|
Teilhard’s Dilemma Pierre Teilhard DeChardin (1888-1955) grew up within a large family in central France. As a child he was indoctrinated early into the religious practices of his faith, and he has described the scene as his parents and siblings gathered around the table for evening prayers. Given the pious atmosphere at home and his own innate religious sensibility, it was not surprising that he sought a religious vocation. He was sent to religious schools and then embarked on studies leading to his ordination as a Jesuit priest. There was another aspect of his childhood that was equally formative. His father was of a curious bent, interested in the natural world, and he was accustomed to take the young Pierre on walks where they would observe and collect specimens—plants, insects, rocks. Teilhard says of himself that he was much disappointed to observe that many of their collected objects would deteriorate with time, and he favored samples of rocks, feeling they would be enduring. Again, it is not surprising that he pursued studies in natural science, finally specializing in paleontology. Teilhard’s scientific achievements were considerable. He was much respected by his mostly non-religious colleagues and was often consulted for his opinion on various fossils. He was part of the team which discovered Pekin man, a major find. If he had not written anything beyond his scientific papers, he would still have had a lasting reputation. But, of course, he did write much more. Teilhard found himself in a profound dilemma. As a committed Catholic priest, he very much wanted to maintain his belief in the teachings of the Church. On the other hand, he could not possibly deny the understanding he was acquiring from his scientific studies. Unfortunately, he found a conflict between the two. Exactly what was the conflict? It was not so much that the description of creation in Genesis could not be taken literally. It was generally understood at the time that Genesis is a religious work and not a scientific or historical one, that it describes what is essentially a mystery in the language and imagery available to the authors. As such, it could be accepted on its own terms and remain quite compatible with Teilhard’s scientific understanding. The real conflict was much deeper, revolving around the fact that not only the Bible, but all common understanding from antiquity up to the nineteenth century, pictured a static universe. But science had now discovered an amazing thing: the universe is dynamic. In other words, the universe and everything in it has come about through an evolutionary process, and the evolution continues to this day. The truth is that unchanging forms do not exist. Even the well-loved rocks which the child Teilhard considered enduring have their previous history of development and will continue to undergo transformation. Within the paradigm of a static universe, it is understood that God must create the animals, each after its own kind. If God wants gorillas, God needs to create gorillas. There is no other way. Once the first gorillas are there, however, they can be depended on to increase and multiply, again, after their own kind. In another instance, when Noah sets out to weather the flood, it is important that he bring along a pair of each animal; any species of animal not making it into the ark would be lost forever. The notion of a static universe, in fact, seems so natural to us that even a century and a half after Darwin most of us think in those terms most of the time, and it is not surprising, therefore, that Catholic theology is couched in static terms. For Teilhard this was an unsatisfactory state, and he took it upon himself to reinterpret Church teaching so it could fit a dynamic universe. Teilhard began by considering evolution a single unified process. Cosmological, geological, biological and human evolution are not separate categories, he thought, but are different aspects of the one phenomenon. Precisely what is it that is evolving, he asked. His reply: It is consciousness. Human consciousness, of course, is the highest form, but other animals also have their own lesser degree of consciousness. Even plants have a form of consciousness, for example, as flowers are able to follow the sun; and so do atoms, which “sense” enough to allow them to combine into molecules. For Teilhard, the central drama of the universe, from its initial formation to the appearance of human beings, is the development of ever higher forms of consciousness. Teilhard, as a believer, did not accept the notion that evolution occurs by blind chance; he considered that the evolutionary process could be none other than the continuing work of the immanent God. Creation, therefore, is seen as a continuing process in which the entire universe participates. Each of us, therefore, participates in divinity as a co-creator with God. The development of ever-higher consciousness may be taken as the aim of evolution—but to what ultimate end? Teilhard draws attention to a prevalent pattern in evolutionary development: smaller groups evolving into larger ones. Microbes can evolve into colonies, cells into tissues, organs into organisms. Applying this analysis to human beings, Teilhard considered that their communities would be expected to evolve into a kind of super-organism, an advanced social structure in which nurturing and cooperation would replace competition and aggression, and where the whole is held together by bonds of love. This, then, is the ultimate aim of evolution, the coming of what Teilhard called the “Omega Point,” a kind of utopian society in which peace prevails and love rules. As does traditional theology, Teilhard gives central importance to human beings. Followers of Teilhard like Thomas Berry have refined his thought to fit contemporary concerns, focusing on the environmental crisis. We will solve our environmental problems, they say, only when we adopt an entirely new way of looking at the world, one which acknowledges the fact that we are embedded in the web of nature and evolving with it. All of
this is reason for hope. As we see ourselves as part of a much larger drama,
and as we anticipate the evolution of higher consciousness, we can be
confident that in the end all will be well. Dom Roberti |