Talk:Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Sainte Foy-the-Lyon

Shouldn't that be Sainte Foy-de-Lyon? By the way, the end of this article seems to be missing. What happened? --Tamas 20:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is Sainte-Foy-lès-Lyon. I have corrected it. olivier 23:46, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links seem biased against Teilhard.

I will see what else I can find, but these links seem predominantly anti Teilhard. --Peacenik 21:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest the editors of this page investigate further some of the external links you have on the bottom of the page. In particular, the link titled "Teilhard, Darwin, And The Cosmic Christ" links to a particularly extremist point of view, that is it seems to present a a view point that is only representative of the particular authors point of view. The other material on this persons website is really fruitloop sort of stuff. I would argue that it is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Cheers. 61.29.35.190 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A humble request

I certainly appreciate, from the tone of much of the discussion, that Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy is a deeply controversial matter, even today. Perhaps that is why so little information on it is to be found in the encyclopedia article. But that is a very serious problem. I looked up this article, as I imagine most people do, in order to learn something about that philosophy--that is, after all, the most significant reason why the man is of interest today, right? But the article is almost totally unhelpful in this regard, as it consists primarily of a resume of where he attended school, what jobs he worked at, and when he wrote various books and essays. These writings seem to have caused some degree of upset in the Catholic church, but why this is, is never discussed.

Can you imagine the same sort of article about, say, Augustine? Or Aristotle?

Is there any way the obviously energetic and well-informed community represented in this talk page can produce even a couple of paragraphs on the content of Teilhard de Chardin's ideas? That, I can assure you, is what the non-initiated visiting this page want to know about.

Thank you, Craig B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.65.192 (talk • contribs) 09:08, June 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Church" vs "church"

Some edits have been changing occurances of "the Church" to "the church" (decapitalizing). I'm sure that this discussion has happened elsewhere in wikipedia, maybe somebody can refer us there. It is my understanding that a capitalized "the Church" is understood to refer to the political/organizational heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and is therefore appropriately capitalized in many places in this article. Any WP precedent on this? --Staecker 21:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Art drawing vs. photograph

Excellent drawing of Teilhard, yet I must ask why this subjective rendition MUST be the principal image of teilhard? Since photographs exist, it would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia in providing the clearest facts to not use art but actual images of Teilhard. Not that the drawings of Teilhard don't have a place on the page. THEY DO. Yet I would suggest that they not be used as the main picture. This will have to be remedied eventually. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.43.190 (talk • contribs) 19:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC) (CLAVIO July 31, 2005)

I totally agree with you, but we have to use Free (as in "Free licence") material whenever possible. Obviously, if a Free photograph can be found, it will be far superior to the portrait and will have to replace it. The lack of Free images is a common problem, which I try to address in this way (see List of sex positions, CPR, ...) :p Cheers ! Rama 03:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore and Pop Culture

I think that the reference to Teilhard de Chardin by Al Gore is appropriate for the category. The reason for this being 1) English Popular articles on Teilhard frequently cite this connection, including the Wired article 2) The amount of intellectual discussion provoked by Al Gore's book in the context of popular history, ie. "Bible Christian" Republicans picking up on this connection. 3)The influence of Teilhard on some of the existing "pop ecology", which I would argue Al Gore's book is a part of. 4) Generally if something seems "too trivial" it rather needs to be edited or expounded on rather than axed or erased. As a rule wikipedia is not perfect, and some things on this page seem sort of based on different projects, like the massive paragraph on Ong, or the integrist block but i believe rather than deleting them that they can be integrated into the article, for instance if there is ever a category on "influence" then the Ong paragraph will go there, including the integrist block. This being said the Al Gore reference belongs in "pop culture" because of the continuing popular vibrations from this inclusion of Teilhard into the book: Earth in the Balance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.27.67 (talk • contribs) 16:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC) (CLAVIO September 10, 2005)

[edit] Chardin

I would normally shorten Teilhard de Chardin to Teilhard as is done in the article. However, on reading French names#Particles (5th & 6th paragraphs), it seems more appropriate to abbreviate his name to Chardin. This does feel a bit strange to me, but it might be a good idea not to abbreviate his name at all in the article. --Gareth Hughes 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chardinist, Chardinism Help with definitions, Please!

