The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason - The Closing of the Western Mind

Reading Freeman's well written and interesting book will give you a great background and a deep historical understanding of how Christianity came to dominate the Western world for a thousand years, what that has cost in terms of intellectual degradation, and how, if the peoples of the West are to better their condition in the new century they must regain the intellectual confidence so characteristic of Greek civilization. This is a really good book.

Although Freeman's discussions can feel a little circular (haven't we been here before?), they do provide an interesting point of view on the church-state relationship of the first five centuries of the common era. I am a passionate student of American history and found this book to be a tremendous resource in developing a new appreciation for the birth and development of the Age of Enlightenment.
Freeman's work has made me want to study more ancient history and philosophy as a result. It's also made me something of the scourge of my adult education class at church - thanks, Mr. Freeman! (LOL)

This book is superb: well written, well argued, orchestrating an encyclopedic knowledge to shed new light (for me, at least) on the history of Christianity and the history of Western thought. I have often wondered why the classical Greek intellectual tradition seemed to atrophy in the first few centuries AD. Charles Freeman has provided a convincing answer. Thanks to this book, I have a new understanding of St. Paul, Constantine, Augustine, and Aquinas. I was raised as a Roman Catholic in the Ireland of the 1960s and 1970s, when the Catholic church was still a monolith not to be questioned. This book finally let me understand the roots of this incredible institutional arrogance.

A few years ago, I made myself read "How the Irish Saved Civilization," a sad triumph of chauvinism over historical fact. With the possible exception of the Irish philosopher Erigena, it was the Arabs who preserved the Greek tradition, with Hebrew scholars being instrumental in bringing long lost knowledge back to Europe. Charles Freeman shows convincingly how the intersection of politics, ego, and orthodoxy shut down the European mind for the better part of a millennium. We have come far since the Renaissance but it is hard not to wonder how much further ahead we might be had it not been for the retarding force of Christendom. If you are truly curious about the evolution of human thought in the Western world, this terrific book is a must.

Freeman's explanation of Plato is seriously flawed. Before Forms are understood, the difference must be established between the visible world and the invisible world which can only seen with the eye of the mind. Plato did not reject empiricism, but he considered data irrelevant to spirituality. To contemplate, say, how arithmetic sheds light on the nature of the One, it is irrelevant what the sum of a set of numbers happens to be. But even before the visible/intelligible, Plato establishes that in order for the virtue Courage to bring forth the other virtues (Justice, Wisdom, and Moderation) necessary to make oneself into a One and therefore enter into a state of Being, one must know what is to be feared:

"I am only saying that deception, or being deceived or uninformed about the highest realities in the highest part of themselves, which is the soul, and in that part of them to have and to hold the lie, is what mankind least like; - that, I say, is what they utterly detest."

In other word, the thing to be feared is to be mistaken about what is real. And this is what Freeman twists into an argument for superseding reason with faith. Granted, Plato is abstract and many people read different things into him, but I don't see in this book a serious attempt to understand Plato on his own terms.

Also, I do not see any references to Dionysius the Aeropagite, who was quoted extensively by Thomas Aquinas. Dionysius' work is heavily Platonic, which would indicate that both Aristotle and Plato influenced Aquinas, which tends to neutralize the thesis of the book.

He has a point that Christian attempts to create an coherent conceptual system, with the Greek tradition as the model, out of scripture is a futile exercise, but I don't see where that is the fault of Greek philosophy.

It's interesting reading, and provocative, but not persuasive or compelling.

Charles Freeman's book is erudite, entertaining and it makes a point overlooked by other historians: the western mind did close. This is a fascinating story and one to which Freeman brings much intriguing detail whilst keeping the narrative alive. The pagan imagination in its humanity could not support large communities; Christianity suppressed pagan thought in inventing ways of holding empires together that were hardly humane. This is the balance sheet and it makes a good read which is more than you can say for most balance sheets.

A good attempt by Charles Freeman. But he falls into the trendy trap of overly elevating the Arabic contribution to rationalism and Greek thought. Greek thought continued amongst the Greeks longer than Proclus. Although there were intermittent breaks the Byzantine Greeks continued to think like Greeks in the guise of Philopponus, Psellus and Italos. And then the late humanist flowering that included Gregoras, Metochites, Chamounos and many more. And finally the great Plethon. Although, they were definitely not as original as their ancient forebears they did think rationally. And he forgets to mention that the Caliphs eventually put a stop to Arabic falsifah (philosophy).

