Pierre Teilhard Du Chardin, SJ and the origins of God?

[westerly]

I’ve been superficially skimming over some of the writing of the Jesuit Teilhard Du Chardin, on the nature of God as the Omega point, and the evolutionary mechanism as a model for conscious development over time, and I can see now why the church was so uncomfortable with his writing. If there’s anyone out there who could give me an opinion on why his works go in and out of fashion, and why there’s so much variability in the church’s reception of his works, I’d appreciate any guidance.

As a former biologist, I’m comfortable with Du Chardin’s position that evolution must occur in the human condition, both body and soul- it seems as if the development of quantum physics and our understanding of time have strengthened Du Chardin’s hypothesis that our consciousness is the piece of God’s divinity entrusted to us, and that God is both the source and destination of consciousness. If I understand what I’ve read (and that’s not certain!), consciousness IS God, and that the moment in the future when human consciousness can exist outside of time, it will have always existed outside of time, creating instant omniscience, and the birth of God, who at that instant will have always existed and always will.
Can anyone clarity?

 

[Fran65]

Very interesting. Like you I hope that someone more knowledgeable replies. The idea of God being consciousness and it being our divine gift from God sounds Hindu.

 

[St_Francis]

I’ve been superficially skimming over some of the writing of the Jesuit Teilhard Du Chardin, on the nature of God as the Omega point, and the evolutionary mechanism as a model for conscious development over time, and I can see now why the church was so uncomfortable with his writing. If there’s anyone out there who could give me an opinion on why his works go in and out of fashion, and why there’s so much variability in the church’s reception of his works, I’d appreciate any guidance.

As a former biologist, I’m comfortable with Du Chardin’s position that evolution must occur in the human condition, both body and soul- it seems as if the development of quantum physics and our understanding of time have strengthened Du Chardin’s hypothesis that our consciousness is the piece of God’s divinity entrusted to us, and that God is both the source and destination of consciousness. If I understand what I’ve read (and that’s not certain!), consciousness IS God, and that the moment in the future when human consciousness can exist outside of time, it will have always existed outside of time, creating instant omniscience, and the birth of God, who at that instant will have always existed and always will.
Can anyone clarity?

Wow, I can’t imagine how studying biology would mess a person’s mind up so much…

Considering that a human being remains conscious whether he has the spark of divinity or not–Hitler was conscious even tho he was in active rebellion against God–then it is logically impossible for consciousness to be God.

Moreover, since time is a creation of God’s, His existence could not be dependent on something which happens in time, which would be the starting of the movement of human consciousness to the outside of time according to your description.

May I recommend Radio Replies over de Chardin? (I’m sorry, I can’t link for some reason, but RR is online as well as in print.) Reading RR is like a tonic for the mind

 

[westerly]

Very interesting. Like you I hope that someone more knowledgeable replies. The idea of God being consciousness and it being our divine gift from God sounds Hindu.

Fran, I’m paraphrasing and oversimplifying, but I think the crux of what he said was that a literal translation of what God meant by making us in His image would have to include a piece of himself- the soul, which Du Chardin interpreted as being the font of consciousness- I think he believed that the ability to animate matter was based on the same source of our consciousness, God. I haven’t yet been able to comprehend some of the deeper material- but from what I gather, Du Chardin believed that entropy is a rear-facing window, and that the steady organization of the universe would have to inevitably result in God, and since it would be inevitable, God would always have existed in all times concurrently. I’m getting stuck on the idea of time being irrelevant in a physical description of the universe… I could really use about 40 more IQ points.

I’m not so sure about the Hindu comparison, since Du Chardin’s belief was that consciousness was the manifestation of the nature of God in all of us- the spark of the divine.

 

[westerly]

Wow, I can’t imagine how studying biology would mess a person’s mind up so much…

Considering that a human being remains conscious whether he has the spark of divinity or not–Hitler was conscious even tho he was in active rebellion against God–then it is logically impossible for consciousness to be God.

Moreover, since time is a creation of God’s, His existence could not be dependent on something which happens in time, which would be the starting of the movement of human consciousness to the outside of time according to your description.

