Talk:Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Ignoratio elenchi

Many of the negative statements made by people like Richard Dawkins, Toulmin, Jacques Monod, Teilhard's friend, George Gaylord Simpson, P. B. Medawar and a few others have been largely and ably dealt with in Robert J. O'Connell's excellent study of Teilhard's science entitled, Teilhard's Vision of the Past: The Making of a Method. The opening to the article is disappointing and lacks comprehensive accuracy. O'Connell makes clear in very simple and yet scientific insight that criticisms leveled against Teilhard are weak both philosophically and scientifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.35.162 (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Royal Wedding mention

Was quoted by Michael Curry in the sermon at the Royal Wedding. Not sure how to work it in, but seems like some pages will list pop culture references. It does seem worth noting somewhere. There was a quote in particular that I think was paraphrased:

"... harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire."

A possible citation:

• https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/05/royal-wedding-sermon-text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydwilde (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

His addiction to Salmon

I was wondering if somebody could provide more information on his problematic relationship with the tasty tasty pink fish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:6741:C758:391F:8185:66DB:5774 (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

That simply isn't true or I could go and do a drawing of Superman and upload it to the infobox. With living people we can usually get a free to use picture of them but after they die it is perfectly fine to use a fair use photograph as long as the licensing is done right. Even if we couldn't find a photograph then a contemporary drawing might be fine too, but that is a moot point there. (Emperor (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree with everything you've said, except the first part: "Excellent drawing of Teilhard." It's pretty amateurish, actually. A photograph would be more appropriate.96.231.246.109 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

2¢ or such...

Unless Rama (the uploader of the original line art) was drawing from life, the image is going to source back to a photo. That photo is either going to be protected by copyright, making both pieces of art deriviative and improper to be in the Commons, or it's free to use, making it a better coice than eith piece of art. It may be worth it to 1) swap the 1st generation derivitave while 2) the original source image is being found. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I am writing here before attempting to change the section on Teilhard de Chardin's name where it incorrectly states, <<"De Chardin" is a vestige of a French aristocratic title and not properly his last name.>>. As you found, the French and Belgians often combine two family names, especially if one family has been "anoblie". The French language site on de Chardin states, "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin est issu d'une très ancienne famille auvergnate de magistrats originaire de Murat[2], et d'une branche qui a été anoblie sous Louis XVIII." "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is descended from an ancient family of magistrates from Auvergne originating in Murat, and from a branch that was ennobled under Louis XVIII." [translation mine] The name is often abbreviated to the first family, but in signatures, introductions, etc. the full name is used. In fact, the name on Pere Teilhard's tombstone reads in Latin, "P. Petrus Teilhard de Chardin S.J." The use of two family names for one's own name is perhaps strange in the Anglo-Saxon world but certainly not in the Latin. Laburke (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've always understood he should be called "Teilhard" -- in the same way that Leonardo's name is NOT "da Vinci". But here, the article uses BOTH "Teilhard" and "de Chardin" and it needs to be edited to one or the other. (further editing to replace phrases like "His thesis treated of the mammals" with standard English is also required) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.148.153 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: the Library of Congress files his works under the name "Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre" treating the 2 family names as a single one for the purposes of the library's catalog (and, therefore, arguing that we should not use "de Chardin" here in Wikipedia). By alphabetizing him under the letter "T" they follow complicated rules that look at usage in the English language as well as how names are formed in the language or origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.148.153 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I agree Teilhard's role and possible implication in the Piltdown Hoax is woefully underplayed in this article. It should at least explain that some academics (Gould and company) have suggested that Teilhard may have participated in the hoax.--ShieldDane (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Added brief mention of Gould's suspicionsCharlesHBennett (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gould's claims have been largely dismissed. In 1920 Teilhard wrote a letter that said simply, "THE PARTS DON'T FIT". In other words he is on record showing that he did not believe in the Piltdown claim. I suggest if you make a claim that you read his collected writing completely before you shoot a wild turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.35.162 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

I'm new to Teilhard, so I read this article, which sneaks in the single sentence "His views on evolution and religion particularly inspired the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky." This, in my opinion, is an amazing fact, as I know more about evolution than Teilhard. Dobzhansky was one of THE major figures in the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Thus, readers of the article could reasonably want to know more about this claim, especially since it implies that, rather than being something of a loose canon (excuse the pun) in evolutionary theory, Teilhard at the center of modern evolutionary thought! Inquiring minds - and certainly this one - want to know.

On another front, it seems clear to me, again as a newbie, that Teilhard's work is not at all easy to understand, especially since a proper understanding seems to require a detailed understanding of Roman Catholic theology (and probably many other things). So I ask the overseers of this page to loosely interpret the strictures against "general discussion". We need some of this discussion to arrive at a consensus about what to say about this remarkable man and his even more remarkable thought! Eweinber (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Geographical confusion (resolved)

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)

Somebody took care of it. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

chardin results and inspiration (esp. influence on new age)

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)

I think it would be completely inappropriate to call Teilhard a "founder to New Age". The New Age movement is diffuse and imprecise, very often embracing pseudo-science that would have appalled Teilhard (e.g. use of crystals).

