[Teilhard] “The Cross is the symbol of the difficult work of evolution rather than the symbol of expiation.”
Is this the sort of “inaccuracy” you refer to in the above, Antoine? It is unfortunate, perhaps, but I find it the most clearly expressed–and appealing-- statement of Teilhardian thought.
Teilhard was aware that Biological evolution is grossly wasteful in promoting ‘unity from chaos’ (i.e. progress toward Omega), but in the last 3 billion years it has displayed some important examples of this (in the symbiosis seen in mitochondria and chloroplasts, for example). However, there are still overriding elements of selfishness in the intrinsic mechanisms of biological evolution that prevent it from ever reaching the Omega Point, the Parousia, of which Teilhard speaks.
IMHO Jesus offers us the chance to mend, in the evolution of the Noosphere, what is lacking in the Biosphere–true love and empathy for our fellow humans and a respect for all earthly life. Also IMHO, complete replacement of Original Sin with Original Blessing–and recognizing that, in the future, the Noosphere will dominate human progress-- seems the best way of accomplishing this goal. Sadly, this wish is in total disagreement with statements my latest edition of the Roman Catholic Catechism.
Respectfully,
Al Leo
Albert you have made this type of comment often, but I have yet to see any reasoning from you regarding any tenet of biological evolution that provides a scientific measure of selfish mechanisms. By definition, mechanisms in chemistry, biochemistry and biology would provide a detailed description of particular phenomena, and selfishness is never an aspect of such descriptions - many mechanism are quantified with accurate factual data.
I hope you can see the difficulty in your point of view.
Actually, the version of RC catechism I was referring to was published by Image Book/Doubleday (imprimatur Cardinal Ratzinger) recommended for the Adult Confirmation class I was teaching, and thus may NOT be the latest available now. (That was more than 20 yrs. ago!! Time passes so fast at this phase of life!) In charge of religious instruction in our parish at the time was Rev. Thomas Lennert, Ph.D., who made full disclosure to the class (as I did quite often) that, as a practicing scientist (as well as a practicing Catholic) I had embraced a very liberal interpretation of the O.T., especially of Genesis.
In discussing the sections of the catechism pertaining to Original Sin (Par. 7; the Fall, p. 108), I tried to point out to the class that they must carefully make a distinction between natural Evil (e.g. suffering from tornados & tsunamis) and moral Evil, with only the latter being Sin. As hard as it may seem, they had to accept that biological death, far from being feared as the ultimate evil, was, instead, basically good. This is hinted at, but certainly NOT made clear in Sec.388: *“…the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall [note: history, not allegory] narrated in Genesis, they [authors of Genesis] could not grasp the story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”
I tried to make it clear to the class that my personal interpretation (following Teilhard’s lead) was that Adam, as the first creature gifted with a Conscience, was the first with a Free Will and the first capable of sinning. Biological death was not a punishment for disobedience.
Further, in Sec.389: “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”
While I can agree with the last statement, we must be aware that revelation implies a transfer of information via language (i.e. that’s what the Noosphere is all about), and how can we decide what constitutes ‘tampering’ and what is the necessary transfer of the ideas in the mind(s) of the original author(s) through several translations and publications?
It is unlikely that the 'mystery of Christ’–a fully human, Jesus, encompassing the essence of our God–will ever be understood; certainly not scientifically and probably not theologically. So we are forced to view this Truth “through a glass darkly”. But, for me at least, re-interpreting Adam’s Fall as misuse of a Gift, will better enable us to find our true Purpose in this wondrous Universe.
Al Leo
Good point! I see many difficulties in my worldview. Its just that I find more of them if I try to alter it significantly. First of all, I have too little formal education in human evolution and in biology in general. What I have been referring to as “selfishness” in biological evolution is better called "lack of empathy". A great deal of it stems from my watching Nature shows on TV that illustrates evolution’s “concern” for species preservation rather than for the benefit of a single individual (which is closer to “selfishness”)
Perhaps the Nature show on the Australian Dingo gives the best illustration. The parent dingos had partially disabled an adult wallaby and left it to their two offspring to ‘enjoy’ as a plaything. The pups were just being weaned, and so it was not just play. They had not yet developed a taste for meat, nor had they any experience in how to disable their future prey. They were quite capable of preventing the escape of the terrified wallaby, and began chewing on its ears. As the blood began to flow, they began to like the taste. But it was hours before the pitiable wallaby found the solace in death. All the while the parent dingos looked on, content that they were following their purpose in life. Their brains were not wired to consider the suffering of their food source. The concept of empathy had to await the re-wiring of the brain circuitry to form Mind. This occurred first on Earth with the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens.
