Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary

[Martin Harran]

(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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

[erik simpson]

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by erik simpson

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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.

Well I find this bit of elaboration by John Slattery rather disturbing from
my 2024 perch. Wonder how it went over when it happened (1947):

“Besides their obvious objectionable nature, Teilhard’s views withstand two
troubling tests: first, he defends them boldly in the face of his respected
Christian colleagues who disagree; second, he persists in such views
despite the shocking revelations of what took place in the concentration
camps and death camps of Nazi Germany. One of Teilhard’s early biographers
recounts a 1947 public debate with Gabriel Marcel, the famous French
Catholic existentialist, where Teilhard persists in arguing for forced
eugenical practices:

“Once in a debate with Gabriel Marcel on the subject of ‘Science and
Rationality,’ [Teilhard] shocked his opponent by refusing to permit even
the appalling evidence of the experiments of the doctors of Dachau to
modify his faith in the inevitability of human progress. ‘Man,” [Teilhard]
asserted, ‘to become full man, must have tried everything’ …He added that
since the human species was still so young…the persistence of such evil was
to be expected. ‘Prometheus!’ Marcel had cried…’No,’ replied Teilhard,
‘only man as God has made him.’”

Slattery gives this source: Mary Lukas and Ellen Lukas, Teilhard (Garden
City, New York: Doubleday, 1977): 237-8.

https://religiondispatches.org/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-legacy-of-eugenics-and-racism-cant-be-ignored/

I wonder if the PBS labor of love will touch any of that.

Of course aside from that I think Gould’s views on the drunkard’s walk,
Modal Bacter, and contingency counter Teilhard’s overarching orthogenetic
teleos bending upward toward Christ as point Omega. YMMV. When I brought
that stuff up recently I was instead presented with a clueless tangent into
Gould’s much less appealing NOMA idea.

[DB Cates]

Post by erik simpson

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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".

[Martin Harran]

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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?


[1] Some people NOT including me.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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?
[1] Some people NOT including me.

Julian Huxley, who just happened to write an intro to Teilhard’s *The
Phenomenon of Man*, was kinda into eugenics:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366572/

Oh: https://fore.yale.edu/files/79-teilhard_and_huxley.pdf

One of my personal heroes Ernst Mayr dipped his own toes into the eugenic
stream himself:

https://digirepo.nlm.nih.gov/ext/document/101584582X183/PDF/101584582X183.pdf

From: https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584582X183-doc

I’m not about to sweep that bit of awkwardness under the rug.

For whatever reason Teilhard should not be subjected to the same scrutiny I
suppose.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 19 May 2024 13:09:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

?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?
[1] Some people NOT including me.

Julian Huxley, who just happened to write an intro to Teilhard's *The
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366572/
Oh: https://fore.yale.edu/files/79-teilhard_and_huxley.pdf
One of my personal heroes Ernst Mayr dipped his own toes into the eugenic
https://digirepo.nlm.nih.gov/ext/document/101584582X183/PDF/101584582X183.pdf
From: https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584582X183-doc

WOW, some of your heroes were less than perfect beings … who'da thunk
it.

I'm not about to sweep that bit of awkwardness under the rug.
For whatever reason Teilhard should not be subjected to the same scrutiny I
suppose.

Of course he is subject to scrutiny but in an objective way, not a
one-sided way as per the Wiki article you quoted.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2024-05-19 07:45:14 +0000, Martin Harran said:


[ … ]

Post by Martin Harran
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?
[1] Some people NOT including me.

When has anyone not ignorant of the reality claimed that? Or anyone
knowing the reality but lying about it? The creationist Denyse O'Leary
has claimed this on the basis that the full title of The Origin of
Species includes the words "favoured races". She claimed this despite
knowing perfectly well that Darwin was not talking about human races,
but about animal varieties. We wouldn't use "races" in that sense
today, but that's irrelevant.

So, to answer your question, no, I don't think that a Darwin
documentary is obliged to mention what idiots and liars have said.

And no, I woudn't call it a hagiography.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 19 May 2024 16:47:54 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ … ]

Post by Martin Harran
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?
[1] Some people NOT including me.

When has anyone not ignorant of the reality claimed that? Or anyone
knowing the reality but lying about it? The creationist Denyse O'Leary
has claimed this on the basis that the full title of The Origin of
Species includes the words "favoured races". She claimed this despite
knowing perfectly well that Darwin was not talking about human races,
but about animal varieties. We wouldn't use "races" in that sense
today, but that's irrelevant.
So, to answer your question, no, I don't think that a Darwin
documentary is obliged to mention what idiots and liars have said.

I agree totally. I also think the same standard should apply to
Teilhard de Chardin.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
And no, I woudn't call it a hagiography.

My question about hagiography was addressed to Don Cates who suggested
it in regard to Teilhard.

[DB Cates]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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". 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'.

Post by Martin Harran
[1] Some people NOT including me.

[Martin Harran]

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

"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.

Post by DB Cates
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.

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran
[1] Some people NOT including me.

--

[DB Cates]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

"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
hagiography. this would be true of any biography in my opinion.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates
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?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran
[1] Some people NOT including me.

--

[Martin Harran]

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

"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.

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates
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.

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran
[1] Some people NOT including me.

--

--

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

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

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates
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.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

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

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates
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.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

"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.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates
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.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

“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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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".

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

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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>

===============================

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

“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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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

“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

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

Post by Martin Harran
==============================
[You asked:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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. There were positive and negative versions and a
spectrum of views per application. But I have yet to see that explicit
acknowledgment from you.

Now about that “physiology of nations and races””…

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.”

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?”

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.

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

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

?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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

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.

Post by Martin Harran
==============================
[You asked:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

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

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

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?

And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

?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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
==============================
[You asked:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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

[ding, ding, the clue fairy rang]

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran
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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.”

Post by Martin Harran

And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
"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.

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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

[erik simpson]

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

?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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
==============================
[You asked:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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

[ding, ding, the clue fairy rang]

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran
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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.”

Post by Martin Harran

And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
"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.

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

[DB Cates]

On 2024-05-27 12:03 PM, erik simpson wrote:

[gigantic snip]

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

But what if its got *my* looks and *your* brains?

[erik simpson]

Post by DB Cates
[gigantic snip]

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

But what if its got *my* looks and *your* brains?

Well, yes. There's always that.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by DB Cates
[gigantic snip]

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

But what if its got *my* looks and *your* brains?

I have some material from another of Teilhard’s books of compiled essays
where he incorporates eugenics in a most interesting way. Talk.origins
seems to be wonky at the moment so I dunno if Martin is still engaging with
this topic. A possibly separable topic is what was meant by physiology of
races. I have bookmarked websites on that, but I think the eugenics angle
more interesting at present.

And I did watch the Teilhard documentary which was mostly positive toward
Teilhard. I did sympathize with his exiles to China and the US. I would
have told the Jesuits to get fucked, but for some reason he held on. That’s
fine.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by erik simpson

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

?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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
==============================
[You asked:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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

[ding, ding, the clue fairy rang]

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran
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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.”

Post by Martin Harran

And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
"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.

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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.

[erik simpson]

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by erik simpson

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:55:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

?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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
==============================
[You asked:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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.

Post by Martin Harran

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

[ding, ding, the clue fairy rang]

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran
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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.”

Post by Martin Harran

And it is possible Slattery overdoes it a bit. Here's a critique of
"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.

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?

Post by Martin Harran

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.

Post by Martin Harran

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?
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.

[Martin Harran]

[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang
heads with science.

Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?

Post by erik simpson
It's like a dent in your brain.

How much of a dent did Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, or George
Lemaître have? Or, if you'd prefer to go more recent, Ken Miller or
George Coyne; or moving beyond Catholicism, Francis Collins or John
Polkinghorne?

Post by erik simpson
"Sin" and "spirit"
are loaded subjects.

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang
heads with science.

Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?

Post by erik simpson
It's like a dent in your brain.

How much of a dent did Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, or George
Lemaître have? Or, if you'd prefer to go more recent, Ken Miller or
George Coyne; or moving beyond Catholicism, Francis Collins or John
Polkinghorne?

Post by erik simpson
"Sin" and "spirit"
are loaded subjects.

Heads bump wherever there are things which cannot be questioned. This
certainly doesn't preclude science, but it marks some areas as
inaccessible. Catholicism doesn't have a corner on dogmatism; my
brother-in-law (whom I highly regard) is a fundamentalist protestant.
We don't discuss science.

[Martin Harran]

Second attempt to post

On Wed, 29 May 2024 10:20:59 -0700, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang
heads with science.

Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?

Post by erik simpson
It's like a dent in your brain.