Teilhard also constantly distanced himself from pantheism. It is therefore strange that people sometimes accuse him of pantheism. He differentiates Christianity and pantheism in the following terms: "... the sojourner of the divine millieu is not a pantheist....Pantheism seduces us by its vista of perfect universal union. But ultimately, if that were true, it would give us only fusion and unconsciousness. ... Christianity alone therefore saves, with the rights of thought, the essential aspiration of all mysticism: to be united (i.e. to become the other) while remaining oneself. --- our divine milieu is at the antipodes of false pantheism." (Le Millieu Divin, p116) CarlosChio (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Chardin is often cited as a significant influence on the New Age, even if personally he would have been appalled by the fact. For example, "When the New Age Gets Old" by Vishal Mangalwadi (1992) states on page 11 that "a 1977 survey revealed that among those who had embraced New Age ideas thoughtfully the greatest single influence had been the Jesuit palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin". It would be appropriate to say something about this, even if from a sceptical perspective, and it's odd that the only mention of the New Age is currently in the references. 121.45.22.109 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is distressing to see that, despite Teilhard's very specific denial of pantheism (as cited above extract from Le Milieu Divin) the text, under the "Theology" heading, labels Teilhard as "a resolute pantheist". The authority for this claim is a 2012 book by Wolfgang Smith.

Furthermore, Smith claims asserts that it is Teilhard's view that "even God, who is neither perfect nor timeless, evolves in symbiosis with the World". To support this assertion, a note is given referencing the following text from Teilhard's essay on "The Heart of Matter": "I see in the World a mysterious product of completion and fulfillment for the absolute Being himself." Firstly, note that the text in the note does not claim that God is neither perfect nor timeless --- that is Smith's crass interpretation of Teilhard's words. Secondly, the Wikipedia text, following Smith, neglects to point out that the editor of the essay provides an end note just after this quote. The editor points to some controversy around this wording but argues that the Teilhard's wording coheres with traditional views of the deity, as expressed in the writings of Cardinal de Burelle -- a respected 17th century Cardinal.

It is clear that Smith is not a dispassionate interpreter of Teilhard, but someone who writes with a clear agenda to discredit Teilhard's views. His Wikipedia page describes as not accepting evolution, but believing in intelligent design. (I personally don't see why one may not believe in both.) It does not seem fair to rely exclusively on his book to characterise Teilhard's "Theology"

I suggest a revision of either the heading (for example to "Smith's interpretation of Teilhard's Theology") or a revision of the body of the text. Teilhard uses the term "Christogenesis", and undeniably argues that in some sense the Triune God, in the second person of the Trinity, is changing as the cosmos itself evolves. If you read Teilhard, you sense him grasping for language to describe what is going on, often putting words in quotation marks, or giving alternative phrases to try to express his mystical thoughts. He decidedly never claims that God is imperfect, nor that God is not timeless. And he is certainly not a "resolute pantheist". Kouchie (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"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)

I removed the short phrases "Christian Pantheism, Material Apostasy" from the "known for" section of the bio box, but it seems like these are both notable if true. Both "Christian Pantheism" and "Material Apostasy" sound like things that the RC Church would have actively pointed out and condemned. If they were, they should be easily sourced and I suggest that they go in a "Controversy with Church officials" section.KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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). 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)

References

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)

A couple of comments. Teilhard does not deny the existence of a first man. He says that it is impossible for science to ever prove or disprove this, because the beginnings of biological life-forms are forever hidden from us. He simply says that for his reasoning, he is more inclined to take the scientific consensus that human beings, like all other life-forms, probably sprung up in various locations on the earth. The essays which deal with this are in Science and Christ.

Secondly, Teilhard does not deny a first sinful act. In fact, he mentions the very first sinful act being the most harmful and potent in the noosphere, because it was the first immoral act to penetrate the spiritual membrane on the earth. (The essay "Reflections on Original Sin" in 'Christianity and Evolution.') However, he does point out that this version of the first sinful act in the noosphere, is different than the popular religious understanding of The Fall, which states that death and suffering occurred only After man sinned. Whereas from an evolutionary perspective, death and suffering existed continuously from life's earliest beginnings, leading up to entrance of Mankind. Teilhard then, as scientist and evolutionist, interprets the story of the Fall metaphorically. He is consistent with traditional thought.

What is not really taken into effect by Teilhard's critics, is that he was actually well acquainted with Scholastic and Patristic theology. He was not prudish enough to have his works fall out of their parameters, but showed remarkable ability to transpose the Scholastic system into an evolutionary system. Let us not forget, he was trained a priest, and though admitting a distaste for it, Teilhard was schooled in theology.

In addition to that, Teilhard is perhaps the first theologian to preach the 'Cosmic Christ', since (in a diluted form) St. Nicholas of Cusa, and reaching further back, in it's most potent forms, the "Cosmic Christ" of the Patristic's, and of Sts Paul and John. Teilhard's Omega Point is a remarkable achievement of a 'Logos' theology in the thought of modern day scientific understanding. These 'Logos' works demands more study.......................yet, even as in his own life, theologians heed him no mind.

