Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary

On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2024 16:48:12 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 2024-05-20 6:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:05:46 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 2024-05-19 2:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024 17:17:44 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 2024-05-18 3:54 PM, erik simpson wrote:

On 5/18/24 11:24 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

(RNS) - In the history of the Catholic Church, too many innovative
thinkers were persecuted before they were accepted and then embraced
by the church.
 
The list includes St. Thomas Aquinas (whose books were burned by the
bishop of Paris), St. Ignatius Loyola (who was investigated by the
Spanish Inquisition) and St. Mary MacKillop (an Australian nun who was
excommunicated by her bishop for uncovering and reporting clergy child
sex abuse).
 
It's not surprising, then, that a French Jesuit scientist, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who tried to bridge the gap between faith and
science, got himself in trouble with church officials and his Jesuit
superiors in the 20th century. Only after his death was he recognized
as the inspired genius that he was.
 
His story is magnificently told in a new PBS documentary, "Teilhard:
Visionary Scientist," which was produced by Frank Frost Productions in
a 13-year labor of love. It took Frank and Mary Frost to four
countries on three continents, a total of 25 locations, and included
more than 35 interviews.
 
[?]
 
"Teilhard: Visionary Scientist" will premiere on Maryland Public
Television on May 19 and be available for national and international
streaming for two years, beginning on May 20, on the free PBS app.
 
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2024/05/13/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-pbs-documentary-247920
 

Will this awkwardness be included in the magnificent retelling?:
"Teilhard has been criticized as incorporating common notions of Social
Darwinism [sic] and scientific racism into his work, along with
support for
eugenics,[41] Teilhard sharply criticized the idea of racial equality,
saying in 1929: "Do the yellows-[the Chinese]-have the same human
value as
the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present
inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I'm afraid that
this
is only a 'declaration of pastors.' Instead, the cause seems to be the
natural racial foundation?"[41] Too, he said in 1936, "As not all ethnic
groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean
they must be despised-quite the reverse?In other words, at one and the
same
time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of
the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races."[41] And
around 1937, he said, "What fundamental attitude?should the advancing
wing
of humanity take to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups?
The
earth is a closed and limited surface. To what extent should it tolerate,
racially or nationally, areas of lesser activity? More generally
still, how
should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving
what is so often no more than one of life's rejects??To what extent
should
not the development of the strong?take precedence over the
preservation of
the weak?"[41]
In 1951, Teilhard continued to argue for racial and individual eugenics,
and wrote a strongly worded criticism of the United Nations
declaration of
the Equality of Races. He continued to argue for eugenics as late as
1953,
two years before his death.[41] Nevertheless, he has also been
defended by
theologian John F. Haught.[42][43]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
 
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard-eugenics
 
https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/11473/9623
 
 
 

These views were (or should have been) anachronistic circa 1950,
although many still subscribe to the notion.  That said, I'm impatient
with "cancellation" of figures from the past for holding views that were
"common knowledge" at the time.  Very few people in the 19th century
would escape being called racist by modern standards.  There is such a
thing as progress, even if it's not always obvious.
 

I don't think calling for avoiding hagiography is the same as calling
for "cancelling".
--

 
If a documentary were to be made about Darwin and did not refer to the
fact that some people [1] claim that he was racist and eugenicist,
even an encouragement to Naziism, would you regard that as
hagiography?
 

My complaint is with the use of the term "cancellation".

 
Possible misunderstanding then; in the context of the discussion, I
thought your use of 'hagiography' was specifically in regard to
Teilhard de Chardin.

 
Well, given the contents of this thread it is impossible not to consider
the upcoming biography of Teilhard de Chardin to be a possible exemplar
of the target of my complaint. *IF* Hemi's info concerning Teilhard de
Chardin's significant connections to eugenics is true then a biography
that omits any mention of it would fit my definition of a possible an article by a
hagiography. this would be true of any biography in my opinion.

 
Hemi's only "info" is an article by a recent doctoral graduate and an
extract from Teilhard's work that Hemi claims speaks for itself. I've
asked him what qualifications Slattery has that makes his views on
Teilhard worthy of weight and two aspects of the given extract that
seem to contradict Hemi's claim. He hasn't responded to any of that so
you can make up your own mind as to whether "significant" is the
appropriate word for his claims.
 

First off why need I ponder Slattery's qualifications versus Haught's?
Seems beside the point really. Is Slattery akin to Ron Dean?

When I am considering the value of someone's opinion piece, I take
into account their qualifications relevant to the subject upon which
they are pronouncing; that, for example, is why I place less value on
Ron Dean's opinions of Darwin's motivation and character than I do on
our resident professor with his demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge
and expertise on the subject. That doesn't mean that the expert is
automatically right and the newbie wrong but I need good reason to
come down in favour of the newbie. Apparently, you find that to be an
objectionable form of "credentialism".

And what two
aspects were you referring to? I seem to have missed those.

When you quoted the lengthy extract from 'The Phenomenon of Man', I
asked you:

<quote>
OK, I have always struggled with Teilhard's tortuous prose so maybe
you can help me here. Where in that does he suggest that "the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by [him] to be
unfit"? [1]

Also, how does his aspiration that "a nobly human form of eugenics, on
a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and
developed" indicate support for eugenics as it was currently
understood at the time of his writing, the 1920s when support was at
its peak for eugenics as described in the NHI article I linked to?

[1]
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism

</unquote>

I did ask about
what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long
quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond
to that.

You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about
it.

 

Would you call
to the expressed opinions about Darwin that you reference 9not that you
hold them) as "cancellation". Or has the term been devalued to the point
that it means 'criticizing someone in a way that I disapprove of'.

 
I take "cancellation" to mean that somebody's entire body of work
should effectively be discarded because of some perceived imperfection
in their character. That certainly doesn't apply to either Darwin or
Teilhard de Chardin in my opinion - see my "Two Questions" response to
Hemidactylus.

 
I may be missing some historical background here. Has Hemi called for
the dismissal of Teilhard de Chardin's entire body of work anywhere?

 
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't recall saying that Hemi called
for that.
 

I didn't. Previous to this episode I had contrasted Teilhard's progressive
Christocentric orthogenesis with Gould's takes on random walks and
contingency but you talked instead, frustratingly, about NOMA which was
irrelevant.

And then you started making up shit about what I had and hadn't said,
stating that I had  abandoned Teilhard for Sheldrake even though I had
specifically stated that "I don't have an opinion either way on
Sheldrakes' ideas and I'm certainly not seeking to defend them".

You also never responded to my question about why you think an
*antidote* to Teilhard is needed, in what way you regard his ideas as
poisonous.