Oops! Silence... no reaction... Did I hurt - without knowing, nor wanting it - someone's feelings or convictions?

Not at all, Jan. It's just that we get so many threads going here it's easy for one to get buried. Thanks to MM, I see there's some new stuff here. I guess there's an option to be notified by email to new posts, but I just never particularly wanted to use that option. But I can see it would have its uses.

This conference was recently brought to my attention and it contains some interesting quotes and material:

"Someday, after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness the energies of love. Then, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire." � Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Toward the Future

I wonder if that means turning love into a science, or refining spirituality.

quote:

"Now, after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over. It was an interlude between two periods of horizontal gene transfer. The epoch of Darwinian evolution based on competition between species ended about ten thousand years ago when a single species, Homo Sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere...Cultural evolution is running a thousand times faster than Darwinian evolution, taking us into a new era of cultural interdependence which we call globalization. And now, in the last thirty years, Homo Sapiens has revived the ancient pre-Darwinian practice of horizontal gene transfer, moving genes easily from microbes to plants and animals, blurring the boundaries between species. We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species will no longer exist, and the evolution of life will again be communal. If you like, you can call that the evolution of a noosphere." � Freeman Dyson

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Snauwaert:
[qb] Oops! Silence... no reaction... Did I hurt - without knowing, nor wanting it - someone's feelings or convictions? If so, please know that this wasn't at all my purpose. One can consider me as an 'explorer of truth': the only that interests me, is truth. And it is true also that in doing so, I already hurt more than one person, without in the least having this as an objective. It is part of who I am. ;-) [/qb]

No hurt feelings here either, Jan. I liked your concise summary of some of what you like about Teilhard, and had commented above myself on the topic of complexity - consciousness.

Thanks for your sharing.

I�ve yet to read much of Teilhard, but from reading what others think about him, particularly this article by Ursula King, it seems clear to me that there�s a "We are the world" sentiment embedded deeply either in his teachings or in many peoples' understandings of that teaching.

Let me state for the record: I believe in non-violence. I believe in solving problems, if at all possible, non-violently (while noting the one can do quite a bit of violence to another without having shed a drop of blood or having raised up so much as a penknife). But we should recognize that, for better and for worse, the nature of our creation is sexual reproduction, not cloning. We are meant to be different, not the same. Therefore I�m quite dubious of what seems to be an implicit desire or belief that, through writings such as Teilhard, we can become so in touch with our "oneness" that all differences will just dissolve.

I also wonder if implicit in such ideas (whether regarding Teilhard, the EU, the United Nations, or whatever) that there is some objective culture or set of ideas out there that we need only to discover (or agree upon) in order for peace and harmony to reign. But that intrigues me because I think there are some (many, actually) objective ideas out there that we can agree upon. But I wonder if we can or should ever agree upon (or wish for) the idea that differences should dissolve (differences other than the differences that have been thoroughly sanitized and sanctioned).

Help me, here. I�m trying to keep this conversation going and trying to find out the appeal and usefulness of Teilhard�s ideas. Do his ideas show us some kind of larger plan that we may be able to organize around because these ideas are so self-evidently good and useful? It�s normal and natural to try to find commonalties amidst nature. That�s how we can discover some fundamental laws that we can make use of. But might one of these fundamental laws be that differences (as evinced in competing ideas) are natural? Is then our quest not to necessarily look for some grand unified theory (or theory of everything) regarding people so that we have no major differences but, instead, to be able to manage difference itself?

Brad, the primary value of Teilhard is that he provides a model that integrates a lot of different disciplines -- physics, chemistry, biology, theology, spirituality, sociology, and even politics, to some extent. One can easily quibble with how some would go off in, say, the political direction using Teilhard, but that's OK. If one understands T, one can see that there are lots of different ways to posit a political process congruent with his approach.

Another great value is in his affirmation of the future, and the unique role of human beings to help bring it about. This all stands in stark contrast to those pessimistic systems of thought which seem to be suggesting that all would be well if only human beings would go away, or move back into the jungles. Hyperbole, but you know what I mean.

Re. Christianity, he affirms the basic doctrines (except Original Sin, which is a problem), especially Christ at the heart of the evolutionary process. For Teilhard, Omega IS Christ, and the Omega Point is the Parousia, or the full integration of creation in the glorious, risen Christ. That he can do this while showing how physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are all part of understanding the story is an amazing achievement indeed.

Brad, Phil, thanks for your positive reactions on my last postings. I can see and feel I didn't get misunderstood, and I am fairly glad for that reason. The article by Ursula King you refer to Brad, is really very interesting. She seems to have a deep understanding of Teilhard, and I like every word she wrote (well, to be auite honest, I didn't take the time to read the article in its entirety).
Phil, I think it is risky (and to me not quite correct) to say that Teilhards primary value is he provides a model that integrates a lot of different disciplines. Although it is correct, he does provide such a model, may it be that the model needs still a lot of completion, mainly of the practical kind. As a matter of fact, although what you mention there is already of very, very great interest, I think Teilhard's value is even bigger. Namely: he is giving us a far better idea and feeling of the real greatness of Christ, and, by doing so, of God. Moreover, his discovery of the universal law of complexity-consciousness shows us, or at least gives us (and certainly the more intellectual types among us) the best possible occasion of seeing, like (almost) nothing else that God is actively involved in his creation and the He gives us humans, at the same tim. Both 'facts' (facts indeed, if we are able to 'see' them) also give us a much better idea and feeling of what God's Love really means and of the real - unmeasurable - extent of it. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this.
As for this view of the Original Sin... Well, I know that can be one of the difficult points in his vision. I once read this article by him, small in size, but full of meaning and consequences (as usually in his writings), the article that, falling into the wrong hands, would mean the starting of Teilhards big troubles with the official Church (he could not longer stay professor at the Catholic Institute of Paris and he was sent in 'exile' in China). It certainly would lead me too far to develop that point right now, right here, without having his original article with me. I remember very well though, when reading it, I didn't have the feeling he was really declining the doctrine of Original Sin, but he tried to give it (his article was really meant to be discussed among theologicians) a new interpretation (the Original Sin not being seen as a historical fact, but rather as a 'trans-historical' one), in coherence with his general, cosmic vision.

