Talk:Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

message: Many of the negative statements made by people like Richard Dawkins, Toulmin, Jacques Monod, Teilhard's friend, George Gaylord Simpson, P. B. Medawar and a few others have been largely and ably dealt with in Robert J. O'Connell's excellent study of Teilhard's science entitled, Teilhard's Vision of the Past: The Making of a Method.  The opening to the article is disappointing and lacks comprehensive accuracy.  O'Connell makes clear in very simple and yet scientific insight that criticisms leveled against Teilhard are weak both philosophically and scientifically.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.35.162 (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignoratio elenchi 

message: Was quoted by Michael Curry in the sermon at the Royal Wedding.  Not sure how to work it in, but seems like some pages will list pop culture references.  It does seem worth noting somewhere.  There was a quote in particular that I think was paraphrased:  
"... harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire." 
A possible citation: 
* https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/05/royal-wedding-sermon-text  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydwilde (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Wedding mention 

message: I was wondering if somebody could provide more information on his problematic relationship with the tasty tasty pink fish?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:6741:C758:391F:8185:66DB:5774 (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: His addiction to Salmon

message: I will see what else I can find, but these links seem predominantly anti Teilhard. --Peacenik 21:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly suggest the editors of this page investigate further some of the external links you have on the bottom of the page. In particular, the link titled "Teilhard, Darwin, And The Cosmic Christ" links to a particularly extremist point of view, that is it seems to present a a view point that is only representative of the particular authors point of view. The other material on this persons website is really fruitloop sort of stuff. I would argue that it is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Cheers. 61.29.35.190 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links seem biased against Teilhard. 

message: Some edits have been changing occurances of "the Church" to "the church" (decapitalizing). I'm sure that this discussion has happened elsewhere in wikipedia, maybe somebody can refer us there. It is my understanding that a capitalized "the Church" is understood to refer to the political/organizational heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and is therefore appropriately capitalized in many places in this article. Any WP precedent on this? --Staecker 21:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Church" vs "church" 

message: Excellent drawing of Teilhard, yet I must ask why this subjective rendition MUST be the principal image of teilhard? Since photographs exist, it would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia in providing the clearest facts to not use art but actual images of Teilhard. Not that the drawings of Teilhard don't have a place on the page. THEY DO. Yet I would suggest that they not be used as the main picture. This will have to be remedied eventually.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.43.190 (talk • contribs) 19:06, July 31, 2005  (UTC)  (CLAVIO July 31, 2005)
: I totally agree with you, but we have to use Free (as in "Free licence") material whenever possible. Obviously, if a Free photograph can be found, it will be far superior to the portrait and will have to replace it. The lack of Free images is a common problem, which I try to address in this way (see List of sex positions, CPR, ...) :p Cheers !  Rama 03:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That simply isn't true or I could go and do a drawing of Superman and upload it to the infobox. With living people we can usually get a free to use picture of them but after they die it is perfectly fine to use a fair use photograph as long as the licensing is done right. Even if we couldn't find a photograph then a contemporary drawing might be fine too, but that is a moot point there. (Emperor (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art drawing vs. photograph 

message: I would normally shorten Teilhard de Chardin to Teilhard as is done in the article. However, on reading French names#Particles (5th & 6th paragraphs), it seems more appropriate to abbreviate his name to Chardin. This does feel a bit strange to me, but it might be a good idea not to abbreviate his name at all in the article. --Gareth Hughes 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chardin

message: ESR refers to 'Chardinist idealism' in 'The Art of Unix Programming,' however I cannot find a definition of the term anywhere on the web or the Wikipedia.  Is this a nuance of the 'noosphere?' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuffduff (talk • contribs) 13:32, October 4, 2005  (UTC)
:Collaborative development and the sharing of source code was a valued tactic for Unix programmers. To the early ARPANET hackers, on the other hand, it was more than a tactic: it was something rather closer to a shared religion, partly arising from the academic "publish or perish" imperative and (in its more extreme versions) developing into an almost Chardinist idealism about networked communities of minds. The most famous of these hackers, Richard M. Stallman, became the ascetic saint of that religion. Eric Steven Raymond, The Art of Unix Programming 
:Chardin was deeply optimistic about the future, believing that the ultimate fate of the cosmos was a mystical, universally-unifying Omega Point. This is very similar to Satchitananda (being-consciousness-bliss) of Eastern philosophy. A Chardinist idealism sees collaboration as a wholly good thing, a virtuous circle that builds on itself and steadily increases in accuracy and information. Much like wikipedia. --goethean ॐ 22:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chardinist, Chardinism  Help with definitions, Please! 