ESR refers to 'Chardinist idealism' in 'The Art of Unix Programming,' however I cannot find a definition of the term anywhere on the web or the Wikipedia. Is this a nuance of the 'noosphere?' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuffduff (talk • contribs) 13:32, October 4, 2005 (UTC)

Collaborative development and the sharing of source code was a valued tactic for Unix programmers. To the early ARPANET hackers, on the other hand, it was more than a tactic: it was something rather closer to a shared religion, partly arising from the academic "publish or perish" imperative and (in its more extreme versions) developing into an almost Chardinist idealism about networked communities of minds. The most famous of these hackers, Richard M. Stallman, became the ascetic saint of that religion. Eric Steven Raymond, The Art of Unix Programming
Chardin was deeply optimistic about the future, believing that the ultimate fate of the cosmos was a mystical, universally-unifying Omega Point. This is very similar to Satchitananda (being-consciousness-bliss) of Eastern philosophy. A Chardinist idealism sees collaboration as a wholly good thing, a virtuous circle that builds on itself and steadily increases in accuracy and information. Much like wikipedia. --goethean ॐ 22:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Really needs more

I have to agree that the section on teilhgard's ideas really needs beefing up...defining of his special terms (noosphere, etc.)...outlining his argument...and then, fairly, presenting both the implications and the conflict he represents with traditional notions of original sin, human nature, Christ etc.HarvardOxon 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge noogenesis here?

I found the very short stub noogenesis. It is not much more than a substub, which defines the word as a term coined by de Chardin. His work should be included in the article about himself, and unless someone feels like writing an article about the concept of noogenesis I guess it is better to merge that article here for now. // Konvalj 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a bit to it. I think the article bears further development as a part of his work. Teilhard wrote about noogenesis in many of his books. If it is merged, it would be better to move it into an overall discussion of his work like the omega point. --Blainster 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be some discussion of noogenesis in the "Teachings" section of this de Chardin page. There should also be a section of internal links that include the noosphere and Omega Point pages.Sarahstoune 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not in favour of merging the two articles. As all articles bearing the name of a person Pierre Teilhard de Chardin should be biographical. But it would be good somebody gathers 'Noogenesis', 'Omega point' and other themes and theories of the man under another article called Teilhardism (not Chardinism). The word Teilhardism is already in use.Zerged 16:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not in favor of merging Noogenesis with a de Chardin biography, but it could work as a subsection in a merged article with Noosphere, which is already more detailed. Keep the individual elements of de Chardin's work separated from each other, because of their interdisciplinary nature. MMetro 05:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is time to say that this discussion is moot and remove the merger tags. There has been no discussion in more than two months, and the merge tags have been in place since February. It looks deadlocked to me. Besides that, the noogenesis article has been improved, and further work can be done here on his development of the theory. Merger is no longer necessary. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I have removed the merge tags. Feel free to reinstate them if anyone thinks this discussion can be moved forward and is still necessary. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretations of Genesis

The second paragraph of the article used to read:

Teilhard's primary book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos. He abandoned a literal interpretation of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of a metaphorical interpretation. This displeased certain officials in the Roman Curia, who thought that it undermined the doctrine of original sin developed by Saint Augustine. Teilhard's position was opposed by his church superiors, and his work was denied publication during his lifetime by the Roman Holy Office.

I am certainly not a specialist on Teilhard, but this can't be right. Saint Augustine himself favoured an interpretation of Genesis that was far from literal. The Catholic Encyplopaedia attests that biological accounts of evolution and creation were seen as mostly compatible with Catholic docrine early in the 20th century. What I gather from secondary sources and the current Wikipedia article is that the real issue was Teilhard's idea that original sin was a unavoidable byproduct of biological evolution, leaving no room for man's disobbedience as the cause of the Fall. THis led me to substitute traditional interpretations for a literal interpretation and less strict for methaphorical above, but this paragraph probably needs some extra care from some Teilhard specialist who also understands Church doctrine. Rimfo 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Teilhard Information!