How much of a dent did Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, or George
Lemaître have? Or, if you'd prefer to go more recent, Ken Miller or
George Coyne; or moving beyond Catholicism, Francis Collins or John
Polkinghorne?

Post by erik simpson
"Sin" and "spirit"
are loaded subjects.

Heads bump wherever there are things which cannot be questioned. This
certainly doesn't preclude science, but it marks some areas as
inaccessible.

Examples notable by their absence.

Post by erik simpson
Catholicism doesn't have a corner on dogmatism;

I didn't say it does but you specifically said "any religion" and I
think Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination, is a
reasonable example to take with the extent of formal dogma it
contains.

Post by erik simpson
my
brother-in-law (whom I highly regard) is a fundamentalist protestant.
We don't discuss science.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang
heads with science.

Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?

In the part you conveniently snipped there was a specific bumping of heads
I mentioned based on the very documentary in your OP:
“Teilhard got in hot water with Jesuits for his essay on original sin in
light of evolution.”

This essay by David Grumett elaborates:
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-theological-trouble

“During the 1920s, Teilhard wrote an essay on how the doctrine of original
sin could be reconciled with the theory of evolution. The essay, meant for
private circulation, was passed on to church authorities in Rome, who saw
in the essay an alarming deviation from orthodoxy.”

“In his paper, Teilhard argued that traditional teachings about the fall of
Adam and Eve into sin were difficult to reconcile with science for two
reasons. First, fossils suggested that the human species emerged out of
several different evolutionary branches, not from a single pair of
ancestors. Second, an earthly paradise from which death, suffering, and
evil were absent was scientifically inconceivable, given that the tendency
toward physical disintegration is a condition of existence.”

And: “It was the fourth proposition that caused Teilhard great difficulty.
It read: “The whole human race takes its origin from one first parent,
Adam.” In a letter to his mentor, Teilhard wrote: “I am able to subscribe
to it in faith only with the implicit or explicit reserve that I regard the
proposition as subject to revisions (and, what is more, essential
revisions) of the kind to which belief in the eight days of creation, the
flood, etc., has been subjected; and I do not see how anyone could forbid
me this position.””

So Teilhard himself was bumping heads with authority based on his
interpretation of science.

And see:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/what-do-catholics-believe-about-adam-and-eve

I tried sending a reply like this earlier but it hasn’t shown up.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:39:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang
heads with science.

Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?

In the part you conveniently snipped there was a specific bumping of heads
“Teilhard got in hot water with Jesuits for his essay on original sin in
light of evolution.”
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-theological-trouble
“During the 1920s, Teilhard wrote an essay on how the doctrine of original
sin could be reconciled with the theory of evolution. The essay, meant for
private circulation, was passed on to church authorities in Rome, who saw
in the essay an alarming deviation from orthodoxy.”
“In his paper, Teilhard argued that traditional teachings about the fall of
Adam and Eve into sin were difficult to reconcile with science for two
reasons. First, fossils suggested that the human species emerged out of
several different evolutionary branches, not from a single pair of
ancestors. Second, an earthly paradise from which death, suffering, and
evil were absent was scientifically inconceivable, given that the tendency
toward physical disintegration is a condition of existence.”
And: “It was the fourth proposition that caused Teilhard great difficulty.
It read: “The whole human race takes its origin from one first parent,
Adam.” In a letter to his mentor, Teilhard wrote: “I am able to subscribe
to it in faith only with the implicit or explicit reserve that I regard the
proposition as subject to revisions (and, what is more, essential
revisions) of the kind to which belief in the eight days of creation, the
flood, etc., has been subjected; and I do not see how anyone could forbid
me this position.””
So Teilhard himself was bumping heads with authority based on his
interpretation of science.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/what-do-catholics-believe-about-adam-and-eve
I tried sending a reply like this earlier but it hasn’t shown up.

So the best you can come up with is from 100 years ago with a priest
falling out with his superior over a *theological* argument; a priest
whose ideas have since been praised by 3 consecutive popes.

Sounds like your Teilhard itch is playing up again.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:39:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[snip for focus]

Post by erik simpson
Any religion with the concept of "dogma" built in will eventually bang
heads with science.

Really? The Catholic Church has loads of dogma; would you care to
identify where it bumps heads with science?

In the part you conveniently snipped there was a specific bumping of heads
“Teilhard got in hot water with Jesuits for his essay on original sin in
light of evolution.”
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-theological-trouble
“During the 1920s, Teilhard wrote an essay on how the doctrine of original
sin could be reconciled with the theory of evolution. The essay, meant for
private circulation, was passed on to church authorities in Rome, who saw
in the essay an alarming deviation from orthodoxy.”
“In his paper, Teilhard argued that traditional teachings about the fall of
Adam and Eve into sin were difficult to reconcile with science for two
reasons. First, fossils suggested that the human species emerged out of
several different evolutionary branches, not from a single pair of
ancestors. Second, an earthly paradise from which death, suffering, and
evil were absent was scientifically inconceivable, given that the tendency
toward physical disintegration is a condition of existence.”
And: “It was the fourth proposition that caused Teilhard great difficulty.
It read: “The whole human race takes its origin from one first parent,
Adam.” In a letter to his mentor, Teilhard wrote: “I am able to subscribe
to it in faith only with the implicit or explicit reserve that I regard the
proposition as subject to revisions (and, what is more, essential
revisions) of the kind to which belief in the eight days of creation, the
flood, etc., has been subjected; and I do not see how anyone could forbid
me this position.””
So Teilhard himself was bumping heads with authority based on his
interpretation of science.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/what-do-catholics-believe-about-adam-and-eve
I tried sending a reply like this earlier but it hasn’t shown up.

So the best you can come up with is from 100 years ago with a priest
falling out with his superior over a *theological* argument; a priest
whose ideas have since been praised by 3 consecutive popes.
Sounds like your Teilhard itch is playing up again.

Wait, what? This was no ordinary priest but Teilhard himself, you know…the
main topic of this thread you started. And my motivation to dig deeper came
from the documentary you recommended, which wasn’t horrible, not from
Slattery the novice scholar.

And that last link I provided

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/what-do-catholics-believe-about-adam-and-eve

Points to this (where science is butting heads with Catholic theology:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2011/08/11/can-theology-evolve/?sh=46b7932d48a9

It mentions both Jerry Coyne, who I have grown to despise, and George
Coyne, who I liked from Bill Maher’s *Religulous* though I might take issue
with some of his theistic evolutionary or cosmology views that lean more
heavily on the theistic. As for George Coyne the Forbes article says:

“Catholic apologists who point to Pope John Paul II’s 1996 address to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences as evidence of the Church’s acceptance of
evolution often fail to notice that the late Pope completely passed over
the question of monogenism, and indeed never did discuss the problem that
genetics poses to the doctrine.”

“He was aware of the wider challenge, however, and in a letter he wrote to
the then head of the Vatican Observatory, Father George Coyne, (a letter
that should be much more widely circulated than it ever has been) he quite
bluntly stated that the Catholic Church faces a greater challenge from
science now than it has since the Middle Ages when theologians at the newly
founded universities rediscovered Aristotle and the great Muslim
philosophers of the 10th and 11th centuries.”

That gets a bit removed from the topic of Teilhard *per se*, especially my
focus on where eugenics fits with his evolutionary philosophy. George Coyne
might be regarded as an intellectual descendant of his though (eugenics
removed).

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<***@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

In the article cited by Wikipedia, cited by you in turn, Slattery
claims that "recent scholarly research" supports his conclusions yet
he does not cite even one other researcher who supports his views.
Indeed, he admits later in the article that "no scholars before this
essay have written at length on the depths of Teilhard's commitments
to eugenics, sterilization, and racial superiority". A rather peculiar
understanding of "scholarly research".

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

I've only had time to watch the first half of it which I thought was
pretty frank in discussing Telhard's early development of his ideas,
his internal struggles to reconcile his belief in "spirit" with
"matter" and his shock at the response of his Jesuit superiors. I hope
to watch the second half over the weekend.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics. That wasn’t substantive? And going on
Slattery’s lead I found Teilhard’s *Activation of Energy* collection
helpful. There’s an essay called “The Sense of the Species in Man” where
Teilhard wrote:

“In animals, I recalled when I began, the sense of the species is
essentially a blind urge toward reproduction and multiplication, within the
phylum.
In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social
totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context
can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which
makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.
The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere.”

“From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to
ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more
advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the earth.

“At the same time, however, and even more markedly, there must be an ever
more intense effort directed towards discovery and vision, animated by the
hope of our gradually, as one man, putting our hands on the deep-seated
forces (physico-chemical, biological and psychic) which provide the impetus
of evolution.”

