The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin
Part Six:
Thomas L. McFadden on Teilhard
“It could be said that Père Teilhard was as much a
poet and mystic as he was a scientist.
It is no small thing to be a poet and a mystic (St.
John of the Cross managed it impressively), but poetry and mysticism are not fit
substitutes for empirical science”.
Dennis Q. McInerny
Professor Dennis Q. McInerny touches on this subject
in his review of McFadden’s excellent book, Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism:
A Discussion for Those Who Believe (2016):
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/review-of-creation-evolution-and-catholicism-a-discussion-for-those-who-bel
when he writes:
Evolution, theology and the Teilhardian heresy
The book’s treatment of the relation between evolution and theology,
which is the subject taken up in Chapter 7, is especially noteworthy for its
discussion of the thought of Père Teilhard de Chardin. His not entirely
felicitous influence, especially among Catholic intellectuals, has had the
effect of leading them, many of whom were clearly unacquainted with the
relevant scientific data, to see in the whole way of evolutionary thinking an
intellectual hardiness, and a potential for beneficial wide-ranging applicability,
which it simply doesn’t have.
It could be said that Père Teilhard was as much a poet and mystic as he
was a scientist. It is no small thing to be a poet and a mystic (St. John
of the Cross managed it impressively), but poetry and mysticism are not fit
substitutes for empirical science. In any event, Sir Julian Huxley, in the
Introduction he wrote for the English translation of The
Phenomenon of Man, revealingly refers to Père Teilhard as a
strong visualizer, and does not seem to have much to say about the strictly
scientific aspects of the Jesuit’s thought.
A particularly perspicacious critique of Père Teilhard’s ideas appears
as an appendix to Jacques Maritain’s The
Peasant of Garonne; the French philosopher ends his short essay
with this pointed sentence: “He was without a doubt a man of great
imagination.” (269) The best book length study of Père Teilhard’s thought to
date is Wolfgang Smith’s Theistic
Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy, which was published in 2012.
Mr. McFadden weaves much pertinent information into this chapter, and in doing
so builds a commanding case against evolution as a viable scientific theory.
Humani Generis and evolution
But for that matter the entire book is chock full of pertinent information
regarding evolution and its many ramifications, specifically as affecting
Catholic faith. I was particularly struck by the studied treatment the author
gives to Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani
Generis, a document which is especially important for what it
has to say about evolution. It is often read without proper care,
unfortunately, with the result that the ways in which it is sometimes
interpreted are not consonant with the text itself. Mr. McFadden sets the
record straight in that respect, and thereby performs a valuable service. He is
quite right in saying that in the encyclical the pope is by no means giving
anything like a blanket endorsement of evolutionary theory. The larger concern
of the encyclical, as Mr. McFadden points out, has to do with the problematic
aspects which are to be found in modern philosophy as a whole. The pope
discusses evolution as a particular instance of what is worrisome about much
contemporary thought. ….
[End of quote]
And, regarding philosopher Jacques Maritain’s
opinion of Teilhard de Chardin in Maritain’s classic, The Peasant of the Garonne, John B. Killoran will write
in “FALSE AND GENUINE KNOWLEDGE: A PHILOSOPHICAL LOOK AT THE PEASANT OF THE
GARONNE: http://people.stfx.ca/wsweet/EM/08-%201992/No.%208%20John%20B.%20Killoran.pdf
….
Ironically enough, the most powerful salvos of The Peasant of the
Garonne were reserved for a thinker who cannot be considered an ideosopher,
viz., Pere Teilhard de Chardin. For the generation of Catholics that came to
maturity in the 1960's, Pere Teilhard was more than just a distinguished
Catholic paleontologist. He was rather the living embodiment of aggiornomento,
Catholicism's opening to the world of modem thought. Maritain writes that
Teilhard had a healthy sense of reality -- indeed Teilhard's thought is
permeated by an incarnational view of the universe. Nevertheless, like many of
his scientistic contemporaries, Teilhard fell prey to the cardinal error of the
modern era, the failure to make distinctions, for "the idea of a specific
distinction between the different degrees of knowledge was always completely
foreign to him.”39 In Teilhard writings poetic intuition masquerades as
theology, with the result that the line between nonconceptual and conceptual
knowledge is obliterated. What emerges is a sort of "theology-fiction.”4O How
else is one to interpret the neologisms such as "noosphere" that abound
in the Teilhardian vocabulary than as the consequence of an effort to marry a
profound poetic vision to an "up-to-date" scientifically based
metaphysics? While Maritain, of course, has no objection to a metaphysics that
takes into consideration to discoveries of modern science, he points out to the
disciples of Teilhard that if the appropriate distinctions are not made the
consequence will be the proliferation of a false knowledge that purports to
answer the most fundamental questions of the human mind but which, in the end,
leaves it entirely barren. This intellectual emptiness is what false knowledge
has instilled into modern life. ….
