Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary

On 5/27/24 12:07 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/27/24 5:29 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

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

[snip]

>

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.
>

Right after I quoted Teilhard in a reply to you I said to you:
?I wonder what is ?the physiology of nations and races??as would I suppose
my doppelganger (or channeled by seance strange bedfellow) the late Nyikos,
because it is far easier to compare me to him than to actually address the
topics at hand.?
>
Which was my query about what ?the physiology of nations and races? might
mean directed to you in a reply to you where I added the part where I?m
seancing with Nyikos since you?re fixated on comparing me to him.
>
I guess you would rather stonewall on this ?the physiology of nations and
races? point too.

>
You snipped all the following and then have the neck to accuse me of
sonewalling. Projection, anyone?
>
==============================
[You asked:]

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

>
[I answered:]
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".
>

"John P. Slattery is the Director of the Carl G. Grefenstette Center for
Ethics in Science, Technology, and Law at Duquesne University. From
2018-2022, he served as a Senior Program Officer with the Dialogue on
Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC. An ethicist,
theologian, and historian of science, Slattery works at the intersection of
technology, science, religion, and racism. He is the author of the 2019
Faith and Science at Notre Dame, the editor of the 2020 Christian Theology
and the Modern Sciences, and a contributing author to the open access 2023
book, Encountering Artificial Intelligence. His essays have appeared online
in Commonweal Magazine, America, Science, Religion Dispatches, Daily
Theology, and other outlets. The tiles below represent a selection of his
recent writings and lectures."
https://johnslattery.com

>
I was more interested in his qualifications at the time he wrote the
article (2017/2018), not what he achieved later.
>

>
"Slattery earned a B.S. in computer science from Georgetown University, a
master's degree in theology from Saint Paul School of Theology, and an
interdisciplinary PhD in the history and philosophy of science and
systematic theology from the University of Notre Dame."
https://www.duq.edu/faculty-and-staff/john-slattery.php

>
Which ties in with my description of him as "a recent doctoral
graduate" which I took straight from the description of him
accompanying the article in Religious Dispatches.
>
For the record, here are the qualifications of John F. Haught who
contradicted Slattery's claims but whom you prefer to ignore:
>
<quote>
John F. Haught is an American theologian. He is a Distinguished
Research Professor at Georgetown University. He specializes in Roman
Catholic systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues
pertaining to physical cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and
Christianity.
>
He has authored numerous books and articles, including Science and
Faith: A New Introduction (2012), Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin,
God, and The Drama of Life ( 2010), God and the New Atheism: A
Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (2008),
Christianity and Science: Toward a Theology of Nature (2007), Is
Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (2006),
Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life (2004), God After Darwin: A
Theology of Evolution (2000, 2nd ed. 2007), Science and Religion: From
Conflict to Conversation (1995), The Promise of Nature: Ecology and
Cosmic Purpose (1993, 2nd ed. 2004), What is Religion? (1990), What is
God? (1986), and The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest
for Purpose (1984).
>
In 2002, Haught received the Owen Garrigan Award in Science and
Religion, in 2004 the Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and in
2008 a "Friend of Darwin Award" from the National Center for Science
Education. He also testified for the plaintiffs in Harrisburg, PA
"Intelligent Design Trial"(Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Board of
Education).
</quote>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught
>
I leave it to readers to decide for themselves what weight to give to
each writer.
>

Qualifications are not arguments made.

>
Notre Dame? Never heard of it. Guess you're right then. He's on the level
of Ron Dean?

>
Yet again you try to cover up your failure to address the points I
made by making up something I didn't say.
>

You were diminishing Slattery’s stature, something you gravitate toward. I
was using sarcasm to pop that stature bubble. Shouldn’t it be Slattery’s
arguments not his accolades or lack of such?

==============================
[You asked:]

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

>
[I answered:]
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 think at this point it's significant if you acknowledge Teilhard was
contemplating eugenics.