May I recommend Radio Replies over de Chardin? (I’m sorry, I can’t link for some reason, but RR is online as well as in print.) Reading RR is like a tonic for the mind

St. Francis, I was drawn to his work because it goes so much further in providing a basis for the justification for scientific exploration as a religious endeavor. Although Du Chardin has been dead for some time, his ideas fit very cleanly with our understanding of the relationship between time and matter.  What little I understand of the science of quantum mechanics is perfectly in keeping with Du Chardin's view of the Universe as a construct that is both the source of and product of God.  I can see the controversy in discussing the idea of God as having had a beginning, although the mechanics of what Du Chardin described would imply that for God to exist only requires that there be a possibility that God could exist. This is in keeping with the idea that once the possibility of God existing in our universe occurred, God would have existed for all times and in all places, so there would never be an instant of creation for God- he would have always existed.

I don’t have the math background to understand Du Chardin’s desciption of matter existing in probability waves (another discovery that predated quantum mechanics, but upon which that science is based), and the inherant rightness of the classical idea of God being an ‘uncaused cause,’ but it is the closest any religious or scientific writer has come to truly providing a rational basis for how our universe exists.

Everything I’m reading has made my faith stronger, but I certainly see why the full works of Du Chardin are only available to fellow Jesuits.

 

[westerly]

St. Francis- sorry, accidentally hit reply.

I’m not sure I understand where you were going with Hitler- evil or not, he was made the same as any other man- the fact that his free will allowed him to choose to be a true anti-Christ in the fullest sense of the meaning is also evidence that he was given the same gifts of consciousness as any other human… absent conscience, of course but he wasn’t alone there- Mao, Stalin; he had good company there.

I’m afraid that my poor description of what I have read is doing a disservice to what I was reading.

As for the time argument, that’s the hardest part to get around- since it’s possible for time to be experienced in many ways (including not at all) by different forms of matter measurable in our universe, there’s ample proof that existing without time is possible. If I understand what I read, this would make time a function that existed only after God, since he would have always have existed and always would, once he existed- the idea of existence having a source, but no start or finish is a paradox to me, but not to quantum physics. If the cutting edge of Physics really is a glimpse into God’s toolbox, I would take that as a proof of his greatness.

 

[St_Francis]

St. Francis- sorry, accidentally hit reply.

I’m not sure I understand where you were going with Hitler- evil or not, he was made the same as any other man- the fact that his free will allowed him to choose to be a true anti-Christ in the fullest sense of the meaning is also evidence that he was given the same gifts of consciousness as any other human… absent conscience, of course but he wasn’t alone there- Mao, Stalin; he had good company there.

Well, I just used him as he is considered the epitome of evil, altho I think there a several others who could easily tie if not beat him in that contest. What I meant was that to me, the idea of God having put a Part of Himself into us, each and every one of us, doesn’t make sense because I do not see how that Part could exist within in us when we were in a state of mortal sin.

I’m afraid that my poor description of what I have read is doing a disservice to what I was reading.

Well, I can over-react so maybe not

As for the time argument, that’s the hardest part to get around- since it’s possible for time to be experienced in many ways (including not at all) by different forms of matter measurable in our universe, there’s ample proof that existing without time is possible. If I understand what I read, this would make time a function that existed only after God, since he would have always have existed and always would, once he existed- the idea of existence having a source, but no start or finish is a paradox to me, but not to quantum physics. If the cutting edge of Physics really is a glimpse into God’s toolbox, I would take that as a proof of his greatness.

If God created time, He must have existed outside of time “before” time came to be; He cannot come from something which He created.

Also, some of de Chardin’s works were condemned by the Church so you might check to see if the one you are reading is one of those. Not saying it is, but that if it were, you should know

 

[Jonesboy]

I’ve been superficially skimming over some of the writing of the Jesuit Teilhard Du Chardin, on the nature of God as the Omega point, and the evolutionary mechanism as a model for conscious development over time, and I can see now why the church was so uncomfortable with his writing. If there’s anyone out there who could give me an opinion on why his works go in and out of fashion, and why there’s so much variability in the church’s reception of his works, I’d appreciate any guidance.