You did touch on an area of examination however, and that is for Teilhard, like you said, a moral trangression would inevitably take place because of the structure of the universe. Mankind, because born in a universe not yet in complete organization, would inevitably fall into moral transgression. Nevertheless, this view alone can not make him heretical. And because of the 'reflective' (self-conscious) ability possessed by the first human being(s), the choice to eat from 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' was exactly that, a choice. (In our every day life, for instance, we are inevitably going to sin, but it always remains a choice.) Teilhard might argue then that, contrary to what you said, something can be inevitable and still be a choice.

I believe we should be proud of Teilhard's modern day preaching of Christ. We should find comfort that in this age where the scientific understanding of the universe is being gained at remarkable speed, Teilhard (a 'scientist' - like the majority of great theologians before him) proclaimed a Christ, which modern day science has not yet discovered because it has not yet disproved, Who sits at the apex of the evolutionary convergence of the universe, as it advances through the socialization (we might as well call it globalization) of mankind.

"He cometh on the clouds" Ridabewa (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Insofar as pantheism means that God is in all things, then the notion is entirely uncontroversial from a Christian perspective. Insofar as it means that the self is drawn into a greater whole and looses its identity as self, the notion is alien to Christianity, and far removed from Teilhard. One of Teilhard's central themes is that what he calls the "law" of complexity/consciousness manifests itself in entities that are increasingly differentiated (he uses the term individuated) one from another. In seeing, as he does, homo sapiens at the spearhead of evolution, he considers that we are more individuated than anything else that evolution has produced. Our destiny beyond the grave, for him, meant a continuation of this trajectory of individuation. For the individual to end up, after death, absorbed into a greater whole in which one's identity is lost, would for Teilhard entail a contradiction of the entire intellectual edifice that he had constructed. He frequently makes this point in his writings. As an example, I repeat the citation that I have given elsewhere in these discussion pages "... the sojourner of the divine millieu is not a pantheist....Pantheism seduces us by its vista of perfect universal union. But ultimately, if that were true, it would give us only fusion and unconsciousness. ... Christianity alone therefore saves, with the rights of thought, the essential aspiration of all mysticism: to be united (i.e. to become the other) while remaining oneself. --- our divine milieu is at the antipodes of false pantheism." (Le Millieu Divin, p116). If Teilard is to be labelled a pantheist, it can only be in a very restricted and uncontroversial sense from a Christian point of view.CarlosChio (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC) The term is panentheism. Pantheism and "panentheism" are two different words. The previous person is only saying that pantheism and panentheism are two different things. One is heretical and the other is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.60 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Name calling is the last refuge of the incompetent, not to mention a sure sign of projection. I repeat again, the page will be edited. Do not grace your comments with the words "intellectual rigor". I will not comment on St. Thomas' comments regarding "empirical" understanding. The comments by the popes will be added and the "intelligent design" section will be removed. The section on the Jesuit saints will also be removed and replaced with contemporary Jesuit writers and theologians. As a good Thomist would know ad hominems, straw man comments, and red herrings (to mention a few) lack the focus that is required.---David.Rebelo (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Since your entire argument has been a "pro hominem" ("David Rebelo is so smart, he studied at a third rate institution of higher learning!"), ad hominems seemed in order. I continue to await your edits. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have shown your comments to work colleagues. You come across as very mean and violent in your tone. Which according to the attachment you made is not allowed in the talk page. I have repeatedly raised issues. You seem to even go on as if nothing is amiss. Your manner is wrong because "ad hominems" against anyone are never in order. I wish you would not take part in hatemongering anyone.

'By the way this is called a straw man: Since your entire argument has been a "pro hominem" ("David Rebelo is so smart, he studied at a third rate institution of higher learning!")' It is a sheer caricature.---David.Rebelo (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If I sound mean, I must be accurately conveying the intended tone. Your additions to the talk page have been nothing but random discussion of bibliography, original research that is not properly part of a wikipedia project, and self-puffery. I have been suspicious of your motives here since our inital interaction regarding the monitum. You asserted that the monitum, which explicitly prescinded from a judgment regarding the positive sciences, applied only to the positive sciences. Because nothing in the text supported your absurd reading (that is, unless you inserted a "not" into it), you relied on the assertion that it was what had been taught in a Catholic seminary. But red is red and is not blue, no matter how many professors tell you that red is blue. I continue to watch this page and await any attempt by you to distort the clear condemnation imposed on his doctrines. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is better with your last comments but here and in other instances your comments appear harsh. Your analogy of blue and red is weak. Nonetheless his comments have support because both Benedict XVI (As Cardinal Ratzinger) and Pope John Paul II have spoken favorably of Teilhard. I too await his edits but I hope he leaves the section on intelligent design as is.---EliasT (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Section: Response from Fellow Catholics Removed