message: I have to agree that the section on teilhgard's ideas really needs beefing up...defining of his special terms (noosphere, etc.)...outlining his argument...and then, fairly, presenting both the implications and the conflict he represents with traditional notions of original sin, human nature, Christ etc.HarvardOxon 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really needs more 

message: I found the very short stub noogenesis. It is not much more than a substub, which defines the word as a term coined by de Chardin. His work should be included in the article about himself, and unless someone feels like writing an article about the concept of noogenesis I guess it is better to merge that article here for now. // Konvalj 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a bit to it.  I think the article bears further development as a part of his work.  Teilhard wrote about noogenesis in many of his books. If it is merged, it would be better to move it into an overall discussion of his work like the omega point.  --Blainster 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be some discussion of noogenesis in the "Teachings" section of this de Chardin page. There should also be a section of internal links that include the noosphere and Omega Point pages.Sarahstoune 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in favour of merging the two articles. As all articles bearing the name of a person Pierre Teilhard de Chardin should be biographical.  But it would be good somebody gathers 'Noogenesis', 'Omega point' and other themes and theories of the man under another article called Teilhardism (not Chardinism). The word Teilhardism is already in use.Zerged 16:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in favor of merging Noogenesis with a de Chardin biography, but it could work as a subsection in a merged article with Noosphere, which is already more detailed. Keep the individual elements of de Chardin's work separated from each other, because of their interdisciplinary nature. MMetro 05:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hearing no objection, I have removed the merge tags.  Feel free to reinstate them if anyone thinks this discussion can be moved forward and is still necessary. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[noogenesis]] here? 

message: The second paragraph of the article used to read:
:Teilhard's primary book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos. He abandoned a literal interpretation of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of a metaphorical interpretation. This displeased certain officials in the Roman Curia, who thought that it undermined the doctrine of original sin developed by Saint Augustine. Teilhard's position was opposed by his church superiors, and his work was denied publication during his lifetime by the Roman Holy Office.
I am certainly not a specialist on Teilhard, but this can't be right. Saint Augustine himself favoured an interpretation of Genesis that was far from literal. The Catholic Encyplopaedia attests that biological accounts of evolution and creation were seen as mostly compatible with Catholic docrine early in the 20th century. What I gather from secondary sources and the current Wikipedia article is that the real issue was Teilhard's idea that original sin was a unavoidable byproduct of biological evolution, leaving no room for man's disobbedience as the cause of the Fall. THis led me to substitute traditional interpretations for a literal interpretation and less strict for methaphorical above, but this paragraph probably needs some extra care from some Teilhard specialist who also understands Church doctrine. Rimfo 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations of Genesis 

message: Hello, I'm new on Wikipedia. I agree that the noogenesis article should be expanded and merged into Teilhard's page.
The page has an excellent biography, it just needs his thought now. 
I can draw an outline of his thought, define a few key concepts (omega point, noosphere etc.), and lay out the issues which question his orthodoxy.
Do I just edit the page? Ridabewa 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. However, if we are going to merge some pages into this one, you may want to wait for us to do that before adding info, so that you don't repeat what others have done. Or we can merge all three of the stub articles into a new one called Philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin like this one. — goethean ॐ 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok cool, so i'll just wait? that Philosophy of Teilhard article sounds like a good idea.Ridabewa 08:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Teilhard Information!