Hello, I'm new on Wikipedia. I agree that the noogenesis article should be expanded and merged into Teilhard's page.

The page has an excellent biography, it just needs his thought now.

I can draw an outline of his thought, define a few key concepts (omega point, noosphere etc.), and lay out the issues which question his orthodoxy.

Do I just edit the page? Ridabewa 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, if we are going to merge some pages into this one, you may want to wait for us to do that before adding info, so that you don't repeat what others have done. Or we can merge all three of the stub articles into a new one called Philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin like this one. — goethean ॐ 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
ok cool, so i'll just wait? that Philosophy of Teilhard article sounds like a good idea.Ridabewa 08:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piltdown implication

Though there are many links offsite, the article itself does little to explain Teilhard de Chardin's involvement. MMetro 06:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

see e.g. The Piltdown Inquest --FreezBee (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teilhard's Teleological Evolutionary Theory

On a related matter, the article implies that Teilhard advocated a Darwinian model of evolution, while many biologists see Teilhard's belief in evolution towards a pre-defined goal (the Omega point) to be anything but Darwinian.

Some discussion of Teilhard's divergence from classical evolutionary theory is called for.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teilhard in popular culture

The title of this section is, to say the least, problematic. Some of the entries in this section have nothing to do with popular culture (e.g., a university residence hall). Whilst others are trivial (and Wikipedia has a policy against trivia sections). The great majority of it, however, could be rearranged into a section on Teilhard's influence, a section that would be something more than just a list. It could and should include his influence on Flannery O'Connor as well as his continuing contemporary ifluence on people such as Father Thomas Berry, as well as others. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical confusion

From 1912 to 1914, Teilhard worked ... in Paris, studying the mammals of the middle Tertiary sector. Later he studied in Europe.

So where's Paris, then? Could someone who knows the detail here amend Europe to something more substantive? C0pernicus (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Inconsistent statements of fact

The introductory paragraph says: "Pope John XXIII rehabilitated him posthumously, and, since then, his works have been considered an important influence on the contemporary church's stance on evolution." This statement is repeated by many other sources, but I can find no support for it, including in this article.

Later, under the heading "Controversy with Church officials," it is explained that the Church issued a Monitum against his writings in 1962 - during John XXIII's papacy - and confirmed its continued validity in 1981.

The article misleadingly quotes from the 1996 statement of Pope John Paul II about "this theory," implying endorsement of Teilhard; the quoted statement actually indicates weak support for the possible merit of the general theory of evolution, and makes no mention of Teilhard's work or writings at all.

So if someone thinks John Paul XXIII "rehabilitated" him, I'd like to see a citation.

SteveG23 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chardin results and inspiration

It would be appropriate to mention he is a founder to New Age. It would be appropriate his connection sources to oriental pantheism, such as cosmic christ - that the deity is immanent with matter and world flows through calps.

Also bring to sun his jesuit purposes and goals. -Jan Mojzis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.101.9 (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "section 'Controversy with Church officials'"

This section is subtly misleading. The 1962 monitum did not come from the Holy Office but from the quasi-official arm of the Vatican, the newspaper l'Osservatore Romano. The newspaper was very clear about which of his works were considered suspect. Only Teilhard's scientific writings were considered dangerous. Further, Teilhard had several major apologetic writings supporting both his faith/spirituality and his scientific writings. His greatest apologists were his friends Henri Cardinal De Lubac who wrote two major works on Teilhard: The Faith of Teilhard de Chardin and The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin. Christopher Mooney wrote a definitive work called Teilhard and the Mystery of Christ. Care must be taken to gather the facts objectively when dealing with an important spiritual thinker like Teilhard de Chardin.