IMHO, the Dingo story shows how Darwinian evolution can act in the complete absence of empathy. If you believe in God, must you not also believe that this is “in God’s Will”? Perhaps the Scriptural revelation that humankind has the potential to act in God’s Image means that we can be God’s agents of change for the better.
How would you improve on this world view?
respectfully,
Al Leo
Thanks for your question and my apology for the delayed response. It turns out an intervention has happened, and I won’t be able to continue here at this time. I’ve passed the word along to others, and someone may come to continue with you.
Nevertheless, you asked for a representative and provocative statement from Teilhard, so let me depart with this:
“After much debate, the question of human origins, in the terrestrial (i.e. restricted) form in which it was expressed in the nineteenth century, may be regarded as settled. A certain amount of skirmishing still goes on about a strict monogenism, to which some theologians continue to cling (because it is required for their representation of original sin); but monogenism is becoming of less and less importance to scientists, because it is impatient of any experimental verification, and is, in fact, contrary to all the evidence provided by phyletics and genetics. In consequence there is no longer any doubt in competent circles but that man appeared on our planet, at the end of the Tertiary, in conformity with the general laws of speciation.” (Christianity and Evolution: Reflections on Science and Religion, 2002: 229) Evolution & Christianity - Teilhard de Chardin
Likewise, the document with Teilhard’s censure was not long ago found in the Vatican archives & revealed. This is what Teilhard accepted, with his own caveat.
May the peace of the Lord be with you, Antoine. Thanks.
Nikolai Propo
~~
Teilhard de Chardin
Propositiones admittendae:
Primus homo Adam, cum mandatum Dei in paradiso fuit transgressus, statim sanctitatem et iustitiam, in qua constitutus fuerat, amisit (Conc.Trid., sess.5,can.1; Denz.-Bann.788).
Adae praevaricatio non sibi solo sed etiam eius propagini nocuit, et acceptam a Deo sanctitatem et iustitiam, quam perdidit, non sibi soli sed nobis etiam perdidit (Trid.,ibidem, can.2).
Hoc Adae peccatum, quod origine unum est et propagatione, non imitatione transfusum, omnibus inest unicuique proprium (Trid. ibidem, can.3).
Ergo universum genus humanum ex uno protoparente Adam ortum habuit (haec quarta propositio nullibi est quidem explicite definita; sed continetur evidenter in tribus praedictis).
Etsi fides sit supra rationem, nulla tamen unquam inter fidem et rationem vera dissensio esse potest (Conc.vat.sess. 3, cap.4; Denz. 1797).
Fieri non potest ut dogmatibus ab Ecclesia propositis, aliquando secundum progressum scientiae sensus tribuendus sit alius ab eo, quem intellexit et intelligit Ecclesia (Vat.,sess.3, can.3 de fide et ratione; Denz. 1818).
J’admets ces propositions avec le sens plein que leur donne la Ste Eglise. Et je les signe d’autant plus volontiers que, malgre les apparences que j’ai pu donner, je n’ai jamais eu d’autre id´ee que de les faire dominer sur toute verite scientifique. Profondement convaincu que la science humaine n’a de valeur que en dependance du Christ et ramenee a lui, je suis absolument decide a faire passer, avant tout resultat scientifique, la conservation, dans son integrite et sa realite parfaite, de le figure revelee de NS. J.C.
Paris. 1er Juillet 1925
P. Teilhard de Chardin Translation: Accepted Propositions:
The first man, Adam, when he acted against God’s command in paradise, immediately lost that holiness and justice in which he had been created (Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 1).
The sin of Adam damaged not only him alone but also his descendants; and the holiness and justice received from God, which he lost, he lost not only for himself alone but also for us (Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 2). 12 Zygon
This sin of Adam, which is one by origin and passed on to all by propagation and not by imitation, inheres in everyone as something proper to each (Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 3).
Therefore the whole human race takes its origin from one protoparent, Adam (this fourth proposition is nowhere explicitly defined; but is clearly implied by the preceding three).
Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason (First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4).
It is impossible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands (First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 3 on faith and reason).
I accept these propositions in the full sense that the Holy Church gives to them. And I sign them all the more voluntarily because, despite the appearances that I might have given, I have never had any other idea than to let them dominate all scientific truth. Profoundly convinced that human knowledge only has value if derived from Christ and led back to him, I am absolutely determined to make known, before every scientific result, the continuation, in his integrity and his perfect reality, of the revealed figure of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paris. July 1, 1925
P. Teilhard de Chardin
Hi Antoine, my apologies for my very delayed reply. Life got very hectic for me and I have not logged onto the forum in a couple months.