Clearly, in my previous post, a sentence remained uncomplete. When I talked about Teilhard's value, I metioned that his 'model' (his vision) gave us a much better idea and feeling of the vastness of God's Love. Teilhard's discovery of the law of consciousness-complexity in the evolution namely shows us (or very strongly invites us to see) a God being involved in His Creation; and I should have added: and a God who at the same time gives us the maximum of responsibility of helping Him 'finishing' his Creation (although the word 'finishing' is a bit problematic in that context).

I don't think we're in any significant agreement about Teilhard's accomplishments and contributions, Jan. I like what you wrote about that above.

Re. Original Sin and Teilhard -- I've read a bit on this as well, and what I was left with was a sadness that he never really got the opportunity to openly discuss and clarify his view, here. Surely he wouldn't deny that humans have made irresponsible and immoral choices for a long time, with consequences to ourselves, the world, and our relationship with God. That, it seems to me, is the reality Original Sin is acknowledging, and it's pretty much undeniable, whether one wants to call it that or not.

Although it is correct, he does provide such a model, may it be that the model needs still a lot of completion, mainly of the practical kind.

That's really what I was fishing for, Jan � the practical implications from Teilhard's ideas. And let me include "getting to know God" or "having mystical experiences" in the idea of practical as well. But my immediate practical interest is to see if we could do a little science fiction thinking (peer into the future or into the near future) and see what, if any, effects his ideas, if understood by the general public, would have. How would it likely change the direction and flow of humanity? Could they lead to knew science or are his ideas theological/philosophical only? Could it change the popularity of Christianity as a religion? Might these ideas have effect on popular culture, art or myths? Etc., etc.

These questions you ask, Brad, certainly deserve an answer that has been very well thought over. That's why I won't answer them right now. I'll try to answer them still this week though.
Cheers.

Thanks, Jan. Please feel no obligation to answer my questions just because they were asked, but should you care to answer them I will be interested in reading them. I've been meaning to start the book (might do it this afternoon) in order to answer some of those questions myself, but the baseball play-offs and other things keep sabotaging my plans.

Here is a first draft of an answer to some of your question, Brad; they are not inspired by any sentiment of obligation but simply by the fact that they are too important not to answer. Despite what I said earlier, my answer (or rather: starting of an answer) is mainly spontaneous, becuase, like Teilhard, I think spontaneity is a very important and valuable element in reality (and also in cosmic evolution).
So, generally speaking: Teilhard's ideas and thinking is so rich that it would be impossible that they wouldn't have - or, more precisely: shouldn't have - lots and lots of practical consequences. At the same time, it is true that most of these consequences are still to be invented and realized. I already gave the example of the practical consequences this vision had on my personal life and of course, it would be utterly impossible that my own case would be an isolated one.
Now then, Brad, your first question is: 'How would it likely change the direction and flow of humanity?' The obvious answer to this is that it would direct the 'flow' of humanity in a far better oriented and efficient way towards Omega. More simply put: it would definitely mean that Evolution - and in this part of the Universe, it is humanity itself that is the Evolution - would become more and more loaded with Love. Teilhards speaks in this context of "l'amorisation de l'Evolution", which could be translated by "Evolution charged with Love". It is all but too evident that nowadays, humankind is far away from this perspective. How realize that? Of course, it is a gradual process, it cannot be something else (more explicitely: this "amorisation of Evolution" cannot be forced by some kind of revolution). One very important thing that I see in order to realize that: more people should discover the works of Teilhard. In doing so, they would realize the real importance of 'integrating' the reality of God - the reality of the existence and the presence of God - in their own life. Which, of course, means ('automatically') the realization of more love into life, individually and - even more important - collectively. Contact with other sources of 'knowledge', like the Bible, are things that fit in naturally (or should I say, supernaturally?) in that process.
Your second question is : 'Could they lead to new science or are his ideas theological/philosophical only?' To me, it seems that this question is rather easy to answer. In fact, Teilhards vision is at the same time already some kind of new science, something he called 'hyperphysics'. And indeed, his approach - when it is not mystical (but he rarely speaks in mystical terms, although he certainly was a mystic) - is more scientific than it is theological or philosophical; something that he confirmed himself. At the same time, there is little doubt, I think, that some of his concepts - like Omega, or like the notion of complexity - could still be described and defined in a more precise and still more rigorous way. I myself am trying to do that, and for the concept of complexity, I think I made already some substantial progress. But nevertheless, if not everything in his concepts is strictly scientific, in the rather narrow sense that it should be experimentally verifiable in an objective way, some of his key notions, like 'complexity' or 'complex entity' indeed are scientific, even in this narrow sense. Moreover, I think it was of his excellent ideas to try to broaden the concept of what can be considered as 'scientific' (Teilhard himself understood this term more in the sense of the Ancient Greeks than in the sense that we give to it nowadays).
I will give a beginning of an answer to the other two questions (realizing though that you certainly have still a lot of other ones) in a next post.
Best Regards

It is all but too evident that nowadays, humankind is far away from this perspective. How realize that? Of course, it is a gradual process, it cannot be something else (more explicitely: this "amorisation of Evolution" cannot be forced by some kind of revolution).

Yes. I think that�s a wonderful insight. Well said, Jan.

It struck me the other day the oddness and incredibleness of this universe. I really am a scientific atheist at heart but my respect for truth just never lets me stay there. A simple vision of the universe just being made up of mindless matter that slavishly obeys the laws of nature and which had no beginning, and no need of one, seems a fit and tidy explanation for any beings who somehow reach the point of being able to consider all this. Just lots of atoms jiggling around. Fancy miniature magnets combining in some complex ways, but nothing particularly surprising given the amount of time involved.

And that explanation would have worked find for a material universe that sort of Big-Banged out of some quantum vacuum because it just couldn�t help itself. It has to follow the laws of nature, you know. It doesn�t know any better. And if that was all there was to it then case closed for the atheists. But now the incredible problem: Why would this matter, which seemingly was "dumb" and inert and had all the laws and properties it needed to combine in all the ways that we see even now, why would this matter be able to produce consciousness? Why and how would this inert matter be able to produce feeling? Pluto may orbit the sun and it will do so with no more coercion than gravity. But why and how do you get the incredibly singular attributes of pleasure and pain from a universe that "just happened"? The seeming fact is, this is completely incompatible with mindless universes that "just happen".