“Finally, and at the same time, inasmuch as evolution is tending, quite
rightly, to be identified (at least so far as our field of vision extends)
with hominization,3 there must be a never-failing concern to stimulate,
within the personalized living mass, the development of the affective
energies which are the ultimate generators of union: a sublimated sense of
sex, and a generalized sense of man.”

Endnote 3 is: ““In this sense, that in our more informed view man is no
longer simply the artisan but also the object of an auto-evolution, which
is seen to coincide, at its term, with a concerted reflection of all the
elementary human reflections, now mutually inter-reflective.”

The above expands greatly on a quote Slattery had used in his Religion
Dispatches piece. Looks to me as Slattery himself opined that eugenics is
connected in some way to Teilhard’s noosphere here.

Can you at least concede Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his
thought when he was incorporating eugenics into his thought?

Another essay “A Major Problem for Anthropology” had Teilhard saying:

“The time, then, seems to have come when a small number of men
representative of the principal living branches of modern scientific
thought (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, sociology, and psychology) must
come together in a concerted attack on the following points:”

“1. To affirm, and secure official recognition for, the proposition that
henceforth the question of an ultra-evolution of man (through collective
reflection or convergence) must be expressed in scientific terms.”

“2. To seek in common for the best ways of verifying the existence of the
problem and tackling it scientifically, with all its consequences and on
every plane.”

“3. To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and
psychological) of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:”

“a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general
research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement
of the noosphere”

“b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in
the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection
upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development
of the psychic energy of self-evolution.”

So again his noosphere idea had a eugenics component. Can you at least
concede that point?

[Martin Harran]

Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note

On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics.

Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.

I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?

Post by *Hemidactylus*
That wasn't substantive? And going on
Slattery's lead I found Teilhard's *Activation of Energy* collection
helpful. There's an essay called "The Sense of the Species in Man" where
"In animals, I recalled when I began, the sense of the species is
essentially a blind urge toward reproduction and multiplication, within the
phylum.
In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social
totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context
can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which
makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.
The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere."
"From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to
ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more
advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the earth.
"At the same time, however, and even more markedly, there must be an ever
more intense effort directed towards discovery and vision, animated by the
hope of our gradually, as one man, putting our hands on the deep-seated
forces (physico-chemical, biological and psychic) which provide the impetus
of evolution."
"Finally, and at the same time, inasmuch as evolution is tending, quite
rightly, to be identified (at least so far as our field of vision extends)
with hominization,3 there must be a never-failing concern to stimulate,
within the personalized living mass, the development of the affective
energies which are the ultimate generators of union: a sublimated sense of
sex, and a generalized sense of man."
Endnote 3 is: ""In this sense, that in our more informed view man is no
longer simply the artisan but also the object of an auto-evolution, which
is seen to coincide, at its term, with a concerted reflection of all the
elementary human reflections, now mutually inter-reflective."
The above expands greatly on a quote Slattery had used in his Religion
Dispatches piece. Looks to me as Slattery himself opined that eugenics is
connected in some way to Teilhard's noosphere here.
Can you at least concede Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his
thought when he was incorporating eugenics into his thought?

I see nothing supporting eugenics as described by the National Human
Genome Research Institute involving "the use of methods such as
involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion [which]
would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit"

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

Does your idea of eugenics differ?

Post by *Hemidactylus*
"The time, then, seems to have come when a small number of men
representative of the principal living branches of modern scientific
thought (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, sociology, and psychology) must
come together in a concerted attack on the following points:"
"1. To affirm, and secure official recognition for, the proposition that
henceforth the question of an ultra-evolution of man (through collective
reflection or convergence) must be expressed in scientific terms."
"2. To seek in common for the best ways of verifying the existence of the
problem and tackling it scientifically, with all its consequences and on
every plane."
"3. To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and
psychological) of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:"
"a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general
research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement
of the noosphere"
"b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in
the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection
upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development
of the psychic energy of self-evolution."
So again his noosphere idea had a eugenics component. Can you at least
concede that point?

See my reply above.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics.

Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?

I have gone directly to Teilhard’s work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
That wasn't substantive? And going on
Slattery's lead I found Teilhard's *Activation of Energy* collection
helpful. There's an essay called "The Sense of the Species in Man" where
"In animals, I recalled when I began, the sense of the species is
essentially a blind urge toward reproduction and multiplication, within the
phylum.
In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social
totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context
can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which
makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.
The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere."
"From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to
ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more
advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the earth.
"At the same time, however, and even more markedly, there must be an ever
more intense effort directed towards discovery and vision, animated by the
hope of our gradually, as one man, putting our hands on the deep-seated
forces (physico-chemical, biological and psychic) which provide the impetus
of evolution."
"Finally, and at the same time, inasmuch as evolution is tending, quite
rightly, to be identified (at least so far as our field of vision extends)
with hominization,3 there must be a never-failing concern to stimulate,
within the personalized living mass, the development of the affective
energies which are the ultimate generators of union: a sublimated sense of
sex, and a generalized sense of man."
Endnote 3 is: ""In this sense, that in our more informed view man is no
longer simply the artisan but also the object of an auto-evolution, which
is seen to coincide, at its term, with a concerted reflection of all the
elementary human reflections, now mutually inter-reflective."
The above expands greatly on a quote Slattery had used in his Religion
Dispatches piece. Looks to me as Slattery himself opined that eugenics is
connected in some way to Teilhard's noosphere here.
Can you at least concede Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his
thought when he was incorporating eugenics into his thought?

I see nothing supporting eugenics as described by the National Human
Genome Research Institute involving "the use of methods such as
involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion [which]
would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit"
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
Does your idea of eugenics differ?

That is a very one-sided depiction of what eugenics meant. I think
Slattery’s polemics may have gotten in the way of assessing what Teilhard
was getting at with eugenics and you, ironically, are following him on
this.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
"The time, then, seems to have come when a small number of men
representative of the principal living branches of modern scientific
thought (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, sociology, and psychology) must
come together in a concerted attack on the following points:"
"1. To affirm, and secure official recognition for, the proposition that
henceforth the question of an ultra-evolution of man (through collective
reflection or convergence) must be expressed in scientific terms."
"2. To seek in common for the best ways of verifying the existence of the
problem and tackling it scientifically, with all its consequences and on
every plane."
"3. To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and
psychological) of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:"
"a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general
research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement
of the noosphere"
"b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in
the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection
upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development
of the psychic energy of self-evolution."
So again his noosphere idea had a eugenics component. Can you at least
concede that point?

See my reply above.

Eugenics is much more nuanced than the post-Nazi view of it allows in
popular thought. It was not confined to sterilization and euthanasia. As
the wiki says:

“Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories.[5]
Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the
genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent,
the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and
political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization,
egg transplants, and cloning.[109] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate,
through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or
morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other
methods of family planning.[109] Both positive and negative eugenics can be
coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women
deemed by the state to be fit.[110]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#:~:text=Positive%20eugenics%20is%20aimed%20at,%2C%20egg%20transplants%2C%20and%20cloning.

Ernst Mayr was leaning toward positive eugenics in his letter to Crick:
“I have been favoring positive eugenics as far back as I can remember.” and
“If I may summarize my own viewpoint, it is that positive eugenics is of
great importance for the future of mankind and that all roadblocks must be
removed that stand in the way of intensifying research in this area.
Shockley with his racist views is unfortunately the worst roadblock at this
time, at least in this country; hence, his sharp rejection by some of us
who are very much in favor of positive eugenics.”

But this was very offputting on top of that support for eugenics by Mayr:
“As I get older, I find the objective as important as ever, but I
appreciate also increasingly how difficult it is to achieve this goal,
particularly in a democratic western society. Even if we could solve all
the biological problems, and they are formidable, there still remains the
problem of coping with the demand for "freedom of reproduction," a freedom
which fortunately will have to be abolished anyhow if we are not drown in
human bodies. The time will come, and perhaps sooner than we think, when
parents will have to take out a license to produce a child. No one seems to
question that it requires a license for such a harmless activity as driving
a car, and yet such an important activity as influencing the gene pool of
the next generation can be carried out unlicensed. A biologist will
understand the logic of this argument, but how many non-biologists would?”

https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584582X183-doc

So given that range of meaning for eugenics I wonder what Teilhard meant by
the term.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics.

Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?

I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.