I removed the section on response from fellow Catholics because it was utter garbage. De Lubac and Teilhard were close personal friends. Most of Teilhard's biographers bring this fact to light. De Lubac didn't write three books in support of Teilhard under a vow of obedience. Jacques Maritain did critique Teihard but his comments were favourable about Teilhard the man. If you want to read it then the reference is in the book, The Peasant From Garrone. Please stick to facts and reference them with direct quotes.--Sulpicia (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sulpicia, I will be restoring the section when I get a chance. It was not garbage. I wrote the section explicitly making clear that the people in question -- all prominent Catholic intellectuals -- addressed Teilhard's doctrine, and not the man. It is important to note that mainstream intellectuals had recognized that his doctrine was not Christian. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to also note that important Catholic intellectuals like the Jesuit Cardinal, Henri De Lubac made comments where he called Teilhard "a bold Christian" in page 4 of the book "The Faith of Teilhard de Chardin". The section does not invite references because it does not seem to live up to wikipedia standards--EliasT (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your last sentence means, EliasT. In what way does the section not live up to standards? What I am trying to do is to make clear that the case of Teilhard is not a case of Vatican henchmen v. intellectual freedom. Many Catholics practicing intellectual freedom found his conclusions contrary to the Christian faith. These people were neither cranks nor pawns. So long as that message finds its way in, I do not suggest that the article needs to be scrubbed of all positive statements regarding Teilhard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theloavesandthevicious (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote in the last sentence is clear.--EliasT

Ah. If it is meant to assert what it clearly asserts, then it is simply incorrect, and you don't know what you are talking about. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As you guys have proved, Teilhard has both supporters and detractors from the ranks of the Catholics who practice intellectual freedom. It is simply not accurate to say that all Catholic intellectuals found his conclusions contrary to Christian faith. The point is to highlight where the detractors and supporters disagree, and then as closely as possible find Teilhard's view point on the issue. Ridabewa (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Works about Teilhard

The article is weak in that, before I added the section, its references to works about Teilhard were limited to Internet links, of limited and passing utility. There are actual works of scholarship addressing him, and I added the section as a place to cite important works of scholarship. I do not think the list just needs to be limited to unfavorable works. (It would be dishonest to give an impression that people only wrote unfavorable works about him.) But if the section is entitled "unfavorable works," then no one will ever add favorable works to the list. So stop changing the titled to a list of "unfavorable works"; instead, add favorable works to the list. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We should be careful not to turn the external links section into a link farm: see WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. Subsections in an external links section often indicate an excess of external links. Headings using subjective terms like "Favorable" and "Unfavorable" are also a magnet for POV edits and linkspam. It would be better to move some of these links to inline references, which this article still lacks in many places. Thanks, YrPolishUncle (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the changes that you made but I agree that more references need to be added. Refer to the specific sources. All that needs to be done is to cite the book and page number. I am sure that this would be considered a proper reference. For instance the Maritain book in question is properly titled: The Peasant of the Garrone: An Old Layman Questions Himself About the Present TimeMacMillan, 1969. The book is an important work but Maritain writes in a very candid and bitter tone. Nonetheless that is the source.---Sulpicia (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced popular culture section

EDITED TO BE NICE. Since the editor who continues to remove the header is not providing a justification, I suggest a radical move. I seek consensus whether we should, if the edit is made again, delete the whole pop culture section. It would be a shame, since some (small) part of it is of value. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support the removal of that section, since it's completely unreferenced and gaining new unreferenced additions. If it were properly referenced, then much of it would probably be worth keeping. YrPolishUncle (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is utter rubbish, and it shan't be missed. What little is of value might be appropriate in section on Teilhard's influence, which has been substantial. Such a section, of course, would have to be sourced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's noteworthy that Teilhard has such an influence in popular culture -- unusual for a theologian. I agree that the list format is not the best, and of course references are needed. It seems like deleting it en masse is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, though. Agathman (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the pop culture section with one called "Influence of Teilhard", and put in sources for everything that needed them. I left out the later philosophical works that build on his work such as Ong, Houston, and Cahill, because I couldn't really figure out a coherent way to include them. Maybe someone else would like to retrieve them from the history and give that a try. Agathman (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Although the edits are looking pretty good. Von Hildebrand does not represent mainstream Roman Catholicism. His work, like Maritain's later writings sound bitter and angry. The best thing about including his name amongst other theologians and writers is that other people will be able to plainly see and judge for themselves how bitter he is. That is the advantage of a more comprehensive reference. There is another book with a more balanced critique of Teilhard by Duggan that is less bitter.---EliasT (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Altar

I removed

There is an altar dedicated to him in the spiritual room of the United Nations in New York City.

Please reinsert if this can be verified. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference which suggests there is no such altar; The NGO Committee on Spirituality Values and Global Concerns site includes an article on The Spiritual History of the United Nations [2]. It describes the room as having only one symbol, a large block of iron ore lit by a shaft of light. MuDor (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Headstone

I just reverted an edit involving the name on Teilhard's headstone. The editor, Mdmarkus66, who made the edit included a link to a picture which clearly shows a different headstone than the current reference in the article shows. So, how do we sort this out? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an e'mail to the poster of the gravestone on Find a Grave so more information may come from that. I'm quite sure that the gravestone i've found is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's. The difference in names is that the new one is Petrus (Latin for Pierre) and contains the honorific part of the name where the old gravestone names him as Pierre without the honorific. Also, the dates match. I suspect it has been replaced, but i'd like to find out roughly when. Mdmarkus66 (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note that i'm not saying anything ab't how he was known. I'm only changing that his gravestone does not (any longer) just say Pierre Teilhard. Mdmarkus66 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your approach, and it seems likely that the headstone was replaced for some reason. Either way, using the name on the headstone as proof of the name by which he was widely known was probably not a good approach. But, I would like to get this sorted out. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The poster of the original photograph has e'mailed back saying that the photograph was from "an old article on deChardin, pre-culinary institute". He lived in the area in the '70s, but i'm not sure if that means the article was from then or not. Still, i believe that the headstone i've found is Pierre Tielhard de Chardin's. I'm going to reestablish the change in a couple days unless i hear otherwise. Mdmarkus66 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Teilhard and Intelligent design