But that is not to say that it as all as clean and easy as an all-loving man dressed in white sitting on a throne. And even if that�s the truth, another truth is that evolution exists as the mechanism for growth, as the mechanism for purpose. And we must assume purpose because it seems to me only a mindless universe without thought or pleasure or pain could be purposeless. And although it seems to me that an incompletely evolved universe is incompatible with various religious beliefs around the world, it does seem obvious that some sort of shift is taking place. And I can see how it would have an effect if a guy like Teilhard were to light a lamp and show that this is indeed occurring. Or, as you said�

One very important thing that I see in order to realize that: more people should discover the works of Teilhard. In doing so, they would realize the real importance of 'integrating' the reality of God - the reality of the existence and the presence of God - in their own life.

I started reading it the night before last and, boy, can his wirting be a challenge if only because there always seems to be but a gossamer thread of meaning running from page to page. It�s not what I�d call a "thick" or condensed book. It�s certainly a book that I would have thought could have been written in about 1/4 the space. But I�ll trudge on. And yes, I was thinking of you, Jan, while reading it and how darn useful thoughtful, concise books regarding this subject could be.

Thanks for you thoughts on the subject. I�m sure I�ll have more questions in the future.

Well, thanks Brad for so much positive reaction. I am not used to it and I want you to know that I really really appreciate it. I think exchanges like they are happening in this forum are very interesting, very much more than the 'average' things that seem to fill many of our daily occupations.
I have some time now to answer another of your questions, namely if Teilhards ideas/vision could have a beneficial influence on the popularity of Christianity nowadays. Given the deep crisis in which this religion finds itself for some decades now and from which it gives the impression it lacks 'something' to emerge from it, this question is tremendously important. I won't loose time in developping all the thoughts that pushed me to the conclusion that yes, indeed, Teilhards vision, when well understood, should be considered of having the capability, the potentiality (in the sense Aristoteles gave to this word), to make evolve Christianity into a popular religion again. For one very important thing: Teilhard was a great believer in christian faith but at the same time he never stopped interrogating everything in it, even Christ Himself, even God Himself. That's very radical but at the same time it is a kind of proceeding that fulfills a very deep and sound inclination of human mind: to wonder about everything, to investigate everything, to examine everything, to think about everything. 'Too much thinking makes cowards of us all' said Hamlet in . Well, although I understand the context in which these words are pronounced (a very different one from Teilhards vision!), Teilhard proves the contrary: he shows us how far (well, not exactly how far, because the boundaries he encountered can still be surpassed, I think) the courage of fundamental interrogation can lead us in the understanding of the Universe. That's for one very important reason. Nowadays, my experience with the Official (Catholic) Church is very much the opposite of the Teilhardian approach: there is no fundamental inquiry anymore, a thing that makes me feel a very big disgust for what is happening in the Church these days, although I can't prevent myself from loving it at the same time (well, that is, if one uses the word 'Church' in a broad sense; 'Rome' for instance, I can't love honestly anymore, and that is a real, big pitty). Together with the fact that Teilhard already delivers an universal model in which all big, fundamental questions can be asked, this is the main reason why I think a good 'dosis' of Teilhard could provoke some wonders happening in nowadays Christianity. I see one big problem to this though: modern Western culture (or the lack of it!) makes people become more superficial, very much more in request of immediate relief of there immediate 'needs' (or what they think are real needs). In this superficial mindsetting, there is, of course, very little room for fundamental thought, for thinking about God. So, before Teilhard can do his enormously positive 'work' in the minds of people, I think nowadays another work is needed before, - or simultaneously to - that, namely: make people grow, so that they become less superficial, more valuable, innerly richer people.
Ok, that's it for now. I leave now for a few days, but I'll be back next Tuesday or Wednesday. Best Regards.

Well, thanks Brad for so much positive reaction. I am not used to it and I want you to know that I really really appreciate it.

You're welcome.

I think exchanges like they are happening in this forum are very interesting, very much more than the 'average' things that seem to fill many of our daily occupations.

The mind can well soar where our 9-to-5 bodies find difficult to follow. I'm hoping one day that my daily occupation can be one quarter as interesting as my imagination.

Given the deep crisis in which this religion finds itself for some decades now and from which it gives the impression it lacks 'something' to emerge from it, this question is tremendously important.

I see one big problem to this though: modern Western culture (or the lack of it!) makes people become more superficial, very much more in request of immediate relief of there immediate 'needs' (or what they think are real needs).

I think I know what you mean, Jan. Perhaps the fundamental problem in our western world (and it's a good problem to have) is that things are relatively good, safe and comfortable among a great many people. Heck, we'd hardly want misery and hardship just to get people to turning back to religion looking for some hope! So what does Christianity have to offer to a culture that is on the fast track to more, better, smarter, younger, prettier, wealthier, faster, and seems to offer the means to achieve many, if not all, of these things?

The paradigm today seems to be that if we aren't successful enough then all we need to do is overcome our flawed psychology in order to then get what we want. Sometimes this works. Sometimes it doesn't. And I wouldn't want to in any way discount the efficacy of psychological counseling. But it seems the underlying assumption is that we could have everything we wanted if all the flaws in us (or others) could be eradicated. That's probably not a very reasonable perspective.

It's a completely different paradigm to turn to the philosophy (and theology) of, say, Christ. Such teachings may not even register on the radar of materialists, hedonists, nihilists, and anarchists (and I assure you that I have deep desire to be successful at any or all of these things). But as far as spreading the word, expanding the religion, well, from my point of view it's sort of missing the point to be concerned with how big something is. I'd rather have a real one carat diamond then a twelve carat cubic zirconium one. And I think it is an inherent problem of any institution. It will tend to sort of take on a life of its own and a lot of the energies go toward expanding and preserving the institution while core principles are diluted or lost. Here I'm reminded of St. Francis who apparently had to go and get the explicit permission of the Pope just to teach the Gospel.