There’s no doubt Freeman is a very good writer. His prose is lucid, his portraits vivid and his enjoyment of the subject matter obvious and infectious.
However, the central argument of his book—that the rise of Christianity brought about a violent suppression of the great ancient tradition of rational thought—is ultimately left hanging in the air. Freeman fails to demonstrate that this tradition was particularly alive and kicking in the centuries prior to the imperial ascent of Christianity, and instead keeps referring to the giants of the classical age (long past), by whose measure the Church Fathers, unsurprisingly, are found lacking.
Unfortunately, Freeman doesn’t really seem to have read most of the thinkers he writes about, as his references are almost exclusively to secondary sources (in most cases of similar ideological preoccupation). His (often rather damning) quotes are thus rather likely to be both unrepresentative and taken out of context; in some cases, this is painfully obvious.
Moreover, Freeman simplistically conceives of religion as an axiomatic system of thought, whose axioms are neither particularly sound nor agreed-on by the faithful. Needless to say, such a view of Christianity is very restrictive and Freeman completely fails to appreciate the actual religious import of the debates he writes about.
In general, the book is so well written it makes it worth to read just for that reason. Those of Freeman’s persuasion will find some firepower there, while the others will deepen their understanding of early Christianity by appreciating Freeman’s inadequacies.

The well written and decently researched book contains a argument that is very common, basically that Christianity and the monolithic church ruined the western mind. The author builds and rehashed Gibbons original thesis and tries to paint a picture of how the church, beginning in the 6th century, tried to suppress free thought and debate. While the church certainly did crush those it didn't agree with the books basic thesis is deeply flawed.
It was the Romans that crushed Greek thought by defeating them. Rome was an exuberant, lascivious culture but not one that had deep philosophical debate. This the western ideals of the Greeks and the obsession with reason was swept under the carpet long before the coming of the Universal Church. The author argues that the church suppressed the western mind. But it was the church that condoned sending the voyages that discovered the `new world' and it was the church that built its own observatory and it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who wrote the book on rationalizing the existence of god.
While this argument is pertinent the book contains many problems. The reality is, of course, that western interests with scientific study and philosophy survived during the dark ages and saw a massive come back in the Renaissance, which took place right under the noses of the Popes in Rome. If the church was so backward the Renaissance would not have been as vibrant as it was, seeing as how the church was based in Italy, the center of the renaissance.

