own particular errors by grace. But, grace does not save everyone from everything. One limit is that there is no other name by which men may be saved, but Jesus. Another limit is all that Paul has to say about denying the resurrection.

Is the Omega point something happening in or through Christ? What Christ? The one who was never resurrected? I really think it is fair to push hard on something like that. Is there grace yet for someone who doesn't know Jesus because he doesn't know that there was a resurrection? All things are possible with God. But, to be faithful to the Word, there does come a time when it is sheep and goats and this is goat talk.

Edited to add: there is greater judgment upon false teaching as opposed to simple getting your facts wrong in such matters. Certainly de Chardin is intended to be teaching by many and perhaps they bear responsibility.

Upon reflection, there should be some point where an individual draws the line. De Chardin's standing with the Lord is completely outside of my reckoning, since one must judge the whole life, not just a few moments or books. Only God can do that. That being said, the teaching offered is a very big problem on two counts: 1. the importance of believing and confessing that Jesus rose from the dead and that He is Lord; and 2. Our "blessed hope" as defined by Paul is the redemption of the Church and eventually of this planet by the intervention of Jesus, not a consensus on the Omega point. If a human being can't save himself, how are humans collectively going to save this civilization?