Skip to main content
Report this ad

Teilhard de Chardin, "Hymn to Matter."

Comments

  • Terry Hurlbut - Creationism Examiner 5 years ago

    The problem: Chardin worships the crea/tion/ rather than the crea/tor/.

  • Hugh Kramer, LA Atheism Examiner 5 years ago

    The problem: Chardin makes assertions but where's his supporting evidence?

  • Jeremy J, Religion & Culture Examiner 5 years ago

    To both of your questions!

    Hugh:

    The supporting evidence? He is interpreting the emergent complexity of the nervous system throughout the history of life on earth. Aside from that, Teilhard held a teleological philosophical framework about evolution. It had direction. This is notably contesting the neo-darwinian philosophical grounding.

    Hi Terry:

    Depends on how you look at it. He called the Universe itself the "cosmic Host" of Christ.

  • montreal women's issues, health and mental health 5 years ago

    quite interesting, and interesting comments from Terry

  • Hugh Kramer, LA Atheism Examiner 5 years ago

    Hello Jeremy.

    "interpreting the emergent complexity of the nervous system throughout the history of life on earth"

    Interpretation isn't evidence. How does the emergence of complex nervous systems imply Chardin's conclusion? Is his the only possible interpretation and, if not, what suggests that his is the most likely interpretation? Science requires a lot more methodological rigor than philosophy, Jeremy. A scientist has to incorporate all pertinant evidence in an explanatory model -and that they justify his assumptions. Chardin doesn't. All he has to do is make sure is that his model is logically consistant with his assumptions.

  • Jer, Religion & Culture Examiner 5 years ago

    "All he has to do is make sure is that his model is logically consistent with his assumptions."

    There are plenty of philosophical assumptions a scientist holds as well. Interpreting data is part of the scientific process! The facts do not always speak for themselves, especially when speaking of narratives and origins. We must find a way for the "facts" to come to life. To say a scientist is unbiased is naive at best. Refer to Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

    His most famous book, "Phenomenon of Man" is just that, a phenomenon. The emergent complexity of the nervous system is a fascinating phenomenon that, for all intensive purposes, is not adequately "explained away." He sees this as an inherent direction of life to develop more consciousness as it gets more complex. A natural direction or movement, a phenomenon of the universe itself. Facts do not speak without us telling their story.

  • Jer, Religion & Culture Examiner 5 years ago

    Some really interesting alternative evolutionary models:

    Lynn Margulis' theory of symbiotic relationship driving evolution.

    Also see Evo Devo page for some fascinating and controversial cases for new evolutionary models (epigenetics, etc).

    Science is a human system. It is intricately woven into our unconscious biases and assumptions, so much so that a set of "facts" and "data" can sometimes completely be re-interpreted by the next generations. This is good! If we keep ourselves in check and do not develop a kind of "naive realism," or as Whitehead called it, a "misplaced concreteness" in the "facts." Often, the empirical "facts" have unconscious projections placed in them. It's a reflection of the old saying, "We see what we are."

Report this ad