>
Again you simply ignore my two questions. I guess you don't have
answers for them.
>

1. You are narrowly focused on one connotation of eugenics. Slattery seems
to be too. But did Teilhard invoke a form of eugenics in his writing?
>
2. “[A] nobly human form of eugenics” is eugenics. Full stop.
>
So I do have answers.
>
Also I had admitted Ernst Mayr, who alongside eugenics supporter Julian
Huxley was a crafter of the Modern Synthesis, contemplated eugenics too. It
didn’t seem the worst kind but was eugenics nonetheless. You are incapable
so far of doing even that basic admission for Teilhard, perhaps due to your
personal investment in him.

>
There were positive and negative versions and a
spectrum of views per application.
>

[ding, ding, the clue fairy rang]

>
But I have yet to see that explicit
acknowledgment from you.

>
You haven't put forward a credible case for him being a racist or a
eugenicist; do that and I'll willingly acknowledge whatever warrants
being acknowledged.
>

“[A] nobly human form of eugenics” is eugenics. Full stop. Nuance is not
your strong suit.

>
You also haven't explained what impact it would have on his broader
ideas even if it were true. We went through more or less the same
discussion over 3 years ago and I asked you then to explain the impact
but you never answered then either.
>
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/j4LsnveCzCI/m/b94qzKFCAgAJ
>

At the time that Teilhard had entertained eugenic views came as a shock,
but an aside to my reading about his acquaintance Huxley’s views on the
same topic. You failed to actually grapple with the use of eugenics in
Teilhard’s work then and are still doing so now. Still too soon?

>
Now about that "physiology of nations and races?"…>

I'm wary of interpreting isolated words or phrases from Teilhard as he
often adapted words to his own meaning, but physiology normally refers
to activities and function, so I'd guess he means something about how
nations and races function. I can't see any interpretation that would
relate it to racism or eugenics; It might help if you elucidate what's
bothering you about the phrase. If, for example, I talk about the
differences between how the people of America function as a society
compared to the people of Russia, do you think I am guilty of being a
racist or eugenicist?
>

It seems weird to refer to physiology in such a collectivized manner, but
isn’t that what the noosphere is about? A collectivization over time?
People focus on collectivization when crediting Teilhard with anticipating
cyber internetworking. The thinking layer.
>
Physiology seems an individual level thing based on normative ranges, like
body temperature per hypothermia and fever. Is there a national temperature
or racial temperature?
>
What is physiology of races? Why go that route?
>
Also from that quoted passage in *Phenomenon* Teilhard asks “are we not
undergoing physical degeneration?”. Degeneration was a bugbear of
eugenicists. It was the underlying them of *The Time Machine* by HG Wells
for instance.
>
Also he says “So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at
random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what
medical and moral factors *must replace the crude forces of natural
selection* should we suppress them.”
>
And: “‘Better not interfere with the forces of the world !' Once more we
are up against the mirage of instinct, the so-called infallibility of
nature. But is it not precisely the world itself which, culminating in
thought, expects us to think out again the instinctive impulses of nature
so as to perfect them?”
>
So…?
>
And I botched the transcription where it should read: “Reflective substance
requires reflective treatment.”

>
And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
Slattery by Joshua Canzona:
"Having recently completed a dissertation on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, I
read John Slattery's RD article on Teilhard's "legacy of eugenics and
racism" with interest. I agree with some of the motivation for his essay
and in a recent paper I called for more work to be done "on the subject of
elitist, ethnocentric, imperialist, and racist elements in Teilhard's
thought." Slattery provides a service by casting light on some of the most
troubling passages in the Teilhardian corpus, but I strongly disagree with
his method and conclusions."
>
He points out some errors made by Slattery.
>
He also, though taking some wind out of Slattery's sails, adds "there is
indeed prior scholarship on some of the issues raised by Slattery. In her
excellent dissertation, "The Kingdom of God as a Unity of Persons," Amy
Limpitlaw argues that Teilhard "openly espouses a kind of racism" and
provides an extended analysis."