But neither does it do any good to swing the pendulum the other way and suppose that one has it in one's power to purify an institution (an institution such as Christianity). It's been tried and failed, tried and failed so many times that a zillion different odd denominations and orders have proliferated. Granted, some of this diversity simply represents a healthy expression of differing personalities and philosophies. And because we're all so different, I think it's a great thing that we don't have this one, huge, monolithic church. On the other hand, who can doubt that there are so many denominations and orders because of the human desire to chase perfection to unreasonable degrees and to not accept ourselves and the world as it truly is?

As far as making Christianity appeal to a wider audience, it's not complicated. Never has been and never will be. In the words of St. Francis: Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words. That's all Christianity has to do. If people aren't attracted to this immediately then be patient. It's a good message.

I won't loose time in developping all the thoughts that pushed me to the conclusion that yes, indeed, Teilhards vision, when well understood, should be considered of having the capability, the potentiality (in the sense Aristoteles gave to this word), to make evolve Christianity into a popular religion again. For one very important thing: Teilhard was a great believer in christian faith but at the same time he never stopped interrogating everything in it, even Christ Himself, even God Himself. That's very radical but at the same time it is a kind of proceeding that fulfills a very deep and sound inclination of human mind: to wonder about everything, to investigate everything, to examine everything, to think about everything. 'Too much thinking makes cowards of us all' said Hamlet in . Well, although I understand the context in which these words are pronounced (a very different one from Teilhards vision!), Teilhard proves the contrary: he shows us how far (well, not exactly how far, because the boundaries he encountered can still be surpassed, I think) the courage of fundamental interrogation can lead us in the understanding of the Universe.

Well, I think Christianity is still the world's #1 religion, so in that sense it's still popular. But in Europe it is not, as you well know. But I have the sense that you think Christianity is in need of another St. Francis; perhaps something like the ideas of Teilhard which might help to reignite interest by making Christianity more relevant to modern times (especially when evolution is a given these days). This is, at least partially, behind the push for women priests and such. But I think it takes a lot of wisdom to distinguish between "change for change's sake" (or, in other words, responding to modern influences that, at core, have very little to do with the Christian message and everything to do with modern politics or social theory) and innovation whose goal it is to spread the message of Christ.

I wonder sometimes if a lot of the "gadgets", customs or beliefs that are added on to Christianity (or any religion) are meant to overcome or diminish the undeniable and unavoidable problem of faith. Yes, it would be neat to perhaps integrate Christianity tighter with evolution (if that is one thing, or the main thing, that Teilhard's ideas can do). But I think the real challenge is simply to articulate better the core message of Christianity and not to use ideas such as those of Teilhard as a substitute for this, while fully acknowledging that such ideas could be (are, right?) a wonderful addition.

But as for the subject of free thinking as represented by the work of Teilhard, I think the more the better. I'm not a big believer that heretics (at least non-violent ones) are ever a threat. If your message is good (especially if it is one that is supposedly Divine), it doesn't need to try to suppress other ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:


But it seems the underlying assumption is that we could have everything we wanted if all the flaws in us (or others) could be eradicated. That's probably not a very reasonable perspective.

Well, for one thing, we certainly would want very different things if all flaws in us could be eradicated. But does anyone nowadays has such an underlying assumption in his/her thinking and acting? Does somesubdiscipline in psychology have such an assumption? I don't think so. To give only one example: nobody is able to eradicate the last rests of egoism in oneself.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
But neither does it do any good to swing the pendulum the other way and suppose that one has it in one's power to purify an institution (an institution such as Christianity). It's been tried and failed, tried and failed so many times that a zillion different odd denominations and orders have proliferated. Granted, some of this diversity simply represents a healthy expression of differing personalities and philosophies. And because we're all so different, I think it's a great thing that we don't have this one, huge, monolithic church. On the other hand, who can doubt that there are so many denominations and orders because of the human desire to chase perfection to unreasonable degrees and to not accept ourselves and the world as it truly is?

Well, what you observe here would need surely some more developing. I am not sure 'there are so many denominations and orders because of the human desire to chase perfection to unreasonable degrees and to not accept ourselves and the world as it truly is'. I think most of them are really the expression by their founder of not finding the kind of charism he or she felt deep in him-/herself expressed by other orders. They are, by my knowledge, not really a consequence of chasing perfection to unreasonable degrees. But, again, it is important to apply some degree of Teilhardian thinking to that. Most of these orders were founded in times when a static vision of the world was reigning. This has profound consequences for our perception of these orders. Nowadays, it is for instance quite more difficult to 'grasp' the real meaning and value of purely contemplative orders. Although there surely is a very real meaning and value to them. But in a static world (or rather: one that was wrongly perceived as being static), it didn't matter much that religious people in purely contemplative orders did not participate in the immense work of continuing, on a reflexive level, the process of the Evolution. Today, for people who are fully aware of the evolutive nature of the world, this is a quite different story. Moreover, the 'world as it truly is', becomes a slightly problematic statement, because the world is constantly evolving, that means, changing. And, fundamentally, what is the real nature of something that is taken in a process of never ending (well, that is, for as long as the world exists, of course) change?

quote:

As far as making Christianity appeal to a wider audience, it's not complicated. Never has been and never will be. In the words of St. Francis: Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words. That's all Christianity has to do. If people aren't attracted to this immediately then be patient. It's a good message.

I don't see it this way (Teilhard didn't neither). In practice, and for some decades now, it appears on the contrary to be complicated (to say the least) to make Christianity appealing again in developed countries with western culture (in quite some other parts of the world, this is not - yet? - the case). Something is definitely not appealing anymore in Christianity as it is offered to people in these western countries nowadays. Surely, as I already noticed, people's attitude - more precisely their superficiality (and some other flaws) - is part of the problem. But what is the cause and what is the result? I don't doubt a second that people's attitude is to a large degree the consequence of the lack of appeal of Christianity to them. My diagnosis remains the same: there is a big lack, from the part of the official Church, in doing some serious questioning, on a fundamental level, in the area of religious questions. There is also - but that is saying almost the same thing - a big lack of confronting Christianity with modern science. And vice versa, science seems (almost) indifferent to religious questions.

quote:

But I think the real challenge is simply to articulate better the core message of Christianity and not to use ideas such as those of Teilhard as a substitute for this, while fully acknowledging that such ideas could be (are, right?) a wonderful addition.

