Two Jesuits, A Pope And The Big Bang Cosmology Connection

Two Priests, A Pope And The Big Bang

forbes.com

Two Priests, A Pope And The Big Bang

John Farrell

---

There is no evidence that Fr. Georges Lemaître ever met Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, although their scientific careers overlapped to a considerable degree.

But they both played a role in one of the key debates about faith and science in the the last century.

Fr. Lemaître (1894-1966), the man who became known as the Father of the Big Bang, had a huge impact on cosmology in the mid 1920s and '30s. His idea of the 'primeval atom' (1931) set the stage for the mainstream Big Bang theory familiar to people today.

Georges Lemaître

Image courtesy Lemaître Archive at the Catholic University of Leuven.

His ideas also inspired the Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) in his writings on human evolution and the prospect of a dynamic cosmos developing towards a metaphysical Omega Point.

Both men were standouts in their fields-- Lemaître more so than Teilhard, I would say, but both attracted the attention of the press because of the fact they were Catholic priests as well as scientists, rare birds then, as now.

But only one of the two, Fr. Lemaître, was honored by his own Church, while Fr. Teilhard... was treated like a leper.

For his scientific achievements, Lemaître was made a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences by Pope Pius XI in 1936. Under Pope John XXIII he would become its director. He was much praised by Catholics in the U.S., where the press covered his meetings with Einstein and other famous scientists--and loved to ask him about the interplay between science and faith. From his interview with the Literary Digest of 1933:

The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less— some more than others— on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.

In contrast, Teilhard, very early in the formative period of his career, was betrayed by a fellow cleric to the cardinals in Rome responsible for guarding the doctrine of the faith. They didn't like his unpublished freewheeling speculations on human evolution and what this meant for the theology surrounding human origins.

Indeed, it was largely to address some of the more disquieting notions Teilhard raised about Adam and Eve and the earliest humans, that Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. Without specifically naming Teilhard or his writings, the pope reaffirmed the obligation for Catholics to accept the traditional belief that humanity was directly descended from a single mating pair and that original sin was passed on by descent from this couple. Teilhard had questioned the need for such a literal belief in light of evolution.

Denied any opportunity to defend his work, Teilhard was never allowed to publish a single word on his ideas during his life, despite repeated pleas to make his case in Rome. All that we have of his considerable output, was published by friends and colleagues after his death in 1955.

So here is a great tale of opposites in the modern saga of faith and science. But since the two priests never met, what else is there to be said?

As it happens, quite a bit. The recent English translation of Dominique Lambert's superb biography of Lemaître, The Atom of the Universe, goes into some detail on an incident not long after the pope's encyclical outlined its deep reservations about evolution.

Specifically, events surrounding a speech that Pope Pius XII made before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in November 1951.

I want to make a brief aside here, although it should eventually be a post in its own right. I think Pope Pius XII doesn't get enough credit for being... well, one of the unacknowledged super geeks in the history of the papacy. From a history of science perspective, it is unfortunate that his biography is usually cast only in terms of the Second World War and the Vatican's attitude toward European Jews during the Holocaust.

In his private routine, for example, Pius was a pope who preferred to eat his meals alone so he could immerse himself in science magazines and technology reviews. And he couldn't resist discussing them in public as he believed there was no aspect of modern society the Church should not engage with.

It was under these circumstances that he took the opportunity to voice his enthusiasm for the Big Bang theory in that November of 1951. And in the view of some scholars, including the Father of the Big Bang theory himself, the pope got a little carried away.

Clearly and critically, as when it [the enlightened mind] examines facts and passes judgment on them, it perceives the work of creative omnipotence and recognizes that its power, set in motion by the mighty Fiat of the Creating Spirit billions of years ago, called into existence with gesture of generous love and spread over the universe matter bursting with energy. Indeed, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the Fiat Lux, when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.

The speech made headlines worldwide, and it's not hard to see why it was commonly regarded as an attempt on the part of the Roman pontiff to view science as giving great support to the idea of the universe's creation by God.

Lemaître was not happy about the speech because he felt the Big Bang theory as it was proposed at the time, did not have compelling evidence to support it. (The key evidence was still a decade and a half away.)

One of his graduate students, the late Fr. Ernan McMullin, later wrote that he “could recall very vividly, Lemaître storming into class on his return from the Academy meeting in Rome, his usual jocularity entirely missing. He was emphatic in his insistence that the Big Bang model was still very tentative, and further that one could not exclude the possibility of a previous cosmic stage of construction."

Lemaître made his reservations known to the pope, probably through an intermediary, although it's also possible he met with the pope in person. And the next time the pope spoke on the science/faith connection a year later, he was indeed more cautious about the theory's support.

But what's odd about the pope's 1951 speech was the fact that when he talked up the Big Bang, he never mentioned Lemaître by name. And here, as Lambert argues in book, is the fascinating connection between Lemaître and Teilhard.

It seems to be the case, Lambert argues, that the pope's theological advisers were aware of the influence that Lemaître's cosmology had on the thought of the ostracized Teilhard. And because they considered Lemaître's influence on the Jesuit to be considerable, they urged the pope not to mention Lemaître while discussing his theory.

Indeed, the pope and his advisers would have avoided quoting Lemaître, according to Lambert, "because they were conscious of a certain intellectual proximity between the cosmology of the Canon and the 'natural philosophy' of Teilhard which was judged, during the period, highly problemastic."

While Lemaître's scientific contributions were held in high regard by Pius XII, it is also certain that the Holy Father could be distrustful of Lemaître's implicit philosophy that insistently defended a purely natural state of the beginning of the universe and that was close, in a manner, to Teilhard's phenomenology. The pope's advisers could not have helped but contribute to reinforcing that mistrust.

This would also explain why Lemaître was not consulted before the speech was given, even though the pope knew him well.

Lemaître had always embraced a view of God as fairly detached, as the Deus Absconditus, or Hidden God. Like a good priest, Lemaître believed God had created the world. But like a good scientist, he believed the world operated according to its own laws, with its own autonomy, an autonomy he considered a gift of the creator. This idea could be considered by some at odds with the more traditional view of the personal God of the Bible who often directly intervenes in human history.

Lambert suggests that this broad and more dispassionate view of God was also one that Teilhard embraced, and to avoid the appearance of giving even an implicit nod to such views, the pope decided to discuss the Big Bang without reference to its principal proponent.

It's quite ironic, too. Lemaître's wide ranging work has been enjoying something of a revival these days among scientists and the general public. And he is always cited with pride by Catholic news sites and magazines eager to hold him up as a shining example of the harmonious coexistence of faith and science.

But Teilhard, despite the warm regard that later popes like Benedict XVI and Francis have expressed for his ideas, remains officially suspect, largely I think because the Church itself has not yet fully figured out how to integrate human evolution with its doctrines.

So we have here a little known but revealing historical connection.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) was a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, philosopher, and theologian. He is known for his attempts to reconcile science and religion, particularly in the context of evolution and human spirituality. Teilhard de Chardin's ideas often sparked controversy within the Catholic Church, as his views pushed the boundaries of traditional theology.

Some key concepts associated with Teilhard de Chardin include:

1. Omega Point: Teilhard proposed the concept of the Omega Point, which he described as a final stage of evolution where humanity and the universe would converge into a higher state of unity and consciousness. He believed that the universe was evolving toward a point of ultimate complexity and consciousness.

2. Noosphere: Teilhard introduced the term "noosphere" to describe the sphere of human thought and consciousness. He saw the noosphere as the next stage of evolution after the biosphere (life) and believed that human collective consciousness would continue to grow and evolve.

3. Evolution and Spirituality: Teilhard sought to bridge the gap between science and spirituality by suggesting that evolution was not just a biological process but also a spiritual one. He believed that evolution was directed toward higher levels of consciousness and ultimately union with the divine.

4. Divine Milieu: Teilhard's concept of the "divine milieu" referred to the presence of God within all aspects of creation. He saw the universe as infused with the divine, and he encouraged individuals to seek spiritual growth and connection through engagement with the world.

5. Controversy: Teilhard's ideas faced criticism from some within the Catholic Church due to concerns that his views on evolution and the interplay between science and theology challenged traditional interpretations. Some of his works were temporarily restricted by the Vatican.

6. Writings: Teilhard's major works include "The Phenomenon of Man," "The Divine Milieu," and "The Human Phenomenon." These writings explore his thoughts on evolution, consciousness, and the relationship between science and spirituality.

Teilhard de Chardin's ideas continue to influence discussions about the intersection of science, religion, and philosophy. While not all of his concepts have been embraced universally, his work remains significant for those interested in exploring the relationship between humanity, the universe, and spirituality. More details on is contributions can be found at The American Teilhard Society.

A few favorite quotes to give a sense of the man:

The Most Satisfying Thing In Life Is To Have Been Able To Give A Large Part Of One's Self To Others.

I Owe The Best Of Myself To Geology, But Everything It Has Taught Me Tends To Turn Me Away From Dead Things.

 I Am A Little Too Absorbed By Science To Be Able To Philosophise Much; But The More I Look Into Myself, The More I Find Myself Possessed By The Conviction That It Is Only The Science Of Christ Running Through All Things, That Is To Say True Mystical Science, That Really Matters. I Let Myself Get Caught Up In The Game When I Geologise.

 We Are One, After All, You And I, Together We Suffer, Together Exist And Forever Will Recreate Each Other.

Love Is An Adventure And A Conquest. It Survives And Develops, Like The Universe Itself, Only By Perpetual Discovery.

 The Profoundly 'Atomic' Character Of The Universe Is Visible In Everyday Experience, In Raindrops And Grains Of Sand, In The Hosts Of The Living, And The Multitude Of Stars; Even In The Ashes Of The Dead.