That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'

I realise that you don't like being compared to him but it would help
if you would explain the difference in approach between you drawing
the conclusion about Teilhard being a racist and eugenicist contrary
to Teilhard experts and RD drawing the conclusion that Darwin was
driven by a desire to overturn Paley contrary to Darwin experts.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
That wasn't substantive? And going on
Slattery's lead I found Teilhard's *Activation of Energy* collection
helpful. There's an essay called "The Sense of the Species in Man" where
"In animals, I recalled when I began, the sense of the species is
essentially a blind urge toward reproduction and multiplication, within the
phylum.
In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social
totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context
can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which
makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.
The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere."
"From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to
ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more
advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the earth.
"At the same time, however, and even more markedly, there must be an ever
more intense effort directed towards discovery and vision, animated by the
hope of our gradually, as one man, putting our hands on the deep-seated
forces (physico-chemical, biological and psychic) which provide the impetus
of evolution."
"Finally, and at the same time, inasmuch as evolution is tending, quite
rightly, to be identified (at least so far as our field of vision extends)
with hominization,3 there must be a never-failing concern to stimulate,
within the personalized living mass, the development of the affective
energies which are the ultimate generators of union: a sublimated sense of
sex, and a generalized sense of man."
Endnote 3 is: ""In this sense, that in our more informed view man is no
longer simply the artisan but also the object of an auto-evolution, which
is seen to coincide, at its term, with a concerted reflection of all the
elementary human reflections, now mutually inter-reflective."
The above expands greatly on a quote Slattery had used in his Religion
Dispatches piece. Looks to me as Slattery himself opined that eugenics is
connected in some way to Teilhard's noosphere here.
Can you at least concede Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his
thought when he was incorporating eugenics into his thought?

I see nothing supporting eugenics as described by the National Human
Genome Research Institute involving "the use of methods such as
involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion [which]
would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit"
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
Does your idea of eugenics differ?

That is a very one-sided depiction of what eugenics meant.

Then write to the National Human Genome Research Institute and tell
them they have got it wrong too.

Alternatively, you could explain what your understanding of eugenics
is that you seek to apply to Teilhard.

I think
Slattery's polemics may have gotten in the way of assessing what Teilhard
was getting at with eugenics and you, ironically, are following him on
this.

Of course there is no possibility of you letting your own polemics get
in the way of rational analysis!

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
"The time, then, seems to have come when a small number of men
representative of the principal living branches of modern scientific
thought (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, sociology, and psychology) must
come together in a concerted attack on the following points:"
"1. To affirm, and secure official recognition for, the proposition that
henceforth the question of an ultra-evolution of man (through collective
reflection or convergence) must be expressed in scientific terms."
"2. To seek in common for the best ways of verifying the existence of the
problem and tackling it scientifically, with all its consequences and on
every plane."
"3. To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and
psychological) of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:"
"a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general
research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement
of the noosphere"
"b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in
the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection
upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development
of the psychic energy of self-evolution."
So again his noosphere idea had a eugenics component. Can you at least
concede that point?

See my reply above.

Eugenics is much more nuanced than the post-Nazi view of it allows in
popular thought. It was not confined to sterilization and euthanasia. As
"Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories.[5]
Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the
genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent,
the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and
political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization,
egg transplants, and cloning.[109] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate,
through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or
morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other
methods of family planning.[109] Both positive and negative eugenics can be
coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women
deemed by the state to be fit.[110]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#:~:text=Positive%20eugenics%20is%20aimed%20at,%2C%20egg%20transplants%2C%20and%20cloning.
"I have been favoring positive eugenics as far back as I can remember." and
"If I may summarize my own viewpoint, it is that positive eugenics is of
great importance for the future of mankind and that all roadblocks must be
removed that stand in the way of intensifying research in this area.
Shockley with his racist views is unfortunately the worst roadblock at this
time, at least in this country; hence, his sharp rejection by some of us
who are very much in favor of positive eugenics."
"As I get older, I find the objective as important as ever, but I
appreciate also increasingly how difficult it is to achieve this goal,
particularly in a democratic western society. Even if we could solve all
the biological problems, and they are formidable, there still remains the
problem of coping with the demand for "freedom of reproduction," a freedom
which fortunately will have to be abolished anyhow if we are not drown in
human bodies. The time will come, and perhaps sooner than we think, when
parents will have to take out a license to produce a child. No one seems to
question that it requires a license for such a harmless activity as driving
a car, and yet such an important activity as influencing the gene pool of
the next generation can be carried out unlicensed. A biologist will
understand the logic of this argument, but how many non-biologists would?"
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584582X183-doc
So given that range of meaning for eugenics I wonder what Teilhard meant by
the term.

I've elsewhere given you two examples which I believe would
comfortably fit in with Teilhard's idea of "a nobly human form of
eugenics … [that] …should be discovered and developed". I await your
response on them. (That is not a whinge about your lack of response so
far - I realise the 'wonkiness' of TO at the moment, this is my second
attempt to post this.)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics.

Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?

I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.

That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'

We are not discussing Ron Dean, Paley, or Darwin here. You are lobbing red
herrings out of a tank. We are discussing multiple full quotes that
establish Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary
philosophy. You are playing silly evasive games.

There was a time when religious followers were instructed what to believe
by intermediaries. Then a new array of believers said they will read the
damn book themselves thank you very much. You are in the first camp.

And unlike Ron Dean I am not approaching this from novice ignorance.

Post by Martin Harran
I realise that you don't like being compared to him but it would help
if you would explain the difference in approach between you drawing
the conclusion about Teilhard being a racist and eugenicist contrary
to Teilhard experts and RD drawing the conclusion that Darwin was
driven by a desire to overturn Paley contrary to Darwin experts.

Teilhard was clearly incorporating eugenics into his progressive
evolutionary philosophy of human improvement just like the political
progressives that came before him. I am focused on the eugenics part, not
the racial part.

And I have said that Slattery may have gone too far in his interpretation
based somewhat on Joshua Canzona.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
That wasn't substantive? And going on
Slattery's lead I found Teilhard's *Activation of Energy* collection
helpful. There's an essay called "The Sense of the Species in Man" where
"In animals, I recalled when I began, the sense of the species is
essentially a blind urge toward reproduction and multiplication, within the
phylum.
In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social
totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context
can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which
makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.
The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere."
"From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to
ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more
advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the earth.
"At the same time, however, and even more markedly, there must be an ever
more intense effort directed towards discovery and vision, animated by the
hope of our gradually, as one man, putting our hands on the deep-seated
forces (physico-chemical, biological and psychic) which provide the impetus
of evolution."
"Finally, and at the same time, inasmuch as evolution is tending, quite
rightly, to be identified (at least so far as our field of vision extends)
with hominization,3 there must be a never-failing concern to stimulate,
within the personalized living mass, the development of the affective
energies which are the ultimate generators of union: a sublimated sense of
sex, and a generalized sense of man."
Endnote 3 is: ""In this sense, that in our more informed view man is no
longer simply the artisan but also the object of an auto-evolution, which
is seen to coincide, at its term, with a concerted reflection of all the
elementary human reflections, now mutually inter-reflective."
The above expands greatly on a quote Slattery had used in his Religion
Dispatches piece. Looks to me as Slattery himself opined that eugenics is
connected in some way to Teilhard's noosphere here.
Can you at least concede Teilhard was incorporating eugenics into his
thought when he was incorporating eugenics into his thought?

I see nothing supporting eugenics as described by the National Human
Genome Research Institute involving "the use of methods such as
involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion [which]
would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit"
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
Does your idea of eugenics differ?

That is a very one-sided depiction of what eugenics meant.

Then write to the National Human Genome Research Institute and tell
them they have got it wrong too.

You are focusing on negative eugenics. That you are unaware of positive
eugenics betrays a lack of understanding on your part. You then use the
National Human Genome Research Institute as an intermediary to hide your
lack of understanding.

Post by Martin Harran
Alternatively, you could explain what your understanding of eugenics
is that you seek to apply to Teilhard.

You could admit Teilhard was using a eugenic approach.

Post by Martin Harran

I think
Slattery's polemics may have gotten in the way of assessing what Teilhard
was getting at with eugenics and you, ironically, are following him on
this.

Of course there is no possibility of you letting your own polemics get
in the way of rational analysis!

I provided multiple full quotes from Teilhard’s work and you ignore them.
Stop playing games.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
"The time, then, seems to have come when a small number of men
representative of the principal living branches of modern scientific
thought (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, sociology, and psychology) must
come together in a concerted attack on the following points:"
"1. To affirm, and secure official recognition for, the proposition that
henceforth the question of an ultra-evolution of man (through collective
reflection or convergence) must be expressed in scientific terms."
"2. To seek in common for the best ways of verifying the existence of the
problem and tackling it scientifically, with all its consequences and on
every plane."
"3. To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and
psychological) of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:"
"a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general
research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement
of the noosphere"
"b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in
the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection
upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development
of the psychic energy of self-evolution."
So again his noosphere idea had a eugenics component. Can you at least
concede that point?