As a former biologist, I’m comfortable with Du Chardin’s position that evolution must occur in the human condition, both body and soul- it seems as if the development of quantum physics and our understanding of time have strengthened Du Chardin’s hypothesis that our consciousness is the piece of God’s divinity entrusted to us, and that God is both the source and destination of consciousness. If I understand what I’ve read (and that’s not certain!), consciousness IS God, and that the moment in the future when human consciousness can exist outside of time, it will have always existed outside of time, creating instant omniscience, and the birth of God, who at that instant will have always existed and always will.
Can anyone clarity?

It doesn’t do to rely on modern discovery.
Discoveries about “time”, for example, are based on the non-Kantian, Newtonian concept of time.
And evolutionary mechanisms are mere animistic gestures made toward some of our own, preferred, pre-configured arrangements of matter.
And quantum physics can’t distinguish between a hidden object and a necessarily hidden object.

 

[Fran65]

I’m getting stuck on the idea of time being irrelevant in a physical description of the universe… …

I’m not a physicist but time seems integral to any physical description as those descriptions have to include change. It certainly sounds complex!

I’m not so sure about the Hindu comparison, since Du Chardin’s belief was that consciousness was the manifestation of the nature of God in all of us- the spark of the divine.

This is very similar to a Hindu belief of several branches:

The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one’s ātman (own psyche/soul) is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.The Upanishads state that whoever becomes fully aware of the ātman as the innermost core of one’s own self realizes an identity with Brahman and thereby reaches moksha (liberation or freedom).

Source: Wikipedia 4/7/11

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

An article on pantheistic mysticism with many valid points on the problems of de Chardin.

The underlying problem today is the acceptance of erroneous philosophies that form the basis for accepting distinctions between faith and science that make the reintegration seen as something necessary.

Bringing together faith and science from a rationalistic perspective that is in accord with faith is backwards. The higher truth belongs to the prime reality, the supernatural, and to God which we can, as contingent reality, only know as effects leading from a cause. When philosophy fails to accept the necessary basis for knowing, that the object known is in the knower based in essence and the nature of the object, we have an error before we even begin. We deny the spiritual and see everything as materialistic. De.Chardin does the same in his making a new religion based on Christian terms redefined.

In this world ripe with error, political lies accepted for material gain, abortion, relativism, etc., we need to be careful that we don’t fall into the same errors that obscure the truth. De Chardin’s dehumanizing view of man and his nature as evolving to a collective consciousness at an “omega point” is also a redefinition of eternity that precludes any personal acceptance of the Person of Christ. Jesus is merely a symbol of a “cosmic Christ” devoid of any Divinity. We reach God not by reaching upward but by moving forward into a progressive evolution because for de Chardin God is not above nature but behind it moving it forward. This is a “theology fiction” as Etienne Gilson called it

Monitum Regarding the writings of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin

 

[westerly]

OK, this is exactly what I was looking for- some decent answers as to whether or not there was a theological basis for the discomfort Du Chardin created within the church.

 

[GEddie]

Wow, I can’t imagine how studying biology would mess a person’s mind up so much…

Considering that a human being remains conscious whether he has the spark of divinity or not–Hitler was conscious even tho he was in active rebellion against God–then it is logically impossible for consciousness to be God.

Problem is, doesn’t the Church define God as “Being itself?” And as you said with consciousness, we remain in being, at least temporarily, even while in states of sin. Wouldn’t that negate God as being? Indeed, consciousness is only a product of being.

Moreover, since time is a creation of God’s, His existence could not be dependent on something which happens in time, which would be the starting of the movement of human consciousness to the outside of time according to your description.

God is not dependent on what happens wrt us at all. But as time is the index of the entropy in our human bodies, without which we expereince no being nor consciousness; we will never fully elucidate the relationship of being to time.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ahimsa]

If I understand what I’ve read (and that’s not certain!), consciousness IS God, and that the moment in the future when human consciousness can exist outside of time, it will have always existed outside of time, creating instant omniscience, and the birth of God, who at that instant will have always existed and always will.
Can anyone clarity?

Teilhard is hard to understand. Everyone agrees on that issue.

For Teilhard, the universe is composed of both matter and consciousness, such that wherever one exists, you have the other existing as well. Thus, even the atoms are conscious, at least on a very, very minimal level.

The universe is evolving in complexity, in both its matter and its consciousness. Humans represent a very complex point in the universe’s evolution.

The reason the universe is evolving in complexity, is because of the Omega Point.