Your thesis is an interesting one.
The term Original Grace is new to me, where does that come from?
What do you think about why or how God allowed certain non-genealogical descendants to enter the state of Original Sin, while others remained in the state of Original Grace?
So in your thesis, is it still true that at a certain point in history all people alive after that point in history became genealogical descendants and so all people alive today are now in the state of Original Sin? And was that occurrence somehow inevitable?
it is the problem of most Christians to see death as God’s punishment for sin and thus see Jesus death on the cross as the as him dying to satisfy God’s need for revenge and made him change his mind towards humans.
Nowhere in Genesis does it say that “if you eat from that tree I will kill you” but it states that “you will die” as it is the logical consequence of not defining yourself as being part of God’s will but defining yourself by your own will.
perfect.this is what to pray “thy will be done” is all about.After all we should not pray to God to change reality to our wishes but to help us to change reality th his wishes
There are many issues to address regarding your outlook (and I think we have touched on most previously). I will make one point, and that is we may attribute both malevolence and altruism to various behaviors of animals in nature. Such attributions are from us as analogous to our understanding of ourselves, and not a scientific discovery re mechanisms. This is one reason (amongst many) that I reject the broad inferences often drawn from whatever version of evolution people may ascribe to.
Hi Michelle
Good question! Apparently Antoine and I are in general agreement with the Truth(s) implied in your question, but we have not found the common language which accurately expresses each viewpoint. I take it that your use of the term, non-genealogical, indicates that you consider something other than the bio-genes contained in the early Homo sapiens genome. I agree, and I propose that sometime ~50K yrs. ago, the 80 billion nerve circuits in one (or more) Homo sapiens brains were “re-wired & programmed” in a way to operate as Mind, resulting in Conscience and the ability to more easily transfer experiential information via language. This marked the origin of Humankind and the onset of the Noosphere (using Teilhardian terms).
Using anthropology to determine the time and place where the Noosphere originated presents several difficulties. IMHO, the use of sophisticated tools is too vague a measure. However the presence of burial goods that take thousands of hours of labor to prepare qualifies and it survives intact for many millennia and establishes a belief in an afterlife–a crucial consideration in discussions of theology. Cave art can be quite convincing as evidence for abstract thought; e.g. with Cro Magnon examples from France and Spain, but perhaps less so in the case of Australian Aboriginal art.
In any case, what we call 'humankind in a theological sense" seems to have spread through “learning via.migration”, rather than simply by interbreeding via biological evolution (OR by an instantaneous creation in situ.)
Does this make sense to you?
Al Leo
Now in their infinite wisdom some “brights” in Germany want to eliminate the word race from the German constitution claiming that races are something that only exists in horses and not in humans, thus putting an end to racism. The naivety of humans knows no bounds
Guess it comes a bit with the incoherence in biological classification but if adam&eve are defined at the genus level the trait should exist in all the species derived from them if we are restricted to the transmission of information by purely genetic means. But when it comes to inheritance of sin we have to understand that with the introduction of “the word” into the genus Homo we have been enabled to generate horizontal transfer of inheritable traits, in this case the idea of rejecting the authority of God as well as to define what the will of God ought to be and how to submit to it. This is in agreement with @Nikolai’s comment with
as in the change in the metaphysical capacity of humans to reach out for. Those who are limited to the purely physical limits of evolution are suffering from the flat earth thinking in the respect of understanding reality. As such Jesus is a quantum leap in metaphysical evolution of mankind being born by the will of God, not an act of magic, thus being his legitimate son and aware of his metaphysical father and his selfless love which he could therefore project. His understanding of survival fitness is the ability to obey Gods command, the ability to love thy neighbour like thy own and in doing so he achieved the ultimate in survival fitness as to live in all of our hearts (as for those of us who believe in him) so we can learn to live with him and ultimately in him.
Continued writing from last nights beginning without noticing your more recent addition. We seem to be on very similar wavelength. I was just thinking of your part about the dingo
I always wonder why people think “if God’s will there should be no suffering”. One must think they never heard of what happened to his son. The thing that people do not seem to understand is that if in God there is no suffering as we can find comfort in him and his authority. After all, suffering, apart from physical pain, is the discrepancy between our wishes about our reality and the reality of reality.
As the dingo learns from the physical experience with the prey to become a dingo we can learn from the metaphysical experience of suffering with Christ to become Christians - unless our empathy circuit is damaged too much by materialistic thinking.