message: Though there are many links offsite, the article itself does little to explain Teilhard de Chardin's involvement. MMetro 06:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see e.g. The Piltdown Inquest --FreezBee (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Teilhard's role and possible implication in the Piltdown Hoax is woefully underplayed in this article. It should at least explain that some academics (Gould and company) have suggested that Teilhard may have participated in the hoax.--ShieldDane (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Piltdown implication

message: On a related matter, the article implies that Teilhard advocated a Darwinian model of evolution, while many biologists see Teilhard's belief in evolution towards a pre-defined goal (the Omega point) to be anything but Darwinian. 
Some discussion of Teilhard's divergence from classical evolutionary theory is called for.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teilhard's Teleological Evolutionary Theory

message: The title of this section is, to say the least, problematic.  Some of the entries in this section have nothing to do with popular culture (e.g., a university residence hall).  Whilst others are trivial (and Wikipedia has a policy against trivia sections).  The great majority of it, however, could be rearranged into a section on Teilhard's influence, a section that would be something more than just a list.  It could and should include his influence on Flannery O'Connor as well as his continuing contemporary ifluence on people such as Father Thomas Berry, as well as others. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teilhard in popular culture 

message: From 1912 to 1914, Teilhard worked ... in Paris, studying the mammals of the middle Tertiary sector. Later he studied in Europe.
So where's Paris, then? Could someone who knows the detail here amend Europe to something more substantive? C0pernicus (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody took care of it. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical confusion (resolved) 

message: The introductory paragraph says: "Pope John XXIII rehabilitated him posthumously, and, since then, his works have been considered an important influence on the contemporary church's stance on evolution."  This statement is repeated by many other sources, but I can find no support for it, including in this article.  
Later, under the heading "Controversy with Church officials," it is explained that the Church issued a Monitum against his writings in 1962 - during John XXIII's papacy - and confirmed its continued validity in 1981.  
The article misleadingly quotes from the 1996 statement of Pope John Paul II about "this theory," implying endorsement of Teilhard; the quoted statement actually indicates weak support for the possible merit of the general theory of evolution, and makes no mention of Teilhard's work or writings at all.  
So if someone thinks John Paul XXIII "rehabilitated" him, I'd like to see a citation.  
SteveG23 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent statements of fact 

message: This section is subtly misleading.   The 1962 monitum did not come from the Holy Office but from the quasi-official arm of the Vatican, the newspaper l'Osservatore Romano.  The newspaper was very clear about which of his works were considered suspect.  Only Teilhard's scientific writings were considered dangerous.  Further, Teilhard had several major apologetic writings supporting both his faith/spirituality and his scientific writings.  His greatest apologists were his friends Henri Cardinal De Lubac who wrote two major works on Teilhard:  The Faith of Teilhard de Chardin and The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin.  Christopher Mooney wrote a definitive work called Teilhard and the Mystery of Christ.  Care must be taken to gather the facts objectively when dealing with an important spiritual thinker like Teilhard de Chardin.  
Further to this on May 12, 1981 Cardinal Casaroli, on behalf of John Paul II wrote a letter to the Intstitut Catholique de Paris commending the works, "astonishing resonance of his research", of Teilhard de Chardin.  The entire letter was published in the June 10, 1981 edition of l'Osservatore Romano.  This letter in its entirety is considered an official rehabilitation of Teilhard's works.  Also, the letter of July 30, 1981 published in the English edition of the Vatican newspaper makes reference to comments already made in Cardinal Casaroli's letter.  These comments are in the past tense and are referring to the critical works of the people above and others.  Those who seek solace in the 1962 monitum should consult the works of these theologians along with the brief comments on Teilhard's work from theologians like Bernard Lonergan and Karl Rahner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the short phrases "Christian Pantheism, Material Apostasy" from the "known for" section of the bio box, but it seems like these are both notable if true. Both "Christian Pantheism" and "Material Apostasy" sound like things that the RC Church would have actively pointed out and condemned. If they were, they should be easily sourced and I suggest that they go in a "Controversy with Church officials" section.KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "section 'Controversy with Church officials'" 