See my reply above.

Eugenics is much more nuanced than the post-Nazi view of it allows in
popular thought. It was not confined to sterilization and euthanasia. As
"Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories.[5]
Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the
genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent,
the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and
political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization,
egg transplants, and cloning.[109] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate,
through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or
morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other
methods of family planning.[109] Both positive and negative eugenics can be
coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women
deemed by the state to be fit.[110]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#:~:text=Positive%20eugenics%20is%20aimed%20at,%2C%20egg%20transplants%2C%20and%20cloning.

Crickets.

Post by Martin Harran

"I have been favoring positive eugenics as far back as I can remember." and
"If I may summarize my own viewpoint, it is that positive eugenics is of
great importance for the future of mankind and that all roadblocks must be
removed that stand in the way of intensifying research in this area.
Shockley with his racist views is unfortunately the worst roadblock at this
time, at least in this country; hence, his sharp rejection by some of us
who are very much in favor of positive eugenics."
"As I get older, I find the objective as important as ever, but I
appreciate also increasingly how difficult it is to achieve this goal,
particularly in a democratic western society. Even if we could solve all
the biological problems, and they are formidable, there still remains the
problem of coping with the demand for "freedom of reproduction," a freedom
which fortunately will have to be abolished anyhow if we are not drown in
human bodies. The time will come, and perhaps sooner than we think, when
parents will have to take out a license to produce a child. No one seems to
question that it requires a license for such a harmless activity as driving
a car, and yet such an important activity as influencing the gene pool of
the next generation can be carried out unlicensed. A biologist will
understand the logic of this argument, but how many non-biologists would?"
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584582X183-doc
So given that range of meaning for eugenics I wonder what Teilhard meant by
the term.

I've elsewhere given you two examples which I believe would
comfortably fit in with Teilhard's idea of "a nobly human form of
eugenics … [that] …should be discovered and developed". I await your
response on them. (That is not a whinge about your lack of response so
far - I realise the 'wonkiness' of TO at the moment, this is my second
attempt to post this.)

You basically said then that you gave examples that fit with Teilhard’s use
of eugenics in his work. I take that on its face as admission to my point
on Teilhard incorporating eugenics in his worldview. So stop playing silly
games with all your spraying of squid ink to cloud the issue.

And you ignore the usage of positive eugenics by Ernst Mayr, an expert on
evolution.

[Martin Harran]

[cutting to the quick again]

You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.

Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.

Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the
doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be
shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slattery’s polemics as he may
have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics ain’t that great
either.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:12:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.

Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the
doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be
shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slattery’s polemics as he may
have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics ain’t that great
either.

Having said that there are various types of eugenics, some negative,
some positive, your persistent refusal to identify which type you are
accusing Teilhard of has become tedious.

*I* described what I think might be the type he was referring to and
gave two concrete examples that would fit with that. You might want to
reflect on how your disdain for Teilhard is stopping you from
endorsing things like genetic research into Down's Syndrome and
campaigns against FGM.

I must admit that your arguments here have served one useful purpose
for me; I was aware that Teilhard predicted the development of the
Internet but I was not aware that he had also predicted the
development of genetic engineering. Thank you for that.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:12:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.

Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the
doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be
shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slattery’s polemics as he may
have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics ain’t that great
either.

Having said that there are various types of eugenics, some negative,
some positive, your persistent refusal to identify which type you are
accusing Teilhard of has become tedious.
*I* described what I think might be the type he was referring to and
gave two concrete examples that would fit with that. You might want to
reflect on how your disdain for Teilhard is stopping you from
endorsing things like genetic research into Down's Syndrome and
campaigns against FGM.

That’s a bit of a reach. At least you admit to Teilhard’s use of eugenics
concepts but turn around and insinuate I’m ok with FGM. All that from my
providing numerous quotes where Teilhard references eugenics.

Did Teilhard ever make explicit references to somehow curing Downs trisomy
or ending FGM? The latter cultural practice has little if any connection I
can see to eugenics. You are a spinner.

Post by Martin Harran
I must admit that your arguments here have served one useful purpose
for me; I was aware that Teilhard predicted the development of the
Internet but I was not aware that he had also predicted the
development of genetic engineering. Thank you for that.

So that’s your uncritical fanboy takeaway?

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 12:37:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:12:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.

Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the
doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be
shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slattery?s polemics as he may
have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics ain?t that great
either.

Having said that there are various types of eugenics, some negative,
some positive, your persistent refusal to identify which type you are
accusing Teilhard of has become tedious.
*I* described what I think might be the type he was referring to and
gave two concrete examples that would fit with that. You might want to
reflect on how your disdain for Teilhard is stopping you from
endorsing things like genetic research into Down's Syndrome and
campaigns against FGM.

That’s a bit of a reach. At least you admit to Teilhard’s use of eugenics
concepts but turn around and insinuate I’m ok with FGM.

Yet again, when you have nothing to attack, you just make something
up.

I've had enough of your crap.

All that from my
providing numerous quotes where Teilhard references eugenics.
Did Teilhard ever make explicit references to somehow curing Downs trisomy
or ending FGM? The latter cultural practice has little if any connection I
can see to eugenics. You are a spinner.

Post by Martin Harran
I must admit that your arguments here have served one useful purpose
for me; I was aware that Teilhard predicted the development of the
Internet but I was not aware that he had also predicted the
development of genetic engineering. Thank you for that.

So that’s your uncritical fanboy takeaway?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 12:37:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:12:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 02 Jun 2024 14:01:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
[cutting to the quick again]
You claim that there are a variety of types of eugenics and accuse me
of being one-sided in my selection of a particular type, yet you are
curiously reluctant to state what type of eugenics you think applies
to Teilhard's ideas and why you think it does apply.
Feel free to come back to me when your hand gets tired waving, and you
are prepared to state what you actually think.

Maybe you should start by admitting, given the evidence of the many quotes
you have been provided of Teilhard himself, that Teilhard was actually
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy and stop squirting
squid ink to cloud that issue.

So you don't want to explain what *you* mean by eugenics but you want
me to agree that Teilhard subscribed to it anyway. I suggest you need
to stand back and reflect on your line of argument here.

Regardless of type Teilhard was incorporating eugenics. Slattery was
focused on the negative type with sterilization and you are too. I am
looking at it more broadly and maybe extending Teilhard the benefit of the
doubt, that he was incorporating a positive type instead, unless it can be
shown otherwise. Again I am backing away from Slattery?s polemics as he may
have taken his critique too far. But positive eugenics ain?t that great
either.

Having said that there are various types of eugenics, some negative,
some positive, your persistent refusal to identify which type you are
accusing Teilhard of has become tedious.
*I* described what I think might be the type he was referring to and
gave two concrete examples that would fit with that. You might want to
reflect on how your disdain for Teilhard is stopping you from
endorsing things like genetic research into Down's Syndrome and
campaigns against FGM.

That’s a bit of a reach. At least you admit to Teilhard’s use of eugenics
concepts but turn around and insinuate I’m ok with FGM.

Yet again, when you have nothing to attack, you just make something
up.

You’re the one who put FGM into the mix as a squirt of squid ink.

Post by Martin Harran
I've had enough of your crap.

You’ve had enough my quoting from Teilhard to show he incorporated eugenics
while you continued to tap dance around that inconvenient fact.

I’ve found it humorous how you kept bringing Darwin into the discussion
like Teilhard was on the same level. Weird stuff.

What I think I’ve done is upset a hornets nest that comes from a hive mind
mentality one gets with devoted followers of people like Teilhard. Not
surprising as I saw the same sort of arrogant insults and vitriol when
Jungians reacted to criticism of their guru. Most of the Sheldrake fans I
interacted with on a web forum in the late 90s weren’t that reactive though
still uncritical of his views and quite ignorant of the relevant
developmental biology.

Post by Martin Harran

All that from my
providing numerous quotes where Teilhard references eugenics.
Did Teilhard ever make explicit references to somehow curing Downs trisomy
or ending FGM? The latter cultural practice has little if any connection I
can see to eugenics. You are a spinner.

Post by Martin Harran
I must admit that your arguments here have served one useful purpose
for me; I was aware that Teilhard predicted the development of the
Internet but I was not aware that he had also predicted the
development of genetic engineering. Thank you for that.

So that’s your uncritical fanboy takeaway?

Crickets.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 02:35:43 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<***@allspamis.invalid> wrote:


[...]

