Answer to Common Criticisms of Teilhard

Bruno Barnhart’s criticisms of Teilhard’s synthesis delivered at the Evolutionary Metaphysics Conference at Esalen Institute

Limitations of Teilhard's vision
“Barnhart mentioned a few of the critical questions invited by Teilhard's bold synthesis. On the grand scale of planetary evolution, many of the dynamics of human existence do not appear. The tragedies and evils of human life are hardly suggested in the great synthetic vision. The synthesis has been criticized from the theological perspective for obscuring the distinction between the supernatural and natural realms, and from the scientific side for the way in which Teilhard sometimes credited bold hypotheses with a quasi-certainty. While he often claimed to speak simply as a scientist, the reader continually feels in his thought and language the passionate momentum of prophetic faith.”
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/evo_meta_sum.cfm#tarnas

Our response to these three criticisms of Teilhard’s thought and vision:

!. “The tragedies and evils of human life are hardly suggested in the great synthetic vision.” Au contraire. In the Future of Man Teilhard specifically addresses what is perhaps the most significant “tragic” event of the XXth century, i.e. the atomic bomb, in an essay entitled “Some Reflections on the Spiritual Repercussions of the Atom Bomb.” Teilhard considers this event in the deserts of Arizona in 1945 in two aspects: 1)its terror and 2)its revelation of human power on the global scale. Furthermore he often spoke of the growing tension and heat of the world owing to overpopulation as initiating crises which must be averted, in order that the Noosphere could emerge. The same forces which promote crisis also “fuel” noogenesis.

2.“The synthesis has been criticized from the theological perspective for obscuring the distinction between the supernatural and natural realms…” This is merely a linguistic problem. One could make the same criticism of Aquinas’ appropriation of Aristotle’s physics and metaphysics in his synthesis. The problem is as follows: whenever a visionary or mystic grasps reality the primary fact and phenomenon is the vision of grasp and not the words which later fill in to describe this event. Hence, Teilhard grasps that at the core of all matter and living being there is a center and he attaches the name Omega and Christ to this. Likewise, Newton first of all grasped the truth of the experience of ‘gravity” and only later named the phenomenon as ‘gravitation’. In the initial grasping either of Thomas Aquinas, Newton or Teilhard, language is secondary and peripheral at best. What is grasped is the unitary experience of truth and reality, not words! It is critics and historians who divide the unitary experience of true phenomena into distinctions such as ‘supernatural’ and ‘natural’ realms which are arbitrary linguistic conventions. What is stupendous is Newton’s discovery, not the name he gives to this discovery and the same follows for Aquinas and Teilhard. Furthermore at the level of authentic research and vision, a material phenomenon may be simultaneously ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ depending on the types of theories used to account for it, after the fact.

3.“…and from the scientific side for the way in which Teilhard sometimes credited bold hypotheses with a quasi-certainty. While he often claimed to speak simply as a scientist, the reader continually feels in his thought and language the passionate momentum of prophetic faith.” This is merely a criticism of style. Should scientific theory be limited only to scholars and thinkers who are devoid of passion and faith? Of course not! This is a modern prejudice. It is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Criticism of Teilhard’s vision is stereotypical and has appeared in many places, many times. Rarer is the individual who possesses an authentic and integral grasp of Teilhard’s vision.

Serious criticism of Teilhard’s thought would rather look like this:
1.At what point do we know empirically speaking that globalization has emerged?
2.What is thinking?
3.What is matter?

These are questions that are not adequately met in contemporary scientific theory, and even though there are many theories, there is no agreement as to what constitutes the reality of these phenomena (“thought,” “matter,” “globalization” are merely words attempting to describe phenomenal truths and realities---it is these truths that science should seek, not merely words and theories based upon these words).

Thinking together with Teilhard when we have grasped his vision, only then can the authentic criticism begin. At the end of the day the question of what words such as ‘noogenesis’ or ‘globalization’ mean is slightly different than the attempt to grasp and express the original insight from which this language has sprung. When we put aside the academic bickering, we must attempt to face this insight or fait primitif to use Bergson’s expression. The effort is to understand Teilhard, not criticize the man or his theories.

Hence the question emerges: Is there anything on the horizon in the present age for which contemporary theories of physics and neuroscience lack an ability to articulate meaning but which Teilhard’s synthesis adequately grasps and explains with meaning? If this is the case then Teilhard’s synthesis at least has the credential of offering a paradigm of scientific explanation which is otherwise absent. And in the sense of Kuhn, such a theory which is adequate to this task is at the very least a “true” paradigm.

Take for example the phenomenon of ‘globalization’. The apostrophe indicates that we are talking about the truth of the phenomenon which people call “globalization”. We are not asserting that there is such a thing as ‘globalization’ but merely indicating that more and more people are using a term to describe a felt phenomenon. As such we concerned with the truth of that which gives rise to the expression ‘globalization’.

Certainly there are many competing accounts of globalization: in foreign affairs, in business, in terms of environmental crisis and then there is also Teilhard’s use of the term which predates nearly all others. The correct angle for this question is as follows: are the phenomena being called ‘globalization’ adequate to Teilhard’s sense of the term? This is a question of legitimacy.

Business leaders are often not concerned with questions of legitimacy in the sense that a social scientist, or philosopher may be. Hence, IBM is pioneering a globalized business strategy which proceeds without reference to either social science or Teilhard’s thought. Business often enacts events and realities in a poetic sense, whereas science attempts to describe and mirror what is. Hence there will always be a disconnect between business and science. Business motors world progress and science then attempts to explain this reality. Examples in medicine abound---the artificial heart, to name one, where businesses have decided to go ahead with a transforming procedure, certainly based upon scientific knowledge, but in the fact that it moves forward, it transcends merely scientific knowledge. This is to put it in Nietzsche’s phrase an example of the will to power. Business hence fulfills human aspiration contrary to science and fact.

The role of a seer such as Teilhard or loosely speaking the role of a prophet is different. In his lifetime, Teilhard stood nearly alone in his vision and grasp of the truth of human life. In fact there was extremely little evidence that could confirm his vision. And yet, what we have seen since his death in 1955 is that things have more and more confirmed Teilhard’s unique vision. Especially the internet (whatever that means :)).