Further to this on May 12, 1981 Cardinal Casaroli, on behalf of John Paul II wrote a letter to the Intstitut Catholique de Paris commending the works, "astonishing resonance of his research", of Teilhard de Chardin. The entire letter was published in the June 10, 1981 edition of l'Osservatore Romano. This letter in its entirety is considered an official rehabilitation of Teilhard's works. Also, the letter of July 30, 1981 published in the English edition of the Vatican newspaper makes reference to comments already made in Cardinal Casaroli's letter. These comments are in the past tense and are referring to the critical works of the people above and others. Those who seek solace in the 1962 monitum should consult the works of these theologians along with the brief comments on Teilhard's work from theologians like Bernard Lonergan and Karl Rahner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teilhard de Chardin and the monitum of 1962

Reference number 3 is from a secondary source and not a primary source. The entire text of Cardinal Casaroli's rehabilition letter can be found on the front page of l'Osservatore Romano dated June 10, 1981. The tone of the letter is clear. As has been noted in the above comments, the monitum of 1962 is specific on the kinds of works that are considered suspect and the subsequent comments from l'Osservatore on the English editon of July 30, 1981 are not adequately cited since it refers to a brief snippet from a secondary source. Cardinal Casaroli's letter is carefully worded. Those who have concerns about wording should consult primary sources rather than secondary sources.

Also, all of Teilhard's collected works are available in English. The French editions of his works were translated and are published in Collins editions, St. James Place, London. The English titles of these books are improperly referred to in the text of the article but are cited correctly in the Bibliography section. Other works, like Letters from a Soldier Priest, Writings in Time of War, Vision of the Past etc. all of which are available in English go unmentioned in the Bibliograpy.

It should also be noted that an excellent study of the Christian devotion to the "cosmic Christ" was well written by the spiritual writer, George A. Maloney in his book The Cosmic Christ: From Paul to Teilhard where he demonstrates how Teilhard really recovered an ancient Christian spiritual belief.—Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two changes on March 25

I just made two changes, in separate edits (so it is easy to see what I did). The first edit revealed some sloppy chronology. The July 1981 statement was to make sure that people did not take the wrong meaning from earlier statements. It therefore cannot be the case that a June 1981 statement establishes that Teilhard's doctrine is acceptable. It is just a matter of chronology. To depict the June 1981 statement as if it came after the July 1981 statement is intellectually dishonest.

The second change involved deleting a paragraph. I saw no support for any claim about whether the interdict on his teaching extended to both spiritual and scientific teachings, or just one (or the other). And it was tenuous to claim that the use of the word "convergence" was some sort of veiled attempt to resuscitate the teachings of Teilhard.

theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Intellectual Dishonesty" a Mere Projection

The statements by the Roman Catholic church affirming evolution both by John Paul II and Pius XII are conspicuously left out as is the reference from where it comes from. Teilhard's "teachings" as you call it, are well supported. To weigh two statements against each other and claim that the 1962 monitum is somehow more important and then back up the statement without a proper reference is intellectually dishonest. As I have said above, the July 1981 statement is very conspicuous for its brevity compared to Cardinal Cassoroli's (John Paul II's secretary) carefully worded statement. Second, Cardinal Cassaroli's statement is a positive statement accepting Teilhard's views to say otherwise is simply wrong since the statement is so carefully worded and very positive in tone. However, I think the way the statements have been reordered appears to be somewhat fair. And I would prefer to leave it at that.