message: Reference number 3 is from a secondary source and not a primary source.  The entire text of Cardinal Casaroli's rehabilition letter can be found on the front page of l'Osservatore Romano dated June 10, 1981.  The tone of the letter is clear.  As has been noted in the above comments, the monitum of 1962 is specific on the kinds of works that are considered suspect and the subsequent comments from l'Osservatore on the English editon of July 30, 1981 are not adequately cited since it refers to a brief snippet from a secondary source.  Cardinal Casaroli's letter is carefully worded.  Those who have concerns about wording should consult primary sources rather than secondary sources.
Also, all of Teilhard's collected works are available in English.  The French editions of his works were translated and are published in Collins editions, St. James Place, London.  The English titles of these books are improperly referred to in the text of the article but are cited correctly in the Bibliography section.  Other works, like Letters from a Soldier Priest, Writings in Time of War, Vision of the Past etc. all of which are available in English go unmentioned in the Bibliograpy.
It should also be noted that an excellent study of the Christian devotion to the "cosmic Christ" was well written by the spiritual writer, George A. Maloney in his book The Cosmic Christ: From Paul to Teilhard where he demonstrates how Teilhard really recovered an ancient Christian spiritual belief.—Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teilhard de Chardin and the monitum of 1962 

message: I just made two changes, in separate edits (so it is easy to see what I did).  The first edit revealed some sloppy chronology.  The July 1981 statement was to make sure that people did not take the wrong meaning from earlier statements.  It therefore cannot be the case that a June 1981 statement establishes that Teilhard's doctrine is acceptable.  It is just a matter of chronology.  To depict the June 1981 statement as if it came after the July 1981 statement is intellectually dishonest.  
The second change involved deleting a paragraph.  I saw no support for any claim about whether the interdict on his teaching extended to both spiritual and scientific teachings, or just one (or the other).  And it was tenuous to claim that the use of the word "convergence" was some sort of veiled attempt to resuscitate the teachings of Teilhard.
theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two changes on March 25 

message: The statements by the Roman Catholic church affirming evolution both by John Paul II and Pius XII are conspicuously left out as is the reference from where it comes from.  Teilhard's "teachings" as you call it, are well supported.  To weigh two statements against each other and claim that the 1962 monitum is somehow more important and then back up the statement without a proper reference is intellectually dishonest.  As I have said above, the July 1981 statement is very conspicuous for its brevity compared to Cardinal Cassoroli's (John Paul II's secretary) carefully worded statement.  Second, Cardinal Cassaroli's statement is a positive statement accepting Teilhard's views to say otherwise is simply wrong since the statement is so carefully worded and very positive in tone.  However, I think the way the statements have been reordered appears to be somewhat fair.  And I would prefer to leave it at that.   
Furthermore, again you have chosen to not specify what everyone knows about Teilhard's work and that is that it is only his scientific works that are considered suspect.  That fact shows that the accusation of intellectual dishonesty is a mere projection on your part.  Teilhard remains an important thinker and if you are going to quote a Vatican document quote it from the source.  You choose to use the term Holy Office when referencing the 1962 monitum statement that was merely published in l'Osservatore Romano.  Those who have studied Church documents in Roman Catholic seminaries know that there are degrees of importance from the different levels of Church documents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Intellectual Dishonesty"  a Mere Projection

message: This book: The Making of a Mind: Letters from a Soldier Priest is composed of letters that Teilhard wrote mostly to his family.  They are important in Teilhard's collected works because they are comprised of letters that correspond to his first set of spiritual essays published in Writings in Time of War.  All of the seeds of his thought are in these early war time writings.  The omission of these works is negligent as is the omission of his his published scientific essays.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography: The Making of a Mind: Letters from a Soldier Priest 

message: I find it really strange that Teilhard is lumped with these other Jesuits like, St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Edmund Campion etc.  All of these men are saints and Teilhard is not.  What is the point of that?  Furthermore, what about other famous Jesuits like Karl Rahner, Bernard Lonergan, Gerard Manley Hopkins etc.  Not to mention his friend, the Jesuit Cardinal Henri de Lubac.  What is the point of putting Teilhard in with saints while leaving out the names of these other prolific and holy men?  Teilhard is not canonized and I don't think he would ever want to be.  If he belongs in any listing he should belong to a listing of contemporary Jesuit theologians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Listing of Famous Jesuits 

message: I made additions to the Bibliograpy of his wartime writings and of writings of his published scientific papers.  All of these books were published by both Harper & Row and Collins.  The ones I listed are the first English editions published by Collins (Those are the ones I have).  The collected works of Teilhard available in French published by Editions du Seuil under the rubric "Oeuvres" corresponds to his collected works published by Collins and Harper & Row.  Although the English editions do not come under a rubric of "Collected Works".
Some of Teilhard's writings were written by him in English.  Some of these letters are available in the book Letters to Two Friends.  I added this also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 29, 2008 Additions to the Bibliography 