I completely agree, Teilhards ideas/vision should never become a substitute for the core message of Christianity, nor were they ever meant so by Teilhard himself. But on the other hand, his ideas. He once observed that Christianity still had to go a long way before its central Credo was defined with all the needed precision. That completely joins your idea of better articulating the core message of Christianity, Brad.

quote:

But as for the subject of free thinking as represented by the work of Teilhard, I think the more the better. I'm not a big believer that heretics (at least non-violent ones) are ever a threat. If your message is good (especially if it is one that is supposedly Divine), it doesn't need to try to suppress other ideas.

Well, ... I think that heretics can be a real threat in that they are capable not only to poison their own mind, but also the minds of other people. But, I don't see any reason why Teilhard could be considered having heretic ideas. On the contrary, I think, everything in his work has the trace of his fundamental intention, which, after all, is typical for the jesuit inspiration: 'Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam' (to the greater Glory of God). He simply wanted us (and that also includes himself) to better see and to better act according to the real greatness of God, which, of course, is a greatness that is infinitely beyond our own greatness as humans.

Great answers/observations, Jan. I�m going to have more to say about all that you said, but at first glance a couple things caught my interest:

My diagnosis remains the same: there is a big lack, from the part of the official Church, in doing some serious questioning, on a fundamental level, in the area of religious

I�m actually fairly liberal when it comes to "official church" stuff. (Or is that maybe a conservative outlook considering that centuries ago priest were allowed to be married?) Phil certain allows broad disagreement here in terms of criticizing Catholic or Protestant policy, as long as we�re not drawing mustaches on a picture of the Pope, so I would be interested, if you feel so bold, in hearing what fundamental stuff you think needs to change. Whether this morphs into a discussion of the "watering down" of Christianity in some of the more liberal churches here in America which has resulted in a large and substantial losses of members compared to the more "traditional" denominations, I don�t know.

Most of these orders were founded in times when a static vision of the world was reigning. This has profound consequences for our perception of these orders. Nowadays, it is for instance quite more difficult to 'grasp' the real meaning and value of purely contemplative orders. Although there surely is a very real meaning and value to them. But in a static world (or rather: one that was wrongly perceived as being static), it didn't matter much that religious people in purely contemplative orders did not participate in the immense work of continuing, on a reflexive level, the process of the Evolution. Today, for people who are fully aware of the evolutive nature of the world, this is a quite different story. Moreover, the 'world as it truly is', becomes a slightly problematic statement, because the world is constantly evolving, that means, changing.

That thought would go quite nicely on MM�s "Paradigm" thread. I think most westerners are fully in tune with the idea of "progress" as their paradigm (progress as in "change", not necessarily the political "Progressive" movement meaning of the term). But I wonder for how many the paradigm of "evolution" has caught on? Perhaps a bit of this is implicit in the idea of human beings trying to live up to their "potential". But that still seems like a rather static paradigm in the sense that whatever potential we have is built in and it�s just a matter of activating it. We�re not really going to evolve ourselves into bigger and better potentials. My hunch is that when we think in terms of evolution as a paradigm we�re thinking in terms of our institutions and shared ideas (culture, etc.) becoming the object of evolution. These things will evolve and thus human beings will be dragged along (kicking and screaming in many instances). but the power of these evolved institutions will be enough to change humans for the better. In theory. Or do you se human beings evolving radically primarily via a renewed spirituality? By advanced technology? By bio-implants and other means of extending the capabilities (and longevity and perhaps wisdom?) of human beings?

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Great answers/observations, Jan.

Well thanks again, Brad. Your own observations are certainly very interesting and to the point, which contributes greatly in making our exchange of thoughts interesting and challenging.

quote:

I�m actually fairly liberal when it comes to "official church" stuff. (Or is that maybe a conservative outlook considering that centuries ago priest were allowed to be married?) Phil certain allows broad disagreement here in terms of criticizing Catholic or Protestant policy, as long as we�re not drawing mustaches on a picture of the Pope, so I would be interested, if you feel so bold, in hearing what fundamental stuff you think needs to change. Whether this morphs into a discussion of the "watering down" of Christianity in some of the more liberal churches here in America which has resulted in a large and substantial losses of members compared to the more "traditional" denominations, I don�t know.

Personnally, I think Christianity needs an official church, because it needs a 'body', an organism. Teilhard - in this matter following the inspiration of the great St Paul - saw the Christ as being 'the Head', while the Church was 'the Body'. These are some of the reasons why I try to take the official church as seriously as possible, while, on the other hand, staying honest and loyal with myself. The most fundamental thing I think needs to be changed in the official church, is, - as I said before - her fundamental attitude towards science and (serious and ethical) human research of any nature. The Church should confront Herself, in a resolute way, with the undeniable scientific fact that the world is in evolution, that our world can't be considered static anymore; much like Teilhard did himself. That means: she should dare to confront herself honestly and fully with that scientifical fact and try to discover all the fundamental consequences of that fundamental fact, while at the same time staying loyal to the central Credo (to be clarified, however!) of christian faith. That comes before everything else, including the possibility of marriage of priests, or the possibility of female priests.

quote:

I think most westerners are fully in tune with the idea of "progress" as their paradigm (progress as in "change", not necessarily the political "Progressive" movement meaning of the term). But I wonder for how many the paradigm of "evolution" has caught on? Perhaps a bit of this is implicit in the idea of human beings trying to live up to their "potential". But that still seems like a rather static paradigm in the sense that whatever potential we have is built in and it�s just a matter of activating it. We�re not really going to evolve ourselves into bigger and better potentials. My hunch is that when we think in terms of evolution as a paradigm we�re thinking in terms of our institutions and shared ideas (culture, etc.) becoming the object of evolution. These things will evolve and thus human beings will be dragged along (kicking and screaming in many instances). but the power of these evolved institutions will be enough to change humans for the better. In theory. Or do you se human beings evolving radically primarily via a renewed spirituality? By advanced technology? By bio-implants and other means of extending the capabilities (and longevity and perhaps wisdom?) of human beings?