>
I don't put too much faith in secondary quotes from somebody's
dissertation where the dissertation isn't available to check. All I
can find is an abstract which doesn't mention racism or eugenics, so
I'd assume that whatever she said wasn't a significant element of her
dissertation.
>
https://philpapers.org/rec/LIMTKO
>
I think it speaks for itself that such a vague reference is all that
he has to offer in terms of prior scholarship on some of the issues
raised by Slattery.
>

Well he must have had some familiarity with the reference. I guess we can
discount it out of hand because it lacks the authority of Haught.

>
He also wonders: "From thousands of pages of Teilhard's manuscripts,
Slattery has picked out eight troubling passages. While there are certainly
others he could have chosen, we're still looking at only the tiniest
portion of Teilhard's work. If eugenics and racism were as central as
Slattery would have us believe, why do they so rarely come up?"

>
I haven't been able find anyone who independently comes to the same
conclusions as Slattery about Teilhard; anyone else who makes the
accusation seems to simply draw from Slattery's piece. Looks to me
like he was on a solo run.
>

As Canzona offers: “[Slattery] overstates the enthusiasm for Teilhard
studies. While Teilhard was extremely fashionable when his work first burst
onto the scene in the 1960s, there was a significant downturn afterward.”
>
“Slattery asks why scholars have not written about Teilhard and racism. The
most obvious answer is that too few scholars are writing about Teilhard in
general.”
>
Aside from uncritical groupies not many are that interested in Teilhard.

>
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/teilhards-legacy-cant-be-reduced-to-racism-a-response-to-john-slattery/
>
Eugenics at least comes up in *The Phenomenon of Man* which is Teilhard's
best known book. In the context of technofuturism Teilhard may be
foreshadowing transhumanism and the allure of augmentation.

>
The only place it comes up is in the extract quoted by you earlier.
I've asked you several times to explain how "In the course of the
coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human
form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be
discovered and developed" translates to support for eugenics as it was
understood at the time he wrote Phenomenon, involving the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion. You seem unable to offer any such explanation.
>

Yet it is an incorporation of eugenics into his best known work, no?

>
Joshua Canzona is a recent PhD though and not of Haught's eminent stature.
Indeed we should "take into account their qualifications relevant to the
subject upon which they are pronouncing", but since he is arguing against
Slattery…>>
And Slattery the PhD from an unknown school

>
That sort of childish attempt at sniping does nothing for your
argument.
>

It’s called sarcasm and it serves a purpose here that went over your head.

>

called Notre Dame responds:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2018/08/22/author-responds-to-criticism-of-teilhard-eugenics-essay/

>
>

>
>

>
>

>
>
>

Can it be that all of us who have indulged in the questionable practice
of reproduction have had eugenic thoughts or hopes?
>

But did those who may have implicitly done that make eugenics a part of
their theistic evolutionary worldview?
 Going back to the OP I just watched this today:
https://www.pbs.org/video/teilhard-visionary-scientist-pt9dc1/
 May not be available outside the US. Didn’t delve much into a critical
assessment of Teilhard’s views. Eugenics was of course absent from the
discussion.
 Haught talked at  ~15:54 of the medieval “Great Chain of Being” what Haught
refers to as a “ladder of levels” and a “static, vertical, hierarchical
understanding of the cosmos” and how it influenced Teilhard. H. James Brix
says Teilhard evolutionized this “Great Chain of Being”.
 Still tilts or bends toward the telos of Christ the Omega. And is
hierachical and vertical with its thinking layer.
 At around 19:59 Mary Tucker chimes in which the problematic assertion that
“Evolution not purposeless or random, but it is infused with spirit”.
Really?
 Teilhard got in hot water with Jesuits for his essay on original sin in
light of evolution.
 It does highlight his work in China with Peking Man but also his continuing
troubles with Rome.
 

Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang heads with science. It's like a dent in your brain.  "Sin" and "spirit" are loaded subjects.