Is it possible to write a section about connections between teilhard, intelligent design, the gaia hypothesis? i am not saying they are identical by any means, but i would be surprised if noone had written an intelligent, academic essay on these ideas. seems to me that the ID people may have a good idea, but they are promoting it as science, which it is not (yet). i think lovelock and teilhard were more philosophical, trying to use their ideas as tools for thinking. that difference in approaches, if written about, would make an excellent addition to any of the articles in this arena. i will try to find something. and i will not add material if consensus says it doesnt belong, and of course no OR.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not "A few days before his death" that Teilhard said: "If in my life I haven't been wrong, I beg God to allow me to die on Easter Sunday". It was rather on the 15th of March 1954, one year before his death, during a dinner at the French Consulate, that he expressed the desire to die on the day of Easter. Besides, I feel that the pre-condition expressed in the phrase "If I haven't been wrong" is invented. I have not found these words in any article on Teilhard I have personally consulted. 137.189.159.150 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Teilhard's Ideas

The (surprisingly tiny) section on Teilhard's ideas is lacking. I've made a few edits to try to improve this, but it's still pretty "way out there." I am not a credentialed Teilhard scholar, but I have read "The Future of Man", and thoroughly annotated the book over a 6 month period. Some things, I can identify immediately, are "right out."

Here's my line-by-line:

In his posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes of the unfolding of the material cosmos, from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it.

The part about "unfolding of the material cosmos" is all well and good -- particles to life to human beings and the noosphere.

However, the description of the Omega Point as "pulling" creation towards it is somewhat problematic; The better depiction might be of the creation "falling" towards the Omega Point, because Teilhard does not anywhere argue that divine interventions are taking place, which I think is implied by "pulling." That is, there is no active force from the Omega Point driving evolution towards it, nor any sort of motor within evolution proposed to carry evolution to the Omega Point.

He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal driven way, argued in terms that today go under the banner of convergent evolution.

I added the note about convergent evolution. Teilhard argued that evolution would end up at the Omega Point, but where he saw goal seeking behavior, he argued for it in terms of the goal-seeking behavior of human beings through their minds -- that is, through purposive thinking. I cited "Some Notes on Progress;" One could also cite "The Human Rebound of Evolution and It's Consequences." Note also here, in this very section, he articles his perspective of Darwinian evolution (for biospheric development,) and his perspective of Lamarckian evolution (for intellectual, memetic, cultural development.)

Teilhard argued in darwinian terms with respect to biology, and supported the synthetic model of evolution, but argued in Lamarckian terms for the development of culture, primarily through the vehicle of education.

I added this sentance, to help clarify.

Teilhard attempts to make sense of the universe by its evolutionary process.

I would personally strike the phrase "attempts to," and just say "Teilhard makes sense of the universe by its evolutionary process." That's how he made sense of it, after all. He could be right, he could be wrong, but that's the way he made sense of it.

He interprets complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man,) and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point.)

It originally said "He interprets man as the axis of evolution..." I changed the word "man" to "complexity," because that's what makes much more sense to me, by my reading of Teilhard. Teilhard loves axis, but I don't remember him referring to man as an axis. I think this makes much more sense with the sentence as a whole, regardless. (Seeing man as the axis would make sense with respect to language like "the humaniverse," but that's not Teilhard's language."

There is no doubt that The Phenomenon of Man represents Teilhard's attempt at reconciling his religious faith with his academic interests as a paleontologist.[9]

There's something off with this line, that I can't quite lay my finger on. The picture it presents is of a man struggling to put two contradictions together in a way that makes sense, without going crazy. While there is some truth to that, I find too much of an explorer in Teilhard for this to really be the whole story. Synthesizers work to put together what's already been found. Teilhard as a thinker is more like a prophet or a mystic, though. Teilhard was genuinely enthusiastic about evolution, and I don't see any evidence of his "religious faith" being something that he struggled with. He did not, for example, write anything about struggling to see how Jesus walking on water could be reconciled with modern science -- I would not be shocked if I found out that he didn't believe Jesus walked on water; It was just never important to him. Where Teilhard does cite the bible, he tends to cite eschatology & such.

This line seems to me to reflect overstating Teilhard's faith, and missing the boat on his theology.

One particularly poignant observation in Teilhard's book entails the notion that evolution is becoming an increasingly optional process.[9]

Yes. Teilhard would look at things like computers and robots and forms of government and so on, and say "this is evolutionary development." Another way of putting it, is that he thought that the noticable development of evolution is in the realm of human thought, foresight, and invention. (Incidentally, "human foresight" is the vehicle by which he envisioned that the future, or multiple futures, can have influence over the past. So if the Omega Point is "pulling" us, he would almost certainly argue that it "pulls" because it is attractive to humans, with the power of foresight, who forsee it, and move towards it. He refers to this attraction as the "interior" force that compels us towards the Omega Point.) Compare: If you're playing a board game, than the future of one of the players winning "pulls" the past towards that end-point.