Well, I think you again saw right, Brad: most people, although they are conquered by the idea of progress, still fail to make the link between their rather vague idea of progress and the idea (by Teilhard and a few others) of cosmic evolution. Yet it is a very big difference. The fact (in Teilhards vision) that Progress is in reality nothing else than the continuation of the cosmic Evolution that started since the Universe was born, has very profound consequences. It of course means that man is taken in a process of unification, in which he himself plays the main role if one - for a second - makes abstraction of the role of God Himself. But on top of that, in that same vision of Teilhard, it becomes clear that not only man is - in a sense - creating and inventing himself in that gigantic process, but that this is even more the case for humanity as a whole. Humanity as a whole is becoming and acting more and more as a unified organism. Though Teilhard doesn't exclude (cf. for instance the last chapters of The Phenomenon of Man) that this unification still could appear to become only partial, humankind thereby falling apart in two opposite 'camps': the camp that finally, through every possible problem and despite all kinds of evil, succeeds to unify itself completely with 'Omega', while the other 'camp' moves in a direction opposite to that. Although Teilhard sees the biggest potentiality of growth in a continuing evolution of human 'inner side', he certainly doesn't exclude - on the contrary - the kind of progress you briefly mention, like bio-implants and hi-tech interventions in the human body and mind. In this context, he talks about 'eugenetics' in a noble, humanworth, sense. This point too, of course, makes his thinking very bold in the official church, and unfortunately also very controversial.

The most fundamental thing I think needs to be changed in the official church, is, - as I said before - her fundamental attitude towards science and (serious and ethical) human research of any nature. The Church should confront Herself, in a resolute way, with the undeniable scientific fact that the world is in evolution, that our world can't be considered static anymore; much like Teilhard did himself.

Jan, I certainly am not in close touch with general Church attitudes in regards to science (although from what I�ve read it seems that at least the official Church attitudes are in pretty good alignment with science�maybe it doesn�t play out that way in practice though. I don�t know). I�m just familiar with the attitudes expressed here at Shalom Place by Catholics and they seem a lot more knowledgeable about science than most secular web sites and seem less given to fantasy.

It�s interesting, though, to consider that Christianity, in its essence, is hardly static. After all, it�s about a new sort of covenant with God different from the original Old Testament one, right? So that�s sort of revolutionary, even if that revolution started over 2000 years ago. To put the Gospels into practice would still seem quite revolutionary to most people today.

I know I really have just got to sit down and read more of Teilhard in order to understand what exactly it might mean if the Church were to orient in a more evolutionary way.

The fact (in Teilhards vision) that Progress is in reality nothing else than the continuation of the cosmic Evolution that started since the Universe was born, has very profound consequences. It of course means that man is taken in a process of unification, in which he himself plays the main role if one - for a second - makes abstraction of the role of God Himself. But on top of that, in that same vision of Teilhard, it becomes clear that not only man is - in a sense - creating and inventing himself in that gigantic process, but that this is even more the case for humanity as a whole.

I�m wondering what you might have in mind in regards to ways in which we might play a main role. Is it something we have to actively coordinate amongst ourselves or is it just something that happens by way of the normal process of evolution?

Though Teilhard doesn't exclude�that this unification still could appear to become only partial, humankind thereby falling apart in two opposite 'camps': the camp that finally, through every possible problem and despite all kinds of evil, succeeds to unify itself completely with 'Omega', while the other 'camp' moves in a direction opposite to that.

I am by no means well-versed in the various interpretations, official or otherwise, of the Christian paradigm. But I think it goes something like this: There was the Creation. Then there was a Fall. Then there was a Redemption. And it�s the part after that that has me a bit confused. Are we all saved? Only those living from the time of Christ onward? Only those who believe in Him? Or is it only those whose actions that speak to the fact as to whether we believe in Him or not? There seem many interpretations of just what it takes to be saved. And then we have do think about what just being saved means. Eternal life in heaven? A stop-over first in purgatory? I don�t know. Like I said, I don�t pretend to be a Biblical scholar and even if I was (maybe especially if I was ), I�m not sure I�d understand it much better. And surely being reunited and reconciled with God seems to be the whole point of Christianity. And what does that mean exactly? Existing as spirit? Existing in resurrected bodies? Or something else?

And so now do we have Teilhard adding another layer of complexity � or does he simplify? I honestly don�t know. And is the paradigm a good one?

Humanity as a whole is becoming and acting more and more as a unified organism.

Should we be driven to unity to God by way of somehow becoming unified ourselves or is that a recipe for disaster? Were we perhaps meant to come to God as individuals in order to be unified?

Did I read here (perhaps elsewhere) that early on in evolution, organisms may have not been particularly differentiated? They may have been swapping back and forth bits and pieces of DNA as if life was all one big gene pool. And then later (as we certainly know this is the case, because that�s what we have now), life evolved into differentiated, distinct, and competitive organisms where any advantages which originated in a particular organism were shared only with its offspring (or clones) but not with the community at large.

I�m prone to think that our own sociological yearnings show up in our views of evolution and what it means to creation. But I also wonder if it�s possible for some deep �unitarian� memory to persist. Maybe we are going to come full circle and be �one� again and share everything to the extent that would even make Karl Marx happy. As a political conservative, I think it�s a horrible idea to try to be so uniform�at least given our present bodies and minds. But surely if our present bodies and minds radically changed then such a thing might work. But if evolution is heading toward unification -- with God, each other or both � it begs the question of why we ever became un-unified. It at least begs the question of why unification should take so long. A Big Bang, given slightly different parameters to the physics of the universe, could have led soon to a big crunch where every atom and molecule is literally unified in an infinitely dense speck. So it seems to me that if there is meaning to being that much of that meaning is for us to experience separateness and to come to terms with it.

Okay. My brain is officially fried.

Ok, ok, Brad, that's a lot of things to answer, I don't know where to start! In fact answering all the things you evoke or ask would take a book to be answered in some depth, as needed. Instead, I will (again) try to give some incentives, some paths that should lead to your own answers.

quote:

It�s interesting, though, to consider that Christianity, in its essence, is hardly static. After all, it�s about a new sort of covenant with God different from the original Old Testament one, right?