Thanks Michelle for coming back and the fitting questions.
The term refers to the grace of original holiness and righteousness God bestowed to the first human beings he created in the image of God. It refers also to the state before the first sin of history (the Fall) as described by the Greek Father of the Church St. Irenaeus (c.130-c. 202) in The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:
[…] Moreover he [man] was free and self-controlled, being made by God for this end, that he might rule all those things that were upon the earth. […]
[…] if he should keep the commandment of God, he should ever remain such as he was, that is to say, immortal .[…]
This teaching was adopted by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), in the Decree on Original Sin, Session 5, Canon 1:
The first man, Adam, when he acted against God’s command in paradise, immediately lost that holiness and justice in which he had been created.
According to my explanation, after the first sin and till the moment referred to in Genesis 9:3-6, at the end of the Flood, there were millions of anatomically modern humans (modern Homo sapiens) all over the planet that had not been called to love God by doing God’s will and therefore were not accountable toward God. At the very moment God transformed these creatures into accountable image bearers they enter the state of Original Sin and became image bearers who were NOT genealogical descendants of the first sinners.
Possible accountable image bearers who didn’t sin before the arrival of the first sin, remained in the state of Original Grace but not on earth: they were directly taken by God to heaven. I guess that Melchizedek was one of these, on the basis of Hebrews 7.
My thesis is rather the following:
Since God’s declaration in Genesis 9:3-6 till now, there are two groups of people on earth:
Genealogical descendants of the first sinners.
People who are not genealogical descendants of the first sinners.
All these people (whether or not genealogical descendants) are accountable image bearers in the state of Original Sin.
This occurrence is inevitable because as you yourself magnificently state: “Original Sin is the great equalizer. Since the Fall, all of humanity is now in the same “state” such that no one person can claim to be better than another.”
Please don’t doubt to object, comment, or ask for any clarification as you think appropriate.
Do you mean a surgical intervention? If yes I wish you a quick and full recovery!
A very interesting quotation, indeed!
The “strict monogenism, to which some theologians continue to cling” originated from a lack of distinction between the distinct beginning of the “humankind in the image of God” Genesis refers to, and the fuzzy beginning of the biological species Homo sapiens .
As it is clear from this quotation Teilhard himself shares the same misunderstanding to some extent.
The origin of “Humankind in the image of God” has to be marked by some evidence of “ universal morality” in the sense we find in Genesis 9:3-6, the 10 Commandments, and the teaching of Jesus Christ.
Written contracts, laws, registers are the basis to fairly judge the appropriateness of actions, that is, without being lured by the might and cheating skills of those involved. For this reason, I consider the appearance of writing around 5,300 BP provides physical evidence for awareness of accountability and is the seed to develop overarching moral rules and law.
By contrast before 5,300 BP one cannot exclude that the morality Homo sapiens may have developed is “evolved bottom-up in-group morality”, basically the same we find in chimps, bonobos, and other animals.
Antoine, I do not believe there is enough “hard evidence” to choose between your timeline and mine when it comes to the date when Homo sapiens was given the Gift of Conscience and thus became a moral being. IMHO, a worldview based on either timeline should encourage a person to live a life in the Image of one’s Creator. Your timeline (beginning ~5,300 BP) is easier to reconcile with Scripture, while mine stems more from anthropology.
I am not sure why you appear to credit human morality only to societies that had invented written language. I thought it was generally accepted that in Sumeria, at least, Cuneiform was invented to keep track of mechantile transactions, but some sort of social morality was maintained orally long before that. Furthermore, some of the native tribes in the New World (e.g. the Suquamish & Chief Seattle) had a rather highly developed morality prior to their use of written language.
I prefer to believe (even if only speculative) that social morality was passed down orally, from one generation to the next, via the elders of the tribe and was more strictly enforced than after it was reduced to writing–NOT that it was better–just more strictly enforced. When changing times indicated that a change in social morality was called for, the written form made it more likely that the proposed change was better understood and more likely to be an improvement.
Stay well,
Al Leo
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
1184
What’s universally moral about kosher, capital punishment and the Sabbath?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
1185
That is superb. There’s hope for us yet, even if the cosmos is truly all.
By “universally moral” I intend principles like the following two ones, proclaimed by God at the beginning, when “God made mankind in the image of God”:
Genesis 9:5-6
5 And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 Whoever sheds human blood, shall have his blood shed by man; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Matthew 19: 4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
1187
So, again, capital punishment for murder, and no divorce for heterosexuals. These are universal morals.