message: I deleted the information which held that the problem with Teilhard's teaching is whether Christ accomplished his mission in history, or if its still continuing now. Teilhard would hold both opinions, Christ accomplished his mission, and history is playing it out. This is not the controversy with Teilhard de Chardin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridabewa (talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: Two important books composed of letters by him to philosophers are important to note because they are among the few writings that contain correspondence between him and philosophers.  These kinds of writings are rare for Teilhard since he was not allowed to be among the Doctoris Communis during his lifetime.  The reference to this last fact is lost to my memory but I know I read it in a book on Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson and Anton Pegis.  The books are those to Leontine Zanta and to Maurice Blondel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Rebelo (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 31 Additions to Bibliography 

message: One important person who sees the influence of Teilhard de Chardin on the Vatican II is Cardinal Ratzinger in his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press (1993).Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993)p. 334.  I think many others have acknowledged that fact.  Don't worry though, I won't put that fact in the main article page.  ----why not?? Ridabewa (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) and Teilhard 

message: I deleted the beginning section which said that Teilhard's teaching on sin went against an Augustinian interpretation, and against the Book of Genesis. Although Church officials question his theory on sin, it is not so simple to say it went against the Augustinian version. Actually, both a Teilhardian and Augustinian theology interpret sin as 'a deficient of the good.' 
Ridabewa (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: Shortly Before his death he said in a letter to a friend: "I am essentially pantheist in my thinking and in my temperament."  --Starnold (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The web page you offer gives no source for the quote.  It would be nice to see where it came from.  Also, if genuine, it must be put in context of Teilhard's obvious evolutionary Christian stance.  --Blainster (talk) 09:16, 6 
April 2008 (UTC)
To quote Teilhard properly it is better to go to a primary source.  Quotes taken out of context are notoriously unreliable.  Second, pantheism is considered heterodox but the concept of "panentheism" is not.  "Panentheism" is really what we read when we peruse Teilhard's works.  I say this because the concept of "panentheism" comes from St. Paul in the Bible.  When Paul writes that "Christ is all and in all" he is expressing a "panentheistic" concept.  This means that Christ is in all things.  Teilhard consistently quotes St. Paul throughout his writings and it is these panentheistic quotes that he is quoting.  "Panentheism" means that God is in all things.  Through the renewing power of the Holy Spirit this is true both theologically as it is in the Bible.  On the other hand, "Pantheism" means that God is all things.  Third, more informed theologians like the pope and his friend, Cardinal de Lubac (one of Teilhard's more prolific apologists) have written on this distinction.  Matthew Fox, in his book, Breakthrough (a series of sermons by Meister Eckhart) is also careful to make this distinction.  You have raised an excellent point.David.Rebelo (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Someone inexplicably deleted the noosphere concept from the See Also section and placed the foreign concept of noocracy.  Noocracy is not a Teilhardian concept.  Teilhard never supported such an idea.  As a Jesuit he would have tended to appreciate a numinous quality in all living things.  Even though he may have believed in the gradation of being, as Aquinas and others have believed, he did not espouse a noocratic superiority.----David.Rebelo (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noosphere vs. Noocracy 

message: Many do not quite understand this distinction.  The idea of natural revelation comes up in the study of the scholastic philosophers of the middle ages.  This includes people like Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Meister Eckhart and others.  In essence the idea of natural revelation comes from an understanding that believer can come to a reasonable understanding of the existence of God through looking at life around us.  Not in a kind of naive way like the theory of intelligent design but in a way that philosophically and scientifically takes into account the reality of what can philosophically and reasonably be known.  Science as we know it did not exist in the the medieval period but the reasonable assent to God (Like St. Thomas Aquinas' Five proofs for the existence of God) did exist.  According to Christopher Mooney in his book Teilhard de Chardin and the Mystery of Christ, Teilhard is in the natural revelation tradition.  
Natural revelation is rightfully foreign to Protestant Christians because of the centrality of the Bible and divine revelation.  The tendency to say as Fr. Thomas Berry has said: "we should put the Bible on the shelf" would not occur to a Protestant Christian.  In essence for both Teilhard and the scholastic philosophers truth can be found in science as it can be found in the Bible.  Ergo the truth of science and the truth of faith should be integrated and not divisable.  Truth is truth.David.Rebelo (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  natural revelation and divine revelation in Teilhard 