Right. But in what way such new sort of covenant with God points to something that is not static in essence? In fact, nowhere in the Bible, there seems to be some text or fragment of text that gives rise to some 'dynamical' world vision.

quote:

So that�s sort of revolutionary, even if that revolution started over 2000 years ago. To put the Gospels into practice would still seem quite revolutionary to most people today.

That's true. To live a life of love to the standards that Christ gave to this 'mission', remains challenging for everyone. And indeed, as you say, it still seems revolutionary. Revolutionary, but not evolutionary, though! In many ways, revolution is quite the opposite of evolution. Evolution is a gradual, continuous process, whereas revolution includes, by definition, discontinuity. Of course, I am greatly simplifying reality here. Teilhard (also in The Phenomenon of Man, which, by the way, is a bad translation of 'Le Ph�nom�ne Humain') shows that even in the gradual, cosmic process of evolution, there are discontinuities. A very important, critical one is the step of hominsation, found in the orthogenesis of species (transition from primate to first human being(s)) and reflected in the individual ontogenesis of each human individu (i.e. when the initially the baby, not yet able of thinking, becomes capable of his/her first personal thoughts).

quote:

I�m wondering what you might have in mind in regards to ways in which we might play a main role. Is it something we have to actively coordinate amongst ourselves or is it just something that happens by way of the normal process of evolution?

.
I think it is BOTH (I know, this statement needs further development).

quote:

I am by no means well-versed in the various interpretations, official or otherwise, of the Christian paradigm. But I think it goes something like this: There was the Creation. Then there was a Fall. Then there was a Redemption. And it�s the part after that that has me a bit confused. Are we all saved? Only those living from the time of Christ onward? Only those who believe in Him? Or is it only those whose actions that speak to the fact as to whether we believe in Him or not? There seem many interpretations of just what it takes to be saved.

Yes, the points you take into considerations here are indeed rather confusing. This is one of the points that Teilhard himself pointed out to be in need of further (religious) thinking. In fact, he once noted (in one of his Journals or in retrait notes, I don't know for sure) that something that bothered him was the fact that he didn't feel the need of the historical Incarnation of the Universal Christ into Jezus of Nazareth. And that still remains a challenge today: to 'proof' that the Universal Christ and Jezus of Nazareth are one and the same. However, a point that was completely clear to Teilhard (and that I don't doubt neither) is that Redemption extents to all humans, since the first human being that appeared on Earth till the last one that will live on this Planet. Which doesn't mean that everyone will be saved, will ressurect and 'go to Heaven'. God is plenty of mercy, but we should fear His anger though; knowing however that His anger is just and will only permanently 'affect' some among us. Now, for a 'representation' of how we will ressurect: that's impossible because nobody can 'see' beyond the critical point that separates us, people living on Earth, to the beings that we will be 'in Heaven'.Catholic Church however claims however that we will ressurect in mind as well as in body (in which it is radically different from Platonistic views on this point).


Should we be driven to unity to God by way of somehow becoming unified ourselves or is that a recipe for disaster? Were we perhaps meant to come to God as individuals in order to be unified?

quote:

Did I read here (perhaps elsewhere) that early on in evolution, organisms may have not been particularly differentiated? They may have been swapping back and forth bits and pieces of DNA as if life was all one big gene pool. And then later (as we certainly know this is the case, because that�s what we have now), life evolved into differentiated, distinct, and competitive organisms where any advantages which originated in a particular organism were shared only with its offspring (or clones) but not with the community at large.

I�m prone to think that our own sociological yearnings show up in our views of evolution and what it means to creation. But I also wonder if it�s possible for some deep �unitarian� memory to persist. Maybe we are going to come full circle and be �one� again and share everything to the extent that would even make Karl Marx happy. As a political conservative, I think it�s a horrible idea to try to be so uniform�at least given our present bodies and minds. But surely if our present bodies and minds radically changed then such a thing might work. But if evolution is heading toward unification -- with God, each other or both � it begs the question of why we ever became un-unified. It at least begs the question of why unification should take so long. A Big Bang, given slightly different parameters to the physics of the universe, could have led soon to a big crunch where every atom and molecule is literally unified in an infinitely dense speck. So it seems to me that if there is meaning to being that much of that meaning is for us to experience separateness and to come to terms with it.

Union and unification are of course extremely important points in the vision of Teilhard de Chardin. It is very important to understand that 'right after' the Big Bang (if we assume this theory is the right model to describe some of the universal phenomenons in the Universum), matter wasn't unified at all, quite the contrary. The same thing goes for the first manifestations of life: although almost not differentiated, these first forms of life weren't 'one' at all. One of the things Teilhard learns, is that real unification differentiates. In our process of unification in Omega (= the Universal Christ), which is the shortest possible expression of describing the essence of the cosmic process of Evoution as it continues to be ongoing now, we don't loose ourselves, our person, in the process. The contrary is true: we become more 'pronounced' persons, with stronger, richer, deeper personalities. If you think about it: it must be that way, since God is Love and Love always preserves what is most valuable in everyone of us.

Interesting exchanges.

One point that caught me was the following, by Jan re. the incarnation of Christ:
This is one of the points that Teilhard himself pointed out to be in need of further (religious) thinking. In fact, he once noted (in one of his Journals or in retrait notes, I don't know for sure) that something that bothered him was the fact that he didn't feel the need of the historical Incarnation of the Universal Christ into Jezus of Nazareth. And that still remains a challenge today: to 'proof' that the Universal Christ and Jezus of Nazareth are one and the same.

I'm not sure what "Universal Christ" refers to, here. The Word, or Second Person of the Trinity? The term, "Christ," means the "annointed," and in Christianity that refers to Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe to be the incarnation of the Word (note, this is not something one can "prove." It's simply what we believe, for a number of reasons.) As to why Teilhard didn't see the "need" for the incarnation, that's due, in part, to his treatment (or lack thereof) of the Fall. But even without a Fall for the incarnation to rectify, it's still possible that the coming of the Word as a human could/would have happened as a next-step in evolutionary development, perhaps to usher in the final stage before the pleroma, or full realization of Omega.

we become more 'pronounced' persons, with stronger, richer, deeper personalities. If you think about it: it must be that way, since God is Love and Love always preserves what is most valuable in everyone of us.