Teilhard points to the societal problems of isolation and marginalization as huge inhibitors of evolution, especially since evolution requires a unification of consciousness.

Hmm; Perhaps. Maybe that was in a book I didn't read. For sure, though, he stated that co-mingling of people and ideas and markets and so on, as forces driving evolution, so this is not far from the mark, if it is off-mark at all.

He states that "no evolutionary future awaits anyone except in association with everyone else."[9]

Sounds like Teilhard. "All that rises must converge," and all.

This statement can effectively be seen as Teilhard's demand for unity insofar as the human condition necessitates it.

I recognize that "insofar as the human condition necessitates it" is a softener, but it still reads like a demand. Better might be: "Teilhard argued that the human condition necessarily leads to the the psychic unity of humankind." This makes more sense to me. Teilhard wasn't "demanding" anything here.

He also states that "evolution is an ascent toward consciousness", which he summarized in the word encephalization, and therefore, signifies a continuous upsurge toward the Omega Point, [9] which for all intents and purposes, is God.[citation needed]

I think I messed up this sentence, by adding "summarized in the word encephalization." Encephalization is a part of how he makes his case, but he does talk about the development of higher consciousness (or greater degrees of personalization -- become "person", entering into personhood) as time passes on, towards the Omega Point.

The Omega Point is tricky because the Omega Point can refer both to an "event" ("we reached the point") and to a degree of complexity (maximal?) and to a being. This distinction suggests to me distinctions within the trinity ("is" and "is not"), and it also makes me think of the second-coming (an event.)

I am not sure what to do with this sentence.

OK, that's it for contributions tonight. I'd really like to see this section (and the following section, "Teilhard's phenomenology") cleaned up (orthogonalized -- less repetition) and made more accessible. Part of the problem is that Teilhard himself just wrote giant messes full of long winding sentences and new words and old words used poorly (like "orthogenesis," which was not sufficiently distinguished in those times.)

I could see a case for dividing up his ideas into bytes:

• Teilhard's vision of the evolution of the universe, from particles to geosphere to biosphere to noosphere to omega point; Cephalization; Complexity vs. Scale
• Teilhard on Evolution -- Darwinism, Lemarckism, biology, education, & brief notes on the historical response of biologists in following decades
• Teilhard's Christology & the Omega Point (well described on the Wikipedia page of the same name)
• Teilhard's vision of global governance, people, rights & responsibilities, unaniminity, democracy, totalitarianism -- nowhere touched in this article
• the "ahead" and the "above"
• foresight & purposive thinking, the "human rebound"
• "internal" & "external" forces -- "psychic inter-penetration"
• "planetization" -- (what is today "globalization")
• trans-human, ultra-human -- the development of the human being
• ultra-physics -- ...
• ...

LionKimbro (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only run through the Phenomenon of Man. With regard to the Omega Point pulling, I'd have to check out The Phenomenon of Man again, but he is a bit more explicit in that that the Omega Point is God, or at least appears to be God to him. He does section that part off in the back so folks that believe God has to be an invisible man in the sky to really be real will be able to ignore the last couple of chapters. I agree with striking out "attempts to." I agree that something needs to be done about the "attempt at reconciling" bit, what I've read of him he probably couldn't think in one of those mindsets without thinking in the other as well. In PoM, he does try some reconciliation, but it is more about his views on sin (influenced by his studies) with the Catholic church rather than reconciling science and religion. If I remember correctly, he (or at least the translator) used the words isolation and marginalization with regard to his views on sin (since the Omega Point is God, and isolation hinders evolution, it kinda follows, but this is just my commentary until I can hit the library). The demand for unity is a bit strong, in PoM does say that we all need to look out for each other and that sort of thing, and that we need to consider the ideas of others, but he points out that the reason that West has done well is that it didn't accept every idea it considered (the prevalence of the idea of Maya in India allowed them to sweep everything under the rug of "that may be true, but its an illusion", China's and Polynesia's geographies prevented enough new ideas from coming in).

I don't know if there really is anything to do with the encephalization sentence. When I get some time (I should be working on two term papers and studying for exams instead of working on Wikipedia), I'll check out PoM and look for something in there to cite for the "Omega Point is God" part. Your division looks pretty good to me. Good work. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ACTUALLY TEILHARD DOES IMPLY THAT OMEGA POINT IS TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN 'PULLING' THE UNIVERSE TOWARDS IT. HE STATES THAT OMEGA POINT MUST BE PULLING IT, FOR HE CAN SEE NO OTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY THE UNIVERSE WOULD MOVE IN THE UNPROBABLE DIRECTION OF COMPLEXITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS. THIS CAN BE FOUND IN ACTIVATION OF ENERGY, PHENOMENON OF MAN, AND SOME OTHERS...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.27.54.150 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

NEW STUFF GOES AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, TURN OFF YOUR CAPSLOCK, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS LIKE SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET. THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of the Ouroboros?