message: I removed the section on response from fellow Catholics because it was utter garbage.  De Lubac and Teilhard were close personal friends.  Most of Teilhard's biographers bring this fact to light.  De Lubac didn't write three books in support of Teilhard under a vow of obedience.  Jacques Maritain did critique Teihard but his comments were favourable about Teilhard the man.  If you want to read it then the reference is in the book, The Peasant From Garrone.  Please stick to facts and reference them with direct quotes.--Sulpicia (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Response from Fellow Catholics Removed 

message: The article is weak in that, before I added the section, its references to works about Teilhard were limited to Internet links, of limited and passing utility.  There are actual works of scholarship addressing him, and I added the section as a place to cite important works of scholarship.  I do not think the list just needs to be limited to unfavorable works.  (It would be dishonest to give an impression that people only wrote unfavorable works about him.)  But if the section is entitled "unfavorable works," then no one will ever add favorable works to the list.  So stop changing the titled to a list of "unfavorable works"; instead, add favorable works to the list.  theloavesandthevicious (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be careful not to turn the external links section into a link farm: see WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK.  Subsections in an external links section often indicate an excess of external links. Headings using subjective terms like "Favorable" and "Unfavorable" are also a magnet for POV edits and linkspam. It would be better to move some of these links to inline references, which this article still lacks in many places.  Thanks, YrPolishUncle (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works about Teilhard 

message: EDITED TO BE NICE.  Since the editor who continues to remove the header is not providing a justification, I suggest a radical move.  I seek consensus whether we should, if the edit is made again, delete the whole pop culture section.  It would be a shame, since some (small) part of it is of value.  theloavesandthevicious (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the removal of that section, since it's completely unreferenced and gaining new unreferenced additions. If it were properly referenced, then much of it would probably be worth keeping. YrPolishUncle (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of it is utter rubbish, and it shan't be missed.  What little is of value might be appropriate in section on Teilhard's influence, which has been substantial.  Such a section, of course, would have to be sourced. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's noteworthy that Teilhard has such an influence in popular culture -- unusual for a theologian.  I agree that the list format is not the best, and of course references are needed.  It seems like deleting it en masse is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, though.  Agathman (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the pop culture section with one called "Influence of Teilhard", and put in sources for everything that needed them.  I left out the later philosophical works that build on his work such as Ong, Houston, and Cahill, because I couldn't really figure out a coherent way to include them.  Maybe someone else would like to retrieve them from the history and give that a try. Agathman (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced popular culture section 

message: Although the edits are looking pretty good.  Von Hildebrand does not represent mainstream Roman Catholicism.  His work, like Maritain's later writings sound bitter and angry.  The best thing about including his name amongst other theologians and writers is that other people will be able to plainly see and judge for themselves how bitter he is.  That is the advantage of a more comprehensive reference.  There is another book with a more balanced critique of Teilhard by Duggan that is less bitter.---EliasT (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: I removed
:There is an altar dedicated to him in the spiritual room of the United Nations in New York City.
Please reinsert if this can be verified. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altar 

message: I just reverted an edit involving the name on Teilhard's headstone.  The editor, Mdmarkus66, who made the edit included a link to a picture which clearly shows a different headstone than the current reference in the article shows.  So, how do we sort this out?  ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sent an e'mail to the poster of the gravestone on Find a Grave so more information may come from that.  I'm quite sure that the gravestone i've found is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's.  The difference in names is that the new one is Petrus (Latin for Pierre) and contains the honorific part of the name where the old gravestone names him as Pierre without the honorific.  Also, the dates match.  I suspect it has been replaced, but i'd like to find out roughly when. Mdmarkus66 (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd also note that i'm not saying anything ab't how he was known.  I'm only changing that his gravestone does not (any longer) just say Pierre Teilhard.  Mdmarkus66 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your approach, and it seems likely that the headstone was replaced for some reason.  Either way, using the name on the headstone as proof of the name by which he was widely known was probably not a good approach.  But, I would like to get this sorted out. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The poster of the original photograph has e'mailed back saying that the photograph was from "an old article on deChardin, pre-culinary institute".  He lived in the area in the '70s, but i'm not sure if that means the article was from then or not.  Still, i believe that the headstone i've found is Pierre Tielhard de Chardin's.  I'm going to reestablish the change in a couple days unless i hear otherwise. Mdmarkus66 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headstone 