Furthermore, again you have chosen to not specify what everyone knows about Teilhard's work and that is that it is only his scientific works that are considered suspect. That fact shows that the accusation of intellectual dishonesty is a mere projection on your part. Teilhard remains an important thinker and if you are going to quote a Vatican document quote it from the source. You choose to use the term Holy Office when referencing the 1962 monitum statement that was merely published in l'Osservatore Romano. Those who have studied Church documents in Roman Catholic seminaries know that there are degrees of importance from the different levels of Church documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


I think you have mistaken me for someone else. The two edits on March 25 were the first time I have chimed in on this article. I did not use the term "Holy Office" (although neither did I take it out). As for what "everyone knows" about the condemnation, it doesn't seem that way to me. The 1962 document says: "Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine." If you can support your claim, by all means add it back in. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The quote you site speaks for itself. The warning specifies "the postive sciences". Those of us who have had education formations in Roman Catholic seminaries (St. Augustine's Seminary, Toronto and Regis College, Toronto) are taught that the 1962 monitum refers only and specifically to to his scientific writings. Some of these scientific writings were originally published in the scientific journal Etudes and are published in English in 2 books by Teilhard The Appearance of Man and The Vision of the Past. His major opus The Phenomenon of Man is admittedly, an attempt by him to apply his scientific theory but of his collected works most are composed of spiritual writings. The most sophisticated of these is The Divine Milieu. Both of the earlier two books are left out of the Bibliography. Teilhard's opus does not only include his scientific writings. Those who have studied his books know better. Your revisions are appreciated but the French and Portuguese versions of the Teilhard reference in wikipedia are superior to the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any point in continuing this further, but you need to read the whole phrase. "PRESCINDING FROM A JUDGMENT" regarding the positive sciences. That means "not judging" the propositions that can be proven or disproven on the basis of the scientific method. It would be a bizarre world indeed if the Church went around correcting its members on their beliefs regarding, e.g., gravity, while letting those members say whatever they wished concerning the matters entrusted to the Church's care. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds funny. The "above mentioned works" in the abbreviated version of the 1962 monitum that is sited in the article, refers to his scientific writings. The Church does not regulate conscience and neither does any scientist that I know of. Lest I follow your red herring(PRESCINDING FROM A JUDGMENT), you should keep in mind that it is a disservice to a an important thinker to present a statement that is diminutive of another person especially an eminent spiritual thinker like Teilhard de Chardin. Nonetheless, your point is well taken but it nonetheless remains true as the eminent Jesuit, Karl Rahner has stated in his book Foundations of Christian Faith, Christians need not be afraid of coming the same conclusions that Teilhard de Chardin came to with regards to the question of evolution. He said this because if you believe in the centrality of Christ in your life then Christ will be the centrality of the universe and the apex of human evolution. Likewise, if intelligent design is your thing, then the same idea applies, for Christians, Christ is the centrality in the universe if He is the centrality in your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate statement regarding his published works in the Bibliography.

This statement is partially accurate: The dates in parentheses are the dates of first publication in French and English. Most of these works were written years earlier, but Teilhard's ecclesiastical order forbade him to publish them because of their controversial nature. The essay collections are organized by subject rather than date, thus each one typically spans many years. Two books published by Collins do not appear in the bibliography, they are The Appearance of Man and Vision of the Past. These two books are comprised of essays published during Teilhard's lifetime in the French scientific journal Etudes. The blanket statement that "Teilhard's [Religious]ecclesiastical order frobade him to publish them because of their controversial nature..." is only partially accurate. Some of his scientific works were in fact published in his lifetime.

[edit] Bibliography: The Making of a Mind: Letters from a Soldier Priest

This book: The Making of a Mind: Letters from a Soldier Priest is composed of letters that Teilhard wrote mostly to his family. They are important in Teilhard's collected works because they are comprised of letters that correspond to his first set of spiritual essays published in Writings in Time of War. All of the seeds of his thought are in these early war time writings. The omission of these works is negligent as is the omission of his his published scientific essays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant wikirule is: be bold. If you know of works not included in the bibliography, add them. I don't think that anyone (pro-Teilhard or not) could object to a more complete bibliography. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Listing of Famous Jesuits