I have studied both the Ouroboros (as a meditative vehicle for imagining the breath circulating in the body), and Teilhard de Chardin, and value them both. But Teilhard never wrote about the Ouroboros.

So why are there two sidebars mentioning the Ouroboros? Shouldn't they be deleted from this article, in keeping with an objective recounting of Teilhard's life and philosophy?

Trobster (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Teilhard in the Episcopal calendar

Recently an editor removed mention of his feast day of April 10 in the liturgical calendar of the Episcopalians (US). I am curious if this was due to lack of a source, or the sense that it's not important enough for the article. If the problem is no source, I have found one at Holy Women, Holy Men: Celebrating the Saints. Church Publishing. 2010. p. 320. Since his thinking had trouble finding any support in the Catholic church, there might be some interest in the fact that the US Episcopalians recognize him. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a concerted effort by some people to manipulate the facts, including this simple fact, in order to put Teilhard de Chardin, in an unfavourable light and to sabotage dilute this Wikipedia article. The negative books and writings against his thought and belief are generally weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.35.162 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Antichristos

User:Antichristos, a major contributor to this article, has been banned for sockpuppetry (using many other user names and also IP addresses around 89.110.x.x). You may wish to police that user's contributions. In other articles his contributions have been reverted wholesale, but in this case it seems like the article has been largely under control so I won't change anything except to leave this notification.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Death-heart seizure

The article says he died of a "heart seizure." To my knowledge no such thing exists. Does anyone know if he died of an arrhythmia or cardiac arrest? Coinmanj (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The book The Jesuit and the Skull: Teilhard de Chardin, Evolution, and the Search for Peking Man by Amir D. Aczel, which I've just finished reading, says (p. 226):

• At about six p.m., Teilhard was standing with his friends when he suddenly fell to the ground. He regained consciousness and asked where he was and what had happened. Rhoda [de Terra] immediately called a doctor, but by the time he arrived, Teilhard was dead. He had suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage.

Now, the article currently says "heart attack", which is a very different matter, and this should be fixed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Quotes

One of the best-known quotes attributed to Teilhard is: "We are not humans, here on earth, having a spiritual experience. We are spirits, having a human one". Or very similar. But though this is usually attributed to him, it is occasionally given another source. And the particular work it comes from is never appended. If anyone knows, perhaps a mention would be helpful.125.239.241.94 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The version I have is "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." But I can't document that one either. 71.220.219.16 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete Introductory Paragraph

The second paragraph in the introductory section states "two things" but only lists one under "First,". Principal author needs to complete /his/her train of thought bu specifying the second "thing":

"The second comprehensive work of Teilhard de Chardin is The Divine Milieu which attempted to do two things. First,75.177.83.241 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC) in the 19th and early 20th centuries there was a belief among some Catholics and other Christians that in order to be “holy” one had to devote himself or herself to purely religious activity and that secular work had no lasting value. Teilhard de Chardin, consistent with the Jesuit motto of “finding God in all things”, wanted to demonstrate that secular work (including his own scientific work) was an integral element of creation and the Incarnation, so that for religious reasons, Christians should be committed to whatever work they were doing and offering it up for the service of God. Teilhard wants to show how all human activities and efforts toward personal growth and human progress can be used to help the growth and development of the Body of Christ. Not only are human efforts useful in this regard, but they are also somehow necessary. Even though people perform these actions as ordinary human beings, and they look like ordinary human actions, they are simultaneously being transformed in the divine milieu and become actions done in, with, and through Christ.

I have tidied up the introductory paragraph (which was too long and had information that should havbe been in the main body of the article) and moved some material to the main body. Kolyaaylok (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization

I just reorganized the legacy section, separating his annual commemoration by the Episcopal Church (from this talk page apparently removed three years ago) from different types of memorials (scientific, literary, artistic and concrete). For what it's worth, I also added him to this day's Holidays & Observances section based on that annual commemoration. Frankly, the entire article needs a lot of work, perhaps because of controversies within Teilhard's Catholic Church concerning science and ecumenism. I personally find the many text boxes distracting and offputting, but have limited time as well as expertise in this area and so am not about to touch them. I do suggest, though, that if someone again wants to remove the mention of his Episcopalian memorial, he/she/they instead add a succinct reference to Catholic memorials to this priest after the rehabilitation mentioned earlier.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Another reorganization & a suggestion

I have moved the "Teaching" section ahead of the sections dealing with his controversies within the Catholic Church. It seems more logical for the reader to find out what he taught before finding out who disagreed with him.

On that note: Teilhard was (and still is) opposed from many sides: conservative Christians as well as the secularist / atheist community. A representative of the former camp is David H. Lane whose work is mentioned under the "Further Reading" list. (The Phenomenon of Teilhard: Prophet for a New Age (Mercer University Press)). Conservative Christians often label Teilhard as "New Age" or "Pantheist" (as discussed elsewhere on this Talk page).

An example of the secularist opposition is nobel laureate, Jaque Monad who, in his book "Chance and Necessity", attacks Teilhard quite vigorously as an "animist". (Monad's views were later opposed by another nobel laureate, Theodosius Dobzhansky.) The article's "Teaching" section contains the following sentence: "Peter Medawar described The Phenomenon of Man as "nonsense".[8]", thus locating Medawar in the same camp as Monad

The sentence about Medawar is tagged on to the opening paragraph is dangling. It gives no further context.