message: Is it possible to write a section about connections between teilhard, intelligent design, the gaia hypothesis? i am not saying they are identical by any means, but i would be surprised if noone had written an intelligent, academic essay on these ideas. seems to me that the ID people may have a good idea, but they are promoting it as science, which it is not (yet). i think lovelock and teilhard were more philosophical, trying to use their ideas as tools for thinking. that difference in approaches, if written about, would make an excellent addition to any of the articles in this arena. i will try to find something. and i will not add material if consensus says it doesnt belong, and of course no OR.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teilhard and Intelligent design 

message: I have studied both the Ouroboros (as a meditative vehicle for imagining the breath circulating in the body), and Teilhard de Chardin, and value them both. But Teilhard never wrote about the Ouroboros. 
So why are there two sidebars mentioning the Ouroboros? Shouldn't they be deleted from this article, in keeping with an objective recounting of Teilhard's life and philosophy? 
Trobster (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of the Ouroboros? 

message: Recently an editor removed mention of his feast day of April 10 in the liturgical calendar of the Episcopalians (US). I am curious if this was due to lack of a source, or the sense that it's not important enough for the article. If the problem is no source, I have found one at  Since his thinking had trouble finding any support in the Catholic church, there might be some interest in the fact that the US Episcopalians recognize him. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teilhard in the Episcopal calendar 

message: User:Antichristos, a major contributor to this article, has been banned for sockpuppetry (using many other user names and also IP addresses around 89.110.x.x).  You may wish to police that user's contributions.  In other articles his contributions have been reverted wholesale, but in this case it seems like the article has been largely under control so I won't change anything except to leave this notification.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antichristos 

message: One of the best-known quotes attributed to Teilhard is: "We are not humans, here on earth, having a spiritual experience. We are spirits, having a human one". Or very similar. But though this is usually attributed to him, it is occasionally given another source. And the particular work it comes from is never appended. If anyone knows, perhaps a mention would be helpful.125.239.241.94 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The version I have is "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." But I can't document that one either. 71.220.219.16 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: The second paragraph in the introductory section states "two things" but only lists one under "First,". Principal author needs to complete /his/her train of thought bu specifying the second "thing":
"The second comprehensive work of Teilhard de Chardin is The Divine Milieu which attempted to do two things. First,75.177.83.241 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Introductory Paragraph 

message: I just reorganized the legacy section, separating his annual commemoration by the Episcopal Church (from this talk page apparently removed three years ago) from different types of memorials (scientific, literary, artistic and concrete). For what it's worth, I also added him to this day's Holidays & Observances section based on that annual commemoration. Frankly, the entire article needs a lot of work, perhaps because of controversies within Teilhard's Catholic Church concerning science and ecumenism. I personally find the many text boxes distracting and offputting, but have limited time as well as expertise in this area and so am not about to touch them. I do suggest, though, that if someone again wants to remove the mention of his Episcopalian memorial, he/she/they instead add a succinct reference to Catholic memorials to this priest after the rehabilitation mentioned earlier.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I have moved the "Teaching" section ahead of the sections dealing with his controversies within the Catholic Church. It seems more logical for the reader to find out what he taught before finding out who disagreed with him.
On that note: Teilhard was (and still is) opposed from many sides: conservative Christians as well as the secularist / atheist community. A representative of the former camp is David H. Lane whose work is mentioned under the "Further Reading" list.  (The Phenomenon of Teilhard: Prophet for a New Age (Mercer University Press)). Conservative Christians often label Teilhard as "New Age" or "Pantheist" (as discussed elsewhere on this Talk page). 
An example of the secularist opposition is nobel laureate, Jaque Monad who, in his book "Chance and Necessity", attacks Teilhard quite vigorously as an "animist". (Monad's views were later opposed by another nobel laureate, Theodosius Dobzhansky.) The article's  "Teaching" section contains the following sentence: "Peter Medawar described The Phenomenon of Man as "nonsense".[8]", thus locating Medawar in the same camp as Monad
The sentence about Medawar is tagged on to the opening paragraph is dangling. It gives no further context.
I believe that the article requires a section on Teilhard as a controversial figure both from the right and the left, so to speak. This should be separate from the extensive section dealing with his controversies within the Catholic Church.  CarlosChio (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reorganization & a suggestion 