The Omega Point, which already and always exists, draws the universe towards itself, towards greater and greater levels of material complexity and consciousness. In this sense, the Omega Point can be seen as another term for the Logos, the Christ, who draws all men unto him.

Eventually, the universe is drawn into “oneness” with the Omega Point, with perfect complexity, perfect consciousness.

So, it’s not as if “consciousness is God”, because consciousness evolves, but God (as the Omega Point) does not. However, consciousness does become “one” with God (which is similar to the Christian idea of “theosis”, in which one becomes “one” with God).

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Only people have consciousness, it is a result of a soul. To correlate consciousness with a mere higher level of “self awareness” is to denigrate what Catholicism has taught about the nature of man as made in the Image of God. It is also a mistake for de Chardin to say that a consciousness exists in inanimate matter.

It is the “self” that has the dignity of the Image of God and has the occasion to make a personal choice for God, not a depersonalized community advancement toward higher evolving. Since Jesus said “I am the Truth”, not I have the truth, a choice by the “free personal center”, (as related by Dietrich Von Hildebrand), of the self to the Person of Jesus is not compatible with de Chardin’s view of Christianity, nor any mere view of Jesus as a “teacher of the way” opposed to the Person of Jesus being the “Way and the Life”.

Evolving to a higher complexity would be to move away from God, Who is ultimate simplicity

Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): “God is truly and absolutely simple.”

ST: 1, Q.3, A.7

Therefore, strictly speaking, primary matter and God do not differ, but are by their very being, diverse. Hence it does not follow they are the same.

A.8.

 

[Ahimsa]

It is also a mistake for de Chardin to say that a consciousness exists in inanimate matter.

Where does Catholicism teach that consciousness is completely absent from inanimate matter?

 

[french_creole]

Maybe the way to understand what Teilhard de Chardin wanted to say is the idea that the Holy Spirit and the Logic of the Cosmos is the same.

 

[french_creole]

Maybe the way to understand what Teilhard de Chardin wanted to say is the idea that the Holy Spirit and the Logic of the Cosmos are the same.

 

[pataburd]

Fran, I’m paraphrasing and oversimplifying, but I think the crux of what he said was that a literal translation of what God meant by making us in His image would have to include** a piece of himself- the soul**, which Du Chardin interpreted as being the font of consciousness- I think he believed that the ability to animate matter was based on the same source of our consciousness, God. I haven’t yet been able to comprehend some of the deeper material- but from what I gather, Du Chardin believed that entropy is a rear-facing window, and that the steady organization of the universe would have to inevitably result in God, and since it would be inevitable, God would always have existed in all times concurrently. I’m getting stuck on the idea of time being irrelevant in a physical description of the universe… I could really use about 40 more IQ points.

I’m not so sure about the Hindu comparison, since Du Chardin’s belief was that consciousness was the manifestation of the nature of God in all of us- the spark of the divine.

Sounds like neo-Platonic “emanation” and a lack of distinction between primary and secondary causes. Both roads lead to pantheism.

It has also been reported that de Chardin could not reconcile the dogma of Original Sin with his system of thought, either. Which was enough for me to clear my shelves of his “Phenomenon of Man” and “The Divine Milieu”. Dietrich von Hildebrand, a highly regarded Catholic thinker, had grave problems with de Chardin’s theology, which was another reason I stopped consulting the latter’s works (outside of polemical treatment by other respected, orthodox Catholic writers).

Reading de Chardin, for me, was like an occasion of “ever learning, but never attaining to the knowledge of the truth”, from St. Paul’s warning:

2 Timothy 3:
[1] Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. [2] Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, [3] Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, [4] Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: [5] Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

[6] For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: [7] Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[pataburd]

Maybe the way to understand what Teilhard de Chardin wanted to say is the idea that the Holy Spirit and the Logic of the Cosmos are the same.

Which sounds like a complete de-Personalization of the Holy Spirit. What’s to be gained in that?

 

[Ahimsa]

It has also been reported that de Chardin could not reconcile the dogma of Original Sin with his system of thought, either.

I don’t think Teilhard’s system is any more irreconcilable with Original Sin, than evolutionary theory itself is. In other words, Teilhard’s system and evolutionary theory both equally pose problems regarding Original Sin – and yet the Catholic Church as stated that evolution (of the physical body) is compatable with Catholic doctrine.