I find it really strange that Teilhard is lumped with these other Jesuits like, St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Edmund Campion etc. All of these men are saints and Teilhard is not. What is the point of that? Furthermore, what about other famous Jesuits like Karl Rahner, Bernard Lonergan, Gerard Manley Hopkins etc. Not to mention his friend, the Jesuit Cardinal Henri de Lubac. What is the point of putting Teilhard in with saints while leaving out the names of these other prolific and holy men? Teilhard is not canonized and I don't think he would ever want to be. If he belongs in any listing he should belong to a listing of contemporary Jesuit theologians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I confess I find your approach to this inexplicable. The Jesuit template has its own talk page. I went over there and noted that you, a Teilhard supporter, suggested he would not want to be listed alongside Jesuit saints. I will see if anyone objects or agrees. But no one monitoring that template would see your suggestion here. So see the Template talk:Jesuit page. By the way, he is included in the more comprehensive article List of famous Jesuits.theloavesandthevicious (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 29, 2008 Additions to the Bibliography

I made additions to the Bibliograpy of his wartime writings and of writings of his published scientific papers. All of these books were published by both Harper & Row and Collins. The ones I listed are the first English editions published by Collins (Those are the ones I have). The collected works of Teilhard available in French published by Editions du Seuil under the rubric "Oeuvres" corresponds to his collected works published by Collins and Harper & Row. Although the English editions do not come under a rubric of "Collected Works".

Some of Teilhard's writings were written by him in English. Some of these letters are available in the book Letters to Two Friends. I added this also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I deleted the information which held that the problem with Teilhard's teaching is whether Christ accomplished his mission in history, or if its still continuing now. Teilhard would hold both opinions, Christ accomplished his mission, and history is playing it out. This is not the controversy with Teilhard de Chardin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridabewa (talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 31 Additions to Bibliography

Two important books composed of letters by him to philosophers are important to note because they are among the few writings that contain correspondence between him and philosophers. These kinds of writings are rare for Teilhard since he was not allowed to be among the Doctoris Communis during his lifetime. The reference to this last fact is lost to my memory but I know I read it in a book on Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson and Anton Pegis. The books are those to Leontine Zanta and to Maurice Blondel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) and Teilhard

One important person who sees the influence of Teilhard de Chardin on the Vatican II is Cardinal Ratzinger in his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press (1993).[1] I think many others have acknowledged that fact. Don't worry though, I won't put that fact in the main article page. ----why not?? Ridabewa (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I will add Cardinal Ratzinger's (Benedict XVI's)comments in a separate section. I will do this some time later because these comments are very extensive and I want to make sure that the pope is understood properly. Ergo, my intention is to quote him directly (when he is writing on Teilhard) and then I will add my paraphrase after. I do this only to be fair.David.Rebelo (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A more extensive treatment of Teilhard's work is written in pope Benedict's book Introduction to Christianity where he quotes extensively from Teilhard's various writings. In that particular book, he comes to a deeper understanding of what Teilhard means by "complexification" as coextensive with a more profound kind of "love".David.Rebelo (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I deleted the beginning section which said that Teilhard's teaching on sin went against an Augustinian interpretation, and against the Book of Genesis. Although Church officials question his theory on sin, it is not so simple to say it went against the Augustinian version. Actually, both a Teilhardian and Augustinian theology interpret sin as 'a deficient of the good.' Ridabewa (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Augustine would agree that evil is a privation of good. But sin, while evil, is not perfectly synonymous with evil. Sin is a willful, conscious act contrary to the will of God. Original Sin refers to the original sinful act on the part of the first man, Adam, which caused the Fall of Man from grace and necessitated a redeemer. Teilhard flatly denies the existence of a first man as well as a first sinful act. Sin, for Teilhard, is but the name we give to disorder; a disorder which arises from statistical necessity, nothing more. Teilhardian "sin" is, in short, entropy. It has nothing to do with the intention of the sinner: "In this picture, physical suffering and moral transgression are inevitably introduced into the world...by the very structure of created being: in other words, they are introduced as the statistically inevitable by-product of the unification of the multiple." [Christianity and Evolution, pg. 196]