message: The article as currently written only had criticisms of Chardin from an orthodox Catholic viewpoint (apart from a one word quote from Peter Medawar describing 'The Phenomenology of Man' as "nonsense"). OTOH, there are hundreds of words of quotes from Benedict XVI, cardinals, et al. This seems to be an imbalance. I have added three negative quotes, including one in the article introduction stating that most biologists consider him 'little better than a charlatan'. Kolyaaylok (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Dawkins slags him off and as we know he is the final word in scientific logic and decorum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.134.170 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of criticism from scientific/skeptical viewpoint 

message: All of the page links at the bottom of the page are either dead or point to nothing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.244.47 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Links 

message: The second paragraph of the lead reads:
One editor feels that the fact Teilhard's contributions were noted in Pope Francis' encyclical is not significant enough to be included in the lead. My opinion is that it is significant and lead-worthy that a priest once censored by the Church is now having his contributions noted in the pope's encyclical. Also, if we decide that this is not significant enough to be included in the lead, should the preceding two sentences be removed also? Being referred to in a pope's encyclical is certainly more noteworthy than being mentioned in a pope's homily. If we remove both of these sentences, it seems it would be NPOV to leave only the sentence that says he was censored in his lifetime, so if we remove one, we should remove all three. Abierma3 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of having contributions noted in Pope Francis' encyclical 

message: I see an earlier user attempted to clean this up, however, between now and then, it has been re-broken: Teilhard de Chardin has two comprehensive works. The first, The Phenomenon of Man, sets forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos and the evolution of matter to humanity to ultimately a reunion with Christ. Chardin abandoned literal interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. No second comprhensive work is directly addressed in the section Teachings.--Vidkun (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete thought in intro to Teachings section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/5160/blatty.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says he was censored because of his views on Original Sin. What exactly were these views? 
Ah I see it's discussed above. In effect he dismisses it. Wythy (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Sin 

message: I have reverted the deletion of one of the paragraphs, on Dennett and Rose. The paragraph correctly attributes and cites both authors, who each have their own professional opinions. The section does the same for several authors, all of whom have their own points of view. Together, the section gives the reader an idea of the range of opinion out there, and it is better balanced and more objective for spanning that range. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluations by scientists section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808033329/http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226090309/http://www.mnhn.fr/teilhard/indexE.html to http://www.mnhn.fr/teilhard/indexE.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101161611/http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf to http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.maryknollsocietymall.org/description.cfm?ISBN=978-1-57075-177-6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: What does "At the Sorbonne Teilhard pursued three unit degrees of natural science: geology, botany and zoology." mean? 86.132.220.22 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit degree? 

message: I don't think that Teilhard was trying to write biology texts. He was writing philosophical/religious texts. So this attempt to slam Teilhard in the intro is inappropraite.   — goethean 18:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The response to his writings by evolutionary biologists has been, with some exceptions, decidedly negative." 

message: Over the years I have occasionally heard from referred to as "the Teilhard de Chardin", as if this were analogous to "the Pope" or "the Dalai Lama".  I usually put this down to mishearing on my part, but here is a concrete example: 
* Dr. Savary captures the essence of the Teilhard de Chardin who combined science and spiritualism to analyze and explain the evolution of the Universe.
What could explain anyone thinking his personal name was some sort of title of office? --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "The" Teilhard de Chardin

message: I don't want to edit it directly, but it's worth discussing. I've read de Chardin and he does not seem "Darwinian" in his outlook, as described in the first paragraph.  The logic of his theories operated on a very different principle. 66.25.105.177 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinian?