The Phenomenon of Man | Book Review

Reviewed by Thomas Scarborough

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in “The Phenomenon of Man”, wrote an enormously influential book. First published in French in 1955, it is still very much alive in theological circles today. In fact, a great deal of modern theology is likely to fall into place on reading this book. The 1970 revised English edition, which I review here, has gone through several reprints, and is still widely available. This includes a first class introduction by Julian Huxley, for which alone the book would be worth having. I shall briefly try to summarise the views of the author, noting the page numbers for those who might wish to make more serious study of the book.

Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit Father, and a highly regarded palaeontologist. He accepted Darwinian evolution as a given. However, classic Darwinian evolution proceeds by “chance” (:165). It is a blind operation — and due to its blindness, can offer no meaning or hope. Nor, in his view, can it explain the emergence of mind.

There is, he proposes, a purposive process of evolution, which in its very widest sense he refers to as “cosmogenesis” (:38). Along with this, there has been an increasingly elaborate organisation of this world, which he refers to as a process of “complexification” (:53). Within such cosmogenesis, the emergence of mind takes place — a process which he refers to as “noogenesis”. Together with noogenesis, there is an evolving of the collective sphere of mind on the planet, which he refers to as the “noosphere” (:201). This combined psycho-social evolution is referred to as “hominisation” (:182). Further, he sees a process of “convergence” — that is, centripetal trends in both biological and cultural aspects of humanity (:267).

Since such evolution is purposive, this utimately leads to a final state, which he refers to as the “Omega point” (:72) or “peace” (one might suggest: shalom) (:316). At this point, the noosphere (all conscious beings) will be intensely unified, and will have achieved a “hyper-personal” organisation (:279). He further refers to the general trend in this direction as “Christogenesis” (:325). Implied in this is not that humans will become “more highly individualised”, but rather that they will reach “integration of the self with the outer world of men and nature”, to become “an organism which has transcended individuality” (:20).

There is, however, a twist in the tale. Having written about cosmogenesis, Teilhard de Chardin defines “the conditions for advance” (:29). Cosmogenesis is not a certainty, but a possibility, “on condition that we increase our knowledge and our love” (:30).

Let us apply this briefly to contemporary theology. In keeping with these ideas, one may posit a kingdom of God — rather, a reign of God, since a kingdom is “too static” (Guder 1998:94) — a reign which marches forward with “impelling force” towards shalom (Van Engen 1991:26). As might be anticipated, this would entail the notion of “no privatized eschatology” (Newbigin 1989:113), and the need for our own participation towards the “final outcome” (Watson 2001:39). This opens the door to a vast area of theology, so that I offer these parallels merely as fleeting suggestions for further study.

It is interesting to note that, despite holding the views described, Teilhard de Chardin “retained the basic concepts of Roman Catholic doctrine, although they were understood in terms of a world in evolution” (Ferguson & Wright 2005:674). This is similarly a mark of many who espouse his ideas.

Teilhard de Chardin had great breadth of thought, and an extraordinary talent for expressing his ideas clearly in words. However, having read the book from cover to cover, I found that I ran into a great many obstacles of thought. Rather than seeking to critique the book “from the outside”, I shall seek to critique it “from within”. Here are a few of the problems I encountered:

1. He points out that science, by and large, would oppose his views. He states: “Asked whether life is going anywhere . . . nine biologists out of ten will today say no, even passionately” (:156). “The majority of ‘scientists’ would tend to contest the validity of [my views]” (182). “Nor is there any greater agreement among psychologists.” (:182). He further states that “in the present state of our knowledge, we cannot dream of expressing the mechanism of [emergent] evolution” (:167). Yet the book is intended to “reconcile Christian theology with this evolutionary philosophy” (:24). Might a theology based on these views be just as hard to reconcile with science as it would have been without them?

2. He continually expresses fundamental doubt or reserve about his own ideas. While there are flashes of “invincible” conviction (:242), he first introduces his ideas as “assumptions”, yet states that “I do not see how it is possible” to see an alternative (:33). He considers: “The views I am attempting to put forward are . . . largely tentative” (:39). “We must resign ourselves to being vague in our speculations.” (:97). In fact, he draws his conclusions “in spite of all evidence to the contrary” (:280). “Everything points the other way.” (:107). One would think that, in order to stake one’s life upon a “science”, one would desire more than this.

3. On the one hand, Teilhard de Chardin writes about “mankind in its march” of emergent evolution. On the other hand, this evolution “can give itself or refuse itself”. In fact it is we who “hold it in our hands, responsible for its past to its future” (:249). If our own attitudes should be wanting, “the whole of evolution will come to a halt” (:256). Alternatively, if we should yield ourselves to its purposes, our activity may be “stored up and transmitted by means of education and imitation” (:248). On what basis, then, should one claim that such evolution is anything more than a contingent or surface phenomenon that could be blown away by the wind?

4. He claims that his work deals “solely with a phenomenon” (:31). It is “not a work on metaphysics”. It is a “scientific treatise”. At the same time, however, he proposes “the concept of a superior pole to the world — the omega point” (:72). “A rudimentary consciousness precedes the emergence of life” (:98), which matures “in the womb of the universal mother” (:169). A standard definition of metaphysics is “the science that investigates ultimate reality” (Macdonald 1967:395). With this in mind, it is hard to see how emergent evolution should not, in fact, represent another (speculative) work on metaphysics.

5. He points out that those who do not accept his views — “those whose sight is poor” — will find themselves looking into “an abyss” (:250). This may well represent a despair that is “terrifying” (:251). “Between these two alternatives of absolute optimism and absolute pessimism, there is no middle way” (:256). However, there are “rational invitations to an act of faith” (:257). It might be true to say, therefore, that he would consign those who do not see his reality (not least the scientists) to an “absolute” personal torment which can be escaped only through an act of faith. In this, would he not be crossing the line to existentialism, or even fundamentalism?

6. In view of emergent evolution, he clearly does not know what to do with suffering. He relegates this to an Appendix, as though as an afterthought. What are we to make of suffering? He replies: “Necessarium est ut scandala eveniant” (:340). “Suffering and failure, tears and blood: so many by-products . . . begotten by the noosphere on its way.” (:341). That is, he apparently adopts a fatalistic attitude. At best, he offers cryptically that “complete liberty is not only conceded but offered by the phenomenon to theology, so that it may add precision and depth.”. Such theology, however, would often seem to struggle with equal “loyalty” with this problem (:341).

CITATION OF REFERENCES

Ferguson, Sinclair B. & Wright, David F. (Eds.)

1988 New Dictionary of Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Guder, Darrell L. (Ed.)

1998 Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Macdonald, A.M. (Ed.)

1967 Chambers Etymological Dictionary. London: W. & R. Chambers Ltd.

Newbigin, Lesslie 1989 The Gospel In A Pluralist Society. Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre 1959 The Phenomenon of Man. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.

Van Engen, Charles 1991 God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Watson, David Lowes 2001 “The Mystery of Evangelism: Mission in an Age of Cosmic Discovery.” In Global Good News: Mission in a New Context, ed. Howard A. Snyder. Pp. 26-40. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press.