This flatly contradicts both the Catholic Faith and St. Augustine's personal teachings. There is no vague, fuzzy wuzzy kind of way to attempt to slink around it. Teilhard's view is heretical. If something is inevitable it cannot be chosen. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.134.39 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Shortly Before his death he said in a letter to a friend: "I am essentially pantheist in my thinking and in my temperament." [1] --Starnold (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The web page you offer gives no source for the quote. It would be nice to see where it came from. Also, if genuine, it must be put in context of Teilhard's obvious evolutionary Christian stance. --Blainster (talk) 09:16, 6

April 2008 (UTC) To quote Teilhard properly it is better to go to a primary source. Quotes taken out of context are notoriously unreliable. Second, pantheism is considered heterodox but the concept of "panentheism" is not. "Panentheism" is really what we read when we peruse Teilhard's works. I say this because the concept of "panentheism" comes from St. Paul in the Bible. When Paul writes that "Christ is all and in all" he is expressing a "panentheistic" concept. This means that Christ is in all things. Teilhard consistently quotes St. Paul throughout his writings and it is these panentheistic quotes that he is quoting. "Panentheism" means that God is in all things. Through the renewing power of the Holy Spirit this is true both theologically as it is in the Bible. On the other hand, "Pantheism" means that God is all things. Third, more informed theologians like the pope and his friend, Cardinal de Lubac (one of Teilhard's more prolific apologists) have written on this distinction. Matthew Fox, in his book, Breakthrough (a series of sermons by Meister Eckhart) is also careful to make this distinction. You have raised an excellent point.David.Rebelo (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noosphere vs. Noocracy

Someone inexplicably deleted the noosphere concept from the See Also section and placed the foreign concept of noocracy. Noocracy is not a Teilhardian concept. Teilhard never supported such an idea. As a Jesuit he would have tended to appreciate a numinous quality in all living things. Even though he may have believed in the gradation of being, as Aquinas and others have believed, he did not espouse a noocratic superiority.----David.Rebelo (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In the last section on Works influenced either by T.Chardin the person, or his writings, you haven't mentioned 'Fishermen at Port St Lligat' by Salvador Dali as having been influenced by Chardin. Also some of his other post WW2 paintings were influenced by his readings of Chardin, apparently. One of Chardin's critics is Martin Slouka, in 'War of the Worlds' where he criticises what he reckons is Chardin's vision of mankind AS evolving into some super computerised consciousness, Slouka seems quite anti- computers, mind he does paint a nightmarish vision of the way things seem to be going. Yours Simmon (musicalhacksaw@yahoo.co.uk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.53.221 (talk) 18:14, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

It is remarkable the cultural influence that Teilhard has had both from art and from literature. In his book The Great Code Northrop Frye, a cultural historian of Western literature, acknowledges the remarkable cultural influence that Teilhard has had on science and on our modern culture. What is most remarkable is that he illicits a strong reaction from both sides from those who love his writings and those who choose to misunderstand him. However, if you know of anything more and you can properly cite the source and reference then the wikirule is be bold and list it in the proper section under cultural influences.----David.Rebelo (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] natural revelation and divine revelation in Teilhard

Many do not quite understand this distinction. The idea of natural revelation comes up in the study of the scholastic philosophers of the middle ages. This includes people like Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Meister Eckhart and others. In essence the idea of natural revelation comes from an understanding that believer can come to a reasonable understanding of the existence of God through looking at life around us. Not in a kind of naive way like the theory of intelligent design but in a way that philosophically and scientifically takes into account the reality of what can philosophically and reasonably be known. Science as we know it did not exist in the the medieval period but the reasonable assent to God (Like St. Thomas Aquinas' Five proofs for the existence of God) did exist. According to Christopher Mooney in his book Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, Teilhard is in the natural revelation tradition.