What I think I’ve done is upset a hornets nest

WOW, an argument involving your opinion vs my opinion is stirring up a
hornets nest. Whoulda thunk either of us was so important!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Martin Harran
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 02:35:43 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[...]

What I think I’ve done is upset a hornets nest

WOW, an argument involving your opinion vs my opinion is stirring up a
hornets nest. Whoulda thunk either of us was so important!

A hornet thought I was important enough to attack me when I was six
years old. More than seventy years later I can still find the scar.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics.

Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?

I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.

That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'

Albert Einstein wrote something along the same lines, too.

There is nothing wrong with going to the source. There *is* something
wrong with appealing to experts to the exclusion of going to the source.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:50:40 -0700, Mark Isaak

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
Second posting attempt #4 after DG's note
On Thu, 30 May 2024 16:47:12 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Mon, 27 May 2024 19:07:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
[Mercy snip]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Why would it be included when no substantive case has been offered?
The only "evidence" you have offered is an opinion post by John
Slattery who has no previous known qualifications or expertise to make
his views on Telhard of any significance.

Not quite. I provided that lengthy quote from *Phenomenon of Man* where
Teilhard addresses eugenics.

Sorry to prick your bubble but your anonymous interpretation of
Teilhard on Usenet does not amount to a substantive case for
organisations like PBS.
I'm genuinely curious here. You are generally a rational thinker yet
you don't seem bothered about the fact that you haven't found anybody
except Slattery to support your utter convincement about Teilhard's
support for racism and eugenics. Does that not give you pause for
thought?

I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.

That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'

Albert Einstein wrote something along the same lines, too.
There is nothing wrong with going to the source. There *is* something
wrong with appealing to experts to the exclusion of going to the source.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 15:23:35 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<***@allspamis.invalid> wrote:


On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:50:40 -0700, Mark Isaak

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[…]

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by Martin Harran

I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.

That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'

Albert Einstein wrote something along the same lines, too.
There is nothing wrong with going to the source.

Absolutely! There is nothing whatsoever wrong with going to the
source, that is what I generally do myself. It is why, regarding
Joshua Canzona's six-word quote from Amy Limpitlaw, I said "I don't
put too much faith in secondary quotes from somebody's dissertation
where the dissertation isn't available to check." For some treason,
that annoyed Hemi - maybe your advice should be directed to him.

Post by Mark Isaak
There *is* something
wrong with appealing to experts to the exclusion of going to the source.

There is equally something wrong in deciding that people who have
professionally studied a subject for many years have simply got it
wrong and that your own interpretation of someone's writing, based on
limited study, is the correct one - especially in the case of the
obscure type of prose for which Teilhard de Chardin is well known. It
becomes hubris when you expect other people to discard the experts and
accept your opinion. That is the error that Hemi and Ron Dean both
make.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 15:23:35 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:50:40 -0700, Mark Isaak

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by Martin Harran
On Fri, 31 May 2024 22:05:49 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[…]

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by Martin Harran

I have gone directly to Teilhard's work itself and can via reason applied
to the evidence at hand come to the obvious conclusion that Teilhard was
incorporating eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy. I have no idea
what sorts of bias or predisposition are preventing you from acknowledging
the evidence and resulting conclusion. Slattery merely pointed the way. I
have my own copy of *Phenomenon of Man* and of *Activation of Energy* to go
by.

That paragraph is a mirror of some of the ones written by Ron Dean
about Darwin; your approach like his, is essentially 'Fuck the
experts, it's obvious to me so it must be right.'

Albert Einstein wrote something along the same lines, too.
There is nothing wrong with going to the source.

Absolutely! There is nothing whatsoever wrong with going to the
source, that is what I generally do myself. It is why, regarding
Joshua Canzona's six-word quote from Amy Limpitlaw, I said "I don't
put too much faith in secondary quotes from somebody's dissertation
where the dissertation isn't available to check." For some treason,
that annoyed Hemi - maybe your advice should be directed to him.

Post by Mark Isaak
There *is* something
wrong with appealing to experts to the exclusion of going to the source.

There is equally something wrong in deciding that people who have
professionally studied a subject for many years have simply got it
wrong and that your own interpretation of someone's writing, based on
limited study, is the correct one - especially in the case of the
obscure type of prose for which Teilhard de Chardin is well known. It
becomes hubris when you expect other people to discard the experts and
accept your opinion. That is the error that Hemi and Ron Dean both
make.

Well your expert Haught didn’t get into any detailed examination of
Teilhard’s use of eugenics in his writings in that Commonweal article. This
is it:

“Finally, and proceeding from the charge that Slattery levels above, we
must ask: Was Teilhard a eugenicist? He did write that “our generation
still regards with distrust all efforts proposed by science for controlling
the machinery of heredity...as if man had the right and power to interfere
with all the channels in the world except those which make him himself. And
yet it is eminently on this ground that we must try everything, to its
conclusion.” In judging this idea as morally reckless, however, Slattery
ignores the fact that for Teilhard it is always—and only—within the
constraints of a responsible moral vision rooted in Christian hope, and in
the principles listed above, that we must be ready to “try everything.”
Teilhard is looking in the age of science for a more adventurous,
world-building, and life-enhancing moral life than we can find in classical
religious patterns of piety.”

“Because humans are part of nature, and nature remains far from finished,
it is legitimate to wonder to what extent humans may morally participate in
their own and the world’s continuous creation. In doing so, may we
justifiably tamper with our genetic heritage as well as that of other
living beings? Perhaps Teilhard was at times incautious and too optimistic
about human potential in this domain. Yet the efforts of Slattery and
others to burden him with a tainted worldview need to be resisted.”

Yet Teilhard did incorporate eugenics into his evolutionary philosophy
multiple times. That cannot be swept under the rug and forgotten. I think
one would need to dissect those quotes in more detail before moving on.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

From *Phenomenon of Man*:
“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. 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.”

“Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society.”

From *Activation of Energy*:

“In man, by virtue of the two allied phenomena of reflection and social
totalization, the equivalent of this inner dynamism in a different context
can only be a reasoned urge towards fulfilment (both individual and
collective, each being produced through the other), followed in the
direction of the best arrangement of all the hominized substance which
makes up what I earlier called the noosphere.”

“The best arrangement with a view to a maximum hominization of the
noosphere.
From this there follows, as a first priority, a fundamental concern to
ensure (by correct nutrition, by education, and by selection) an ever more
advanced eugenics of the human zoological type on the surface of the
earth.”

And:
“We must recognize, then, the vital importance of a collective quest of
discovery and invention no longer inspired solely by a vague delight in
knowledge and power, but by the duty and the clearly-defined hope of
gaining control (and so making use) of the fundamental driving forces of
evolution.
And with this, the urgent need for a generalized eugenics (radical no less
than individual) directed, beyond all concern with economic or nutritional
problems, towards a biological maturing of the human type and of the
biosphere.”

Slattery oddly quoted this as: “(racial no less than individual)”. See:
https://religiondispatches.org/pierre-teilhard-de-chardins-legacy-of-eugenics-and-racism-cant-be-ignored/

And:
“To lay the foundations of a technics (both biophysical and psychological)
of ultra-evolution, from the twofold point of view:
a. both of the planetary arrangements that should be conceived (in general
research, for example, and in eugenics) with a view to an ultra-arrangement
of the noosphere
b. and of the psychic energies that must be generated or concentrated in
the light of a mankind which is in a state of collective super-reflection
upon itself: the whole problem, in fact, of the maintenance and development
of the psychic energy of self-evolution.”

And when reflecting on the pressures of overpopulation he rejects eugenic
means to deal with that problem here:

“Contrary to what happens so often in nature, the propagation of our
species does not seem destined to regularize and limit itself
automatically: for the more numerous men are, the more their ingenuity
protects them and incites them to multiply even more.
In such an event, and in order to escape the asphyxiation which threatens
us, the remedies habitually proposed are: either a drastic restriction of
reproduction, or, again (an ancient dream that is now, maybe, ceasing to be
a dream?), a mass migration of human beings to some still uninhabited
star.”

“But, with whatever skill such methods of decompression may be improved,
surely their very nature is such that they are to some degree imaginary,
precarious, and desperate. The idea, in particular, of a transplanetary
swarm of migrants must undoubtedly be rejected as impossible to realize,
simply from the fact that not a single visitor from another quarter of the
heavens has ever come to find us.”

“To my mind (and providing, as I believe, that the world in which we live
can be regarded as sufficiently coherent not automatically, when all is
said and done, to suppress the life it engenders) we must look for the
relief without which our zoological phylum cannot now survive, not in a
eugenic reduction nor in an extra-terrestrial expansion of the human mass,
but rather in what one might call ‘an escape into time, through what lies
ahead’.”