I like that very much about Teilhard's teaching, and it's a noteworthy counterpoint to Eastern notions (which Teilhard rejected) that individuality is somehow absorbed into the One as a drop into the ocean.

Very good. And if you consider an inner influence prodding things along as well, there you go.

BTW, your thoughts on culture above get at what the Spiral Dynamics people are referring to in speaking of vMemes -- beliefs that shape the way we understand ourselves and create culture. They consider these memes to be every bit as influential in shaping human life as DNA.

Phil said: But even without a Fall for the incarnation to rectify, it's still possible that the coming of the Word as a human could/would have happened as a next-step in evolutionary development, perhaps to usher in the final stage before the pleroma, or full realization of Omega.

It seems that human culture provides the main alternative "storehouse" to DNA in regards to things effecting our evolution. Our ideas have great influence over how we evolve because, at least historically, it has decided who would evolve, as in who would survive and who wouldn�t (wars, etc.). And culture (especially the scientific part of our culture) would seem to stand poised (if it hasn�t reached the point already) of being more influential in terms of how we evolve than even DNA. Although, at the moment, the way we cure diseases might not do much in terms of effecting our evolution other than, ironically, allowing weaker genes to be passed on, it seems inevitable that some day we�ll be tweaking genes directly and passing on these tweaks, for better and for worse, to our offspring.

We may, of course, consider ourselves part of the universe, so we have now, or will have, the universe consciously directing its own evolution. Even with a God hypothesis, where it seems a lot of intelligence and perhaps a lot of directional ability (templates?) were put into the making of the evolutionary process itself, it seems that once evolution was started it was left mostly (if not completely, excepting miracles) to its own devices. But if we can sort of "reach up", so to speak, toward whatever evolutionary end, if any, there may be, then that End may be able to reach down and offer some key ingredients to what will become our most important storehouse of evolutionary information: our culture. And, boy ever, did Jesus effect the evolution of this culture.

Phil said: And if you consider an inner influence prodding things along as well, there you go.

Good point. I've been trying lately to remain sensitive to that inner prodding without smothering it. It's a tough balancing act at times. You sort of want to keep an awareness of holiness, of being receptive to love, but at the same time you want to be light and natural. You don't want to set your mind firm as if you were trying to solve a hard math problem and thus become slightly robotic, even compulsive.

Jan said: In fact, nowhere in the Bible, there seems to be some text or fragment of text that gives rise to some 'dynamical' world vision.

I guess I think we might be at the point where if you say that Christianity needs to be more dynamic to match the ideas of Teilhard, then we're going to have to move beyond the language and talk about some specifics. The language of Teilhard is very good at suggesting some type of innovative, airy, enlightened, imaginative, constructive, and evolutionary future. But even if everyone sort of adopts a new-age Teilhardian attitude, I would think there would still need to be various tangible changes, whether in the form of new agendas, Church reforms, alternate practices, different institutional organizations or structures, modified Sacraments, etc. And if it doesn't, then how will anyone be instructed so that they can take advantage of these Teilhardian views which, we shouldn't forget (at least if I'm interpreting this all correctly) are meant to enhance our experience of the universe and also to assist us in cooperating with Divine will?

[qb] Interesting exchanges.

One point that caught me was the following, by Jan re. the incarnation of Christ:
This is one of the points that Teilhard himself pointed out to be in need of further (religious) thinking. In fact, he once noted (in one of his Journals or in retrait notes, I don't know for sure) that something that bothered him was the fact that he didn't feel the need of the historical Incarnation of the Universal Christ into Jezus of Nazareth. And that still remains a challenge today: to 'proof' that the Universal Christ and Jezus of Nazareth are one and the same.

I'm not sure what "Universal Christ" refers to, here. The Word, or Second Person of the Trinity? The term, "Christ," means the "annointed," and in Christianity that refers to Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe to be the incarnation of the Word (note, this is not something one can "prove." It's simply what we believe, for a number of reasons.) As to why Teilhard didn't see the "need" for the incarnation, that's due, in part, to his treatment (or lack thereof) of the Fall. But even without a Fall for the incarnation to rectify, it's still possible that the coming of the Word as a human could/would have happened as a next-step in evolutionary development, perhaps to usher in the final stage before the pleroma, or full realization of Omega.[/qb]

Well, the Universal Christ, of course, is taken here in the same sense that Teilhard gave to it, i.e. the Second Person, or, in other words, the uniquely born Son of God, but with the emphasis on the cosmic attributes of Christ. I think it's not quite correct to say that Teilhard doesn't treat the Fall. In the small article he wrote about his interpretation of the Original Sin, I remember he said that he didn't like at all the idea of the Original Sin in the sense of a Fall. In his view, that interpretation led to a diminished glorification of God, as it makes appear the Creator as being 'unfortunate' in his creational activity. I agree with Teilhard's point of vue. He is also the first, in my knowledge, to express that kind of intelligent criticism on this interpretation of the Fall.
Indeed, Teilhards interpretation of the Fall (or indeed, the lack of a Fall, in some literal interpretation of that word or concept) is one of the main reasons why he didn't feel the need of the Incarnation. I have to admit that in this matter too, I feel like Teilhard. But not feeling the need - which is of the order of a feelingm an intuition - is not the same as denying this fundamental point of the christian faith. I believe - like Teilhard did - Jezus of Nazareth and the Universal Christ are one and the same, but how 'prove' it, or at least make it more plausible?? Not an easy question, but one that Christianity will have to answer sooner or later.

[qb]we become more 'pronounced' persons, with stronger, richer, deeper personalities. If you think about it: it must be that way, since God is Love and Love always preserves what is most valuable in everyone of us.

I like that very much about Teilhard's teaching, and it's a noteworthy counterpoint to Eastern notions (which Teilhard rejected) that individuality is somehow absorbed into the One as a drop into the ocean. [/qb]
Yes, Phil, I couldn't agree more.