I believe that the article requires a section on Teilhard as a controversial figure both from the right and the left, so to speak. This should be separate from the extensive section dealing with his controversies within the Catholic Church. CarlosChio (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of criticism from scientific/skeptical viewpoint

The article as currently written only had criticisms of Chardin from an orthodox Catholic viewpoint (apart from a one word quote from Peter Medawar describing 'The Phenomenology of Man' as "nonsense"). OTOH, there are hundreds of words of quotes from Benedict XVI, cardinals, et al. This seems to be an imbalance. I have added three negative quotes, including one in the article introduction stating that most biologists consider him 'little better than a charlatan'. Kolyaaylok (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins slags him off and as we know he is the final word in scientific logic and decorum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.134.170 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That Dawkins is "the final word" is a nonsense. He is known to have misrepresented Thomistic thought to suit his own purposes to be taken seriously. Therefore, he can never adequately be considered "the final word" on anything. Again, the article on Teilhard is being manipulated to suit certain points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.35.162 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Other Links

All of the page links at the bottom of the page are either dead or point to nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.244.47 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Significance of having contributions noted in Pope Francis' encyclical

The second paragraph of the lead reads:

Many of Teilhard's writings were censored by the Catholic Church during his lifetime because of his views on original sin. However, Teilhard was praised by Pope Benedict XVI, and in July 2009, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said, "By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn’t be studied."[1][2] He was also noted for his contributions to theology in Pope Francis' 2015 encyclical Laudato si'.[3][4]

One editor feels that the fact Teilhard's contributions were noted in Pope Francis' encyclical is not significant enough to be included in the lead. My opinion is that it is significant and lead-worthy that a priest once censored by the Church is now having his contributions noted in the pope's encyclical. Also, if we decide that this is not significant enough to be included in the lead, should the preceding two sentences be removed also? Being referred to in a pope's encyclical is certainly more noteworthy than being mentioned in a pope's homily. If we remove both of these sentences, it seems it would be NPOV to leave only the sentence that says he was censored in his lifetime, so if we remove one, we should remove all three. Abierma3 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC) The removal of Pope Benedict's statement from his vespers homily was a mistake. That should not have been removed. Especially for Roman Catholics, any statement made by the pope, especially in a formal setting like the Vatican is to be taken as a authoritative. For Roman Catholics it is the pope who "speaks" on matters of faith and morals. To remove the statement is a manipulation of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.35.162 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete thought in intro to Teachings section

I see an earlier user attempted to clean this up, however, between now and then, it has been re-broken: Teilhard de Chardin has two comprehensive works. The first, The Phenomenon of Man, sets forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos and the evolution of matter to humanity to ultimately a reunion with Christ. Chardin abandoned literal interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. No second comprhensive work is directly addressed in the section Teachings.--Vidkun (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/5160/blatty.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Original Sin

The article says he was censored because of his views on Original Sin. What exactly were these views? Ah I see it's discussed above. In effect he dismisses it. Wythy (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Evaluations by scientists section

I have reverted the deletion of one of the paragraphs, on Dennett and Rose. The paragraph correctly attributes and cites both authors, who each have their own professional opinions. The section does the same for several authors, all of whom have their own points of view. Together, the section gives the reader an idea of the range of opinion out there, and it is better balanced and more objective for spanning that range. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added a request for clarification, it isn't clear when Rose has written this, or why the quote is attributed to an edition of works by Gould. Also, the section title "evaluation by scientists" is misleading, as the section appears to deal mostly with the reception of The Phenomenon of Man by evolutionary biologists (i.e. The_Phenomenon_of_Man#Reception). Perhaps there should be a WP:SS section on the work itself, so that its reception by evolutionary biologists can become part of that section. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808033329/http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226090309/http://www.mnhn.fr/teilhard/indexE.html to http://www.mnhn.fr/teilhard/indexE.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101161611/http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf to http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.maryknollsocietymall.org/description.cfm?ISBN=978-1-57075-177-6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Unit degree?

What does "At the Sorbonne Teilhard pursued three unit degrees of natural science: geology, botany and zoology." mean? 86.132.220.22 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"The response to his writings by evolutionary biologists has been, with some exceptions, decidedly negative."

I don't think that Teilhard was trying to write biology texts. He was writing philosophical/religious texts. So this attempt to slam Teilhard in the intro is inappropraite. — goethean 18:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"The" Teilhard de Chardin

Over the years I have occasionally heard from referred to as "the Teilhard de Chardin", as if this were analogous to "the Pope" or "the Dalai Lama". I usually put this down to mishearing on my part, but here is a concrete example:

• Dr. Savary captures the essence of the Teilhard de Chardin who combined science and spiritualism to analyze and explain the evolution of the Universe.

What could explain anyone thinking his personal name was some sort of title of office? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Darwinian?

I don't want to edit it directly, but it's worth discussing. I've read de Chardin and he does not seem "Darwinian" in his outlook, as described in the first paragraph. The logic of his theories operated on a very different principle. 66.25.105.177 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)