That to me implies he is focusing here on the negative type of eugenics
such as sterilization and dismisses that as a way of dealing with
overpopulation. So maybe his other uses of eugenics ideas are more in line
with the positive mode?

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 27 May 2024 12:29:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<***@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

[cutting to the quick]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

Only in your own connotation. Teilhard says in one of the quotes given
by Slattery:

"For a complex of obscure reasons, our generation still regards with
distrust all efforts proposed by science for controlling the machinery
of heredity, of sex-determination and the development of the nervous
systems."

Let's take an example. Somebody who argues that people with Down's
Syndrome should be aborted or not allowed to breed after birth IMO are
guilty of the worst form of eugenics as promoted at the time of
Teilhard's writing. Let's take the case, however, of a scientist
researching ways of genetically eliminating the future occurrence of
Down's Syndrome. That is a form of seeking to remove biological
deficiencies in humankind and easily fits into Teilhard's argument for
using "the machinery of heredity" to improve humankind. Do you think
such a scientist should be condemned?

Or let's take another Teilhard quote given by Slattery:

"What fundamental attitude…should the advancing wing of humanity take
to fixed or definitely unprogressive ethnical groups?"

Let's take female genital mutilation which is mostly found in Africa:

"The highest concentrations [of FGM] among the 15-49 age group are in
Somalia (98 percent), Guinea (97 percent), Djibouti (93 percent),
Egypt (91 percent), and Sierra Leone (90 percent). As of 2013, 27.2
million women had undergone FGM in Egypt, 23.8 million in Ethiopia,
and 19.9 million in Nigeria."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Distribution

Are agencies and individuals who are fighting to eliminate FGM guilty
of practising eugenics (your form) because they are seeking to
eliminate what they see as inferior ethical/moral practices in
particular nations?

Post by *Hemidactylus*
So I do have answers.

[…]

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 27 May 2024 12:29:51 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<***@allspamis.invalid> wrote:



[snip for focus]

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.

Yet another unwarranted conclusion.

The last 3 popes have all highlighted Teilhard's ideas and included
them in their own writing.

The Archbishop of Canterbury used a quote from Teilhard at a Royal
Wedding in Westminster Abbey - doesn't get much higher profile than
that.

A search on Google Scholar for items about Teilhard published in the
last 5 years returns 12,800 results.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=teilhard&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

A search on Amazon books for "Teilhard" gives on the first page alone,
7 books by other authors about him and his work that have been
published in the last 5 years along with the reissue of 2 of his
original books. I haven't bothered to check beyond the first page.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=teilhard&i=stripbooks-intl-ship&crid=Z6LVEEF31RU8&sprefix=teilhard%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C173&ref=nb_sb_noss_1

Seems a few more than you realise are interested in him. You really
need to learn to do a modicum of research before making statements
that you think *should* be true or would like to be true.

[...]

[Martin Harran]

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



[...]

And Slattery the PhD from an unknown school called Notre Dame ...

https://dublin.nd.edu/about/notre-dame-in-ireland/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/how-to-speak-american-football-to-the-notre-dame-and-navy-fans-descending-on-dublin/a1853429392.html

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 May 2024 20:21:56 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

[snip]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

“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:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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".
==============================
[You asked:]

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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
<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>
===============================

So KF the MF and STFU.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[DB Cates]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

"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.

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates
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.

Nor did you mention "cancellation". That was Erik Simpson and that is
who I was responding to. I more or less agree with your definition of
'cancellation' and although it may be a concept worthy of discussion it
is (IMO) not germane to the main body of this thread.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran

Post by DB Cates

Post by Martin Harran
[1] Some people NOT including me.

--

--

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

Post by erik simpson

"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.

Yes, certainly, but the point doesn't make sense.
The word 'Race' was used in very different ways in those times.
For example, it was common usage to refer to 'the Anglo-Saxon race'
which was of course superior to all other races, like the Irish race.

Jan

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

Post by erik simpson

"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.

Yes, certainly, but the point doesn't make sense.
The word 'Race' was used in very different ways in those times.
For example, it was common usage to refer to 'the Anglo-Saxon race'
which was of course superior to all other races, like the Irish race.
Jan

Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so many
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially
meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700
erik simpson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
[]

Post by erik simpson
Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so many
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially
meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.

I disagree, and so would the Librarian; we're apes, not monkeys!

[erik simpson]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700
[]

Post by erik simpson
Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so many
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially
meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.

I disagree, and so would the Librarian; we're apes, not monkeys!

Got me! We're nasty apes.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700
[]

Post by erik simpson
Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so many
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially
meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.

I disagree, and so would the Librarian; we're apes, not monkeys!

Got me! We're nasty apes.

Yes, but we are also quite good at monkey business,

Jan

[John Harshman]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700
[]

Post by erik simpson
Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so many
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially
meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.

I disagree, and so would the Librarian; we're apes, not monkeys!

Somebody should tell the Librarian that apes are monkeys.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700, erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

Post by erik simpson

"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.

Yes, certainly, but the point doesn't make sense.
The word 'Race' was used in very different ways in those times.
For example, it was common usage to refer to 'the Anglo-Saxon race'
which was of course superior to all other races, like the Irish race.
Jan

Fully agree. "Race" has been used in so many different ways by so many
people for various arguments (mostly fallacious), that it is essentially
meaningless. There are many local variations in appearance within
modern Homo sapiens that influence behavior and capabilities much less
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.

What's nasty about monkeys? I thought Daydream Believer was a pretty
good number.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Tue, 21 May 2024 08:08:40 +0100

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 19 May 2024 10:27:10 -0700, erik simpson

[]

Post by Martin Harran

Post by erik simpson
than cultural differences. We're all basically the same; nasty monkeys.

What's nasty about monkeys? I thought Daydream Believer was a pretty
good number.

I'm not your stepping stone, take the last train to clarksville.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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

Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]

Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.


[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

“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

Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by
newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research
Professor.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 18 May 2024 23:20:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

?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

Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by
newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research
Professor.

Yet again, you cannot attack me for what I said so you try to attack
me for something I did *not* say.

Nyikos is dead, ling live Hemidactylus!

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 23:20:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

?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

Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by
newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research
Professor.

Yet again, you cannot attack me for what I said so you try to attack
me for something I did *not* say.

You’re the one who resorted to flaunting social status of the Distinguished
Research Professor over the lowly recent doctoral graduate, indicative of
an overweening arrogant condescension I’ve come to expect from you.

Post by Martin Harran
Nyikos is dead, ling live Hemidactylus!

Topped off by a gratuitous insult.

I get it. Your hero Teilhard can have no warts.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 19 May 2024 11:40:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 23:20:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

?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

Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by
newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research
Professor.

Yet again, you cannot attack me for what I said so you try to attack
me for something I did *not* say.

You’re the one who resorted to flaunting social status of the Distinguished
Research Professor over the lowly recent doctoral graduate, indicative of
an overweening arrogant condescension I’ve come to expect from you.

Nope, I simply pointed out that both the Wiki editor and you have
chosen to emphasise the lesser qualified person and ignore the better
qualified one - bias confirmation, anyone?

Your claim about "credentialism" is somewhat like somebody buying Ron
Dean's opinions about Darwin and Paley and ignoring the opinions of a
certain learned professor who frequents these parts and just happens
to know rather a lot about the subject.

Post by Martin Harran
Nyikos is dead, ling live Hemidactylus!

Topped off by a gratuitous insult.

You've worked hard to earn the handle, that's 3 times I've called you
out for it in as many weeks. Stop behaving like him and I will stop
calling you out for it.

I get it. Your hero Teilhard can have no warts.

Oh, he has plenty of warts but none quite so bad as the irresistible
itch he seems to give you.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 19 May 2024 11:40:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 23:20:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

?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

Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by
newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research
Professor.

Yet again, you cannot attack me for what I said so you try to attack
me for something I did *not* say.

You’re the one who resorted to flaunting social status of the Distinguished
Research Professor over the lowly recent doctoral graduate, indicative of
an overweening arrogant condescension I’ve come to expect from you.

Nope, I simply pointed out that both the Wiki editor and you have
chosen to emphasise the lesser qualified person and ignore the better
qualified one - bias confirmation, anyone?

Are you bias confirmed against recognizing Teilhard actually flirted with
eugenics?

Post by Martin Harran
Your claim about "credentialism" is somewhat like somebody buying Ron
Dean's opinions about Darwin and Paley and ignoring the opinions of a
certain learned professor who frequents these parts and just happens
to know rather a lot about the subject.

So the lowly PhD Slattery is likened to Ron Dean? And I am likened to
Nyikos? That’s all you’ve got?