Natural revelation is rightfully foreign to Protestant Christians because of the centrality of the Bible and divine revelation. The tendency to say as Fr. Thomas Berry has said: "we should put the Bible on the shelf" would not occur to a Protestant Christian. In essence for both Teilhard and the scholastic philosophers truth can be found in science as it can be found in the Bible. Ergo the truth of science and the truth of faith should be integrated and not divisable. Truth is truth.David.Rebelo (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding things like this to the Talk page? Wikipedia is not a blog. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a talk page. No one has a monopoly on how a talk page aught to look like that I know of.David.Rebelo (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)---

I'm not claiming a monopoly here, but I am puzzled. If you were editing the article itself, people could respond and propose additions and deletions. The wikipedia process would be working. One begins to wonder whether you are making the additions here (and not to the article) in order to escape the wiki process itself. But maybe not. Maybe your comments here a means of working out edits you are considering making to the article. I wouldn't blame you for that, although I recall reading somewhere a suggestion that people are to use their own user and usertalk pages for that purpose.theloavesandthevicious (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this talk page should be used to critique portions of the article. I would like to put the references that John Paul II or Cardinal Ratzinger makes to Teilhard's work (obiter dicta: all positive) but then the article would be too lengthy in my opinion. My preference is that the article be revised. It is nice to know the distinction between intelligent design and evolution but not in an article on Teilhard. I am hoping someone who is a better writer than me will do that work.David.Rebelo (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)---

Ah, here's the cite I was looking for: WP:NOT#FORUM. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rebelo's comments on natural revelation above are, frankly, absurd and incoherent. They are also a supreme insult to Catholics and a cause for scandal in the mind of anyone gullible enough to believe them. In the first place, to agree with some wayward priest that Catholics "should put the Bible on the shelf" is only a razor's edge away from rank heresy. It suggests that what is in reality the MOST authoritative evidence of God and God's Will is in reality the least authoritative. To Mr. Rebelo, evidently, the Bible is dispensable. But let's leave that aside. The Scholastic teaching that one "can come to a reasonable understanding of the existence of God through looking at life around us" does not mean what Mr. Rebelo claims it means. The acknowledged Master of Scholastics and Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, does teach that the existence of God can be (and is) known through His works. And the way(s) He is known through His works is demonstrated in the Summa Theologica. There is no suggestion anywhere that experimental science in and of itself demands any acknowledgement of the existence of God. In fact, experimental science is, by its very nature, incapable of pronouncing on the subject. The existence of God is known by way of reason, not experiment, because experiment is necessarily limited to material causes and effects. Thus, while it's right to say that truth can be found in science as well as in the Bible, it is absurd to say that the truths found in the Bible can be discovered through science.

By the way, the mere existence of God is the only truth of Revelation accessible to the unaided human reason. Nothing else about Him can be known without the assistance of Divine Revelation (suspected, perhaps; conjectured, perhaps; but not known). So even if everything that is accessible to the natural reason were only accessible through science, that still wouldn't take us any further than God's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.134.39 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is one reason why we should more closely enforce the WP:NOT#FORUM rule. Rebelo has been using the page to puff up Teilhard, which invites the critical comments like the immediately preceding anonymous comments. Neither Rebelo's comments nor the anonymous comments seem to me to be appropriate for a talk page, when they have no connection with any proposed edits to the article itself. So let's hush up with these kinds of talk page additions. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous comments sound pretty naive with accusations of heresy (mispelled) without reference to discussion. My critique remains with the page. I repeat, I studied in an Roman Catholic seminary so I do know better. Aquinas was no master Scholastic. Anyone who studied Duns Scotus or even Maimonedes would have a good laugh with those claims. I welcome baseless comments though, the more vitriolic the ignorant comments the better I know that my points were made. Furthermore, I studied 2 years of Thomism under a Thomistic scholar. So I find Mr. anonymous's comments pretty funny. The article on Teilhard is not balanced ergo it needs to be revised. The wikipedia overseers are right to put the whole article into question. If no comments are made then no problems or questions would be raised.---David.Rebelo (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care who the hell you are. You are the most clerical SOB I have ever come across, whining like a pansy about how you studied in a Catholic seminary. I pray to God you were tossed out on your ear. Seminaries have been known for their lack of intellectual rigor. But the point is, for the last time, that this is not what Wikipedia is about. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)