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
Nyikos is dead, ling live Hemidactylus!

Topped off by a gratuitous insult.

You've worked hard to earn the handle, that's 3 times I've called you
out for it in as many weeks. Stop behaving like him and I will stop
calling you out for it.

And if I’m not actually behaving like him?

Post by Martin Harran

I get it. Your hero Teilhard can have no warts.

Oh, he has plenty of warts but none quite so bad as the irresistible
itch he seems to give you.

Well I need no credentials or Distinguished Research Professorship to look
in my own copy of *The Phenomenon of Man* and, as us untutored folk may do,
look at the index entry in this book to pages 282-283:

[begin quote] For these two reasons, to deciper man is essentially to try
to find out how the world was made and how it ought to go on making itself.
The science of man is the practical and theoretical science of
hominisation. It means profound study of the past and of origins. But still
more, it means constructive experiment pursued on a continually renewed
object. The programme is immense and its only end or aim is that of the
future.

What is involved, firstly, is the care and improvement of the human body,
the health and strength of the organism. So long as its phase of immersion
in the ‘tangential’ lasts, thought can only be built up on this material
basis. And now, in the tumult of ideas that accompany the awakening of the
mind, are we not undergoing physical degeneration? It has been said that we
might well blush comparing our own mankind, so full of misshapen subjects,
with those animal societies in which, in a hundred thousand individuals,
not one will be found lacking in a single antenna. In itself that
geometrical perfection is not in the line of our evolution whose bent is
towards suppleness and freedom. All the same, suitably subordinated to
other values, it may well appear as an indication and a lesson. 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. 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.

Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society. It
would be more convenient, and we would incline to think it safe, to leave
the contours of that great body made of all our bodies to take shape on
their own, influenced only by the automatic play of individual urges and
whims. ‘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? Reflective substance it quires reflective treatment.
If there is a future for mankind, it can only be imagined in terms of a
harmonious conciliation of what is free with what is planned and totalised.
Points involved are : the distribution of the resources of the globe; the
control of the trek towards unpopulated areas; the optimum use of the
powers set free by mechanisation; the physiology of nations and races;
geo-economy, geo-politics, geo-demography; the organisation of research
developing into a reasoned organisation of the earth. Whether we like it or
not, all the signs and all our needs converge in the same direction. We
need and are irresistibly being led to create, by means of and beyond all
physics, all biology and all psychology, a science of human energetics.

It is in the course of that creation, already obscurely begun, that
science, by being led to concentrate on man, will find itself increasingly
face to face with religion. [end quote]

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.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 19 May 2024 15:48:39 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sun, 19 May 2024 11:40:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 23:20:44 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
On Sat, 18 May 2024 18:24:27 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

?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

Funny how that author of that piece chooses to quote so much from an
attack on Teilhard by Slattery, a recent doctoral graduate, but quotes
nothing from the dismantling of his arguments by Haught, a
Distinguished Research Professor. Equally funny that you give a link
to Slattery's response to Haught without referring at all to Haught's
arguments. [1]
Echoes of those who take isolated quotes from Darwin's work out of
context to make him out to have been a racist.
[1] https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/trashing-teilhard

Credentialism duly noted, alongside evasion of the issues addressed by
newbie PhD Slattery, how dare he go up against a Distinguished Research
Professor.

Yet again, you cannot attack me for what I said so you try to attack
me for something I did *not* say.

You?re the one who resorted to flaunting social status of the Distinguished
Research Professor over the lowly recent doctoral graduate, indicative of
an overweening arrogant condescension I?ve come to expect from you.

Nope, I simply pointed out that both the Wiki editor and you have
chosen to emphasise the lesser qualified person and ignore the better
qualified one - bias confirmation, anyone?

Are you bias confirmed against recognizing Teilhard actually flirted with
eugenics?

In regard to allegations like this, I always ask my self two
questions:

Q1: Has a convincing case been made to support the allegations?

Q2: Even if the allegations are true, would it have any impact on the
person's body of work>

The answer to both questions is No in regard to both Teilhard and
Darwin.

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
Your claim about "credentialism" is somewhat like somebody buying Ron
Dean's opinions about Darwin and Paley and ignoring the opinions of a
certain learned professor who frequents these parts and just happens
to know rather a lot about the subject.

So the lowly PhD Slattery is likened to Ron Dean?

Can you put your dislike of "credentialism" aside for a moment and
explain to me why Slattery is better qualified to pronounce upon
Teilhard's morals than Ron Dean is qualified to pronounce upon
Darwin's?

Post by *Hemidactylus*
And I am likened to
Nyikos?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck . .
..

Post by *Hemidactylus*
That's all you've got?

Here's a wee tip for you. I've found over my lifetime that when people
interpret my behaviour in a way that displeases or puzzles me, I have
found that reflecting upon and modifying my behaviour invariably
produces much better results than attacking the person for not
understanding it.

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
Nyikos is dead, ling live Hemidactylus!

Topped off by a gratuitous insult.

You've worked hard to earn the handle, that's 3 times I've called you
out for it in as many weeks. Stop behaving like him and I will stop
calling you out for it.

And if I'm not actually behaving like him?

Do I really have to list the things you have accused me of saying that
I did not say? Also your claim that just because I choose not to
debate with *you* means that I have no argument to put up?

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran

I get it. Your hero Teilhard can have no warts.

Oh, he has plenty of warts but none quite so bad as the irresistible
itch he seems to give you.

Well I need no credentials or Distinguished Research Professorship to look
in my own copy of *The Phenomenon of Man* and, as us untutored folk may do,
[begin quote] For these two reasons, to deciper man is essentially to try
to find out how the world was made and how it ought to go on making itself.
The science of man is the practical and theoretical science of
hominisation. It means profound study of the past and of origins. But still
more, it means constructive experiment pursued on a continually renewed
object. The programme is immense and its only end or aim is that of the
future.
What is involved, firstly, is the care and improvement of the human body,
the health and strength of the organism. So long as its phase of immersion
in the 'tangential' lasts, thought can only be built up on this material
basis. And now, in the tumult of ideas that accompany the awakening of the
mind, are we not undergoing physical degeneration? It has been said that we
might well blush comparing our own mankind, so full of misshapen subjects,
with those animal societies in which, in a hundred thousand individuals,
not one will be found lacking in a single antenna. In itself that
geometrical perfection is not in the line of our evolution whose bent is
towards suppleness and freedom. All the same, suitably subordinated to
other values, it may well appear as an indication and a lesson. 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. 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.
Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society. It
would be more convenient, and we would incline to think it safe, to leave
the contours of that great body made of all our bodies to take shape on
their own, influenced only by the automatic play of individual urges and
whims. '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? Reflective substance it quires reflective treatment.
If there is a future for mankind, it can only be imagined in terms of a
harmonious conciliation of what is free with what is planned and totalised.
Points involved are : the distribution of the resources of the globe; the
control of the trek towards unpopulated areas; the optimum use of the
powers set free by mechanisation; the physiology of nations and races;
geo-economy, geo-politics, geo-demography; the organisation of research
developing into a reasoned organisation of the earth. Whether we like it or
not, all the signs and all our needs converge in the same direction. We
need and are irresistibly being led to create, by means of and beyond all
physics, all biology and all psychology, a science of human energetics.
It is in the course of that creation, already obscurely begun, that
science, by being led to concentrate on man, will find itself increasingly
face to face with religion. [end 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?

Post by *Hemidactylus*
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.

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

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 18 May 2024 17:32:39 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
(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.
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

Now available at
https://www.pbs.org/video/teilhard-visionary-scientist-pt9dc1/

I've just finished watching this and I found it absorbing, extremely
well produced and not at all pulling its punches about the
tribulations he faced in his life as a priest and scientist. I have
been interested in Teilhard's ideas for some time but hadn't really
bothered about his biography, so it was very revealing for me.

Two big takeaways for me. The first one is the treatment he suffered
from his religious superiors. I knew that they had treated him badly
but not how truly awfully they treated him. Not the Jesuit Order's
finest moment - not clear how much the Vatican was involved, if at
all.

The second takeaway was that I hadn't realised just how highly he was
regarded as a scientist by his peers and his contribution to
palaeontology - truly impressive. By a funny coincidence, I am
currently reading 'The Day Without Yesterday', John Farrell's account
of Lemaître, Einstein and the Birth of Modern Cosmology. I was, of
course aware, of Lemaître's contribution to the Big Bang but dagain,
idn't realise just how highly he was regarded by his peers.
Fascinating reading about the interplay between the various scientists
and mathematicians involved in the early days of cosmology and the
struggles of Einstein to come to terms with how others developed his
theories.