I am grateful for the care with which the store readers have reviewed my book whether they have agreed with my argument or not. The reviews are worth a reply.
My thesis is that Christianity was heavily politicised by the late Roman empire, certainly to the extent that it would have been unrecognisable to Jesus. Note the linking of the church to the empire's success in war, opulent church building and an ever narrowing definition of what beliefs one had to hold to be saved. (Hand in hand with this went an elaboration of the horrors of hell, a radical and unhappy development which can only have discouraged freedom of thought.) My core argument is that one result of the combination of the forces of authority (the empire) and faith (the church) was a stifling of a sophisticated tradition of intellectual thought which had stretched back over nearly a thousand years and which relied strongly on the use of the reasoning mind.
I did not depend on Gibbon. I do not agree with him that intellectual thought in the early Christian centuries was dead and I believe that the well established hierarchy of the church strengthened not undermined the empire. After all it was the church which survived the collapse of the western empire. Of course, Gibbon writes so eloquently that I could not resist quoting from him at times but my argument is developed independently of him and draws on both primary sources and recent scholarship.
On the relationship between Christianity and philosophy I argue that there were two major strands of Greek philosophy , those of Plato and Aristotle. The early church did not reject Greek philosophy but drew heavily on Platonism to the exclusion of Aristotle. In the thirteenth century Christianity was reinvigorated by the adoption of Aristotelianism , notably by Thomas Aquinas. It seems clear that Christianity needed injections of pagan philosophy to maintain its vitality and a new era in Christian intellectual life was now possible. I don't explore it in this book. Even so, when one compares the rich and broad intellectual achievements of the `pagan' Greek centuries with those of the Middle Ages, it is hard to make a comparison in favour of the latter. Where are the great names? (The critic who mentioned the ninth century philosopher Erigena should also have mentioned that he was condemned as a heretic.)
When one reads the great works of second and third century AD thinkers such as Plutarch, Galen, Ptolemy and Plotinus, which are remarkable for their range and depth, one cannot but feel that much has been lost in the west by the fifth century. Something dramatic happened in the fourth century. In 313 Constantine brought the traditional policy of Roman toleration for different religious beliefs to its culmination by offering Christians (who had condemned the pagan gods as demons) a privileged place within the empire alongside other religions. By 381 the Christian emperor Theodosius when enforcing the Nicene creed condemns other Christians as `foolish madmen.. We decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics . . .they will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment which our authority , in accordance with the will of heaven, shall decided to inflict'.If this is not a `closing of the western mind' it is difficult to know what is. It goes hand in hand with a mass of texts which condemn rational thought and the violent suppression of Jewish and pagan sacred places. There is no precedent for such a powerful imposition of a religious ideology in the Greco-Roman world. The evidence of suppression is so overwhelming that the onus must be on those who argue otherwise to refute it.
Some readers have related my book to the present day- I leave it to them to do so if they wish -it is important to understand ANY age in which perspectives seem to narrow and religion and politics become intertwined as they certainly did in the fourth century. After all American Christianity was founded by those attempting to escape just such political straitjackets. Christianity has never been monolithic or static. In fact,as my book makes clear, one of my heroes is Gregory the Great who, I believe, brought back spirituality, moderation and compassion into the Christian tradition after the extremes of the fourth century. It is the sheer variety of Christianities which make the religion such an absorbing area of study.
I hope the store readers will continue to engage with my arguments whether they agree with them or not. Keep the western mind open and good reading! Charles Freeman.
N.B. the store insist I award my book some stars! I have chosen ''four' because since I wrote it I have come across a lot of new material which I think could improve its argument further.

My opinion: Bigoted attack on Christianity bt Atheist
Excellent historical research but incapable of integrating rationality and pragmatism
Lack of understanding what Science is
Author unqualified to evaluate Ancient History by education; experience teaching adult education
Author of nine other misleading books; same criticism
Major facts ignored (deemphasized, mentioned but characterized poorly) such as: barbaran invasions; Pope protecting Rome from sack, Preservation of ancient manuscripts by monasteries

Freeman's book is definitely fascinating and worth reading, but I wouldn't put it at the top of the list of books to read regarding its title premise - that the rise of faith caused the fall of reason. The book is rather awkwardly structured - I kept wondering when it was finally going to stop singing the praises of the Greek philosophers and get around to its main subject. On the other hand, the historical review of the Greek academic tradition was rather fascinating and an enjoyable read.
My growing impression as I read the book was that Freeman definitely has his heroes, mostly Greek philosophers + Thomas Aquinas. His book seems to be in some way a tribute and eulogy to the great Greek thinkers at the expense (unfairly, in my opinion) of pretty much everyone else. Christianity is therefore negative, a priori, by virtue of the fact that the Church was not the Academy. This bias is evident in Freeman's analysis of, for instance, the doctrine of the Trinity, which actually had a much stronger position early on than Freeman allows. A brief review of the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers will demonstrate this pretty quickly.
All in all, again, I'd say it's worth reading, but keep in mind that the author was probably biased before he started writing. In his defence, I think he does a rather good job at subduing his bias - though it is still there.

I thoroughly enjoyed Freeman's book Closing of the Western Mind. I thought the book was thought provoking and very worthy of reading with all kinds of interesting ideas and anecdotes. Of answering such a difficult and complex question I believe the book gives a bit too much credit to Christian thinking and ideology. Being a student of history and having read much on Greek affairs I must wonder why Freeman did not put blame on the person most culpable, Alexander the Great and his succesors. George Grote in his History of Greece wrote that "Hellenism an aggregate of habits, sentiments, energies, and intelligence manifested by the Greeks during their epoch of autonomy could not exist under the over ruling compression of Alexander nor his successors, its living force, productive genius, self-organizing power, and active spirit of political communion were stifled and gradually died out". Not to mention that Antipater et al forced over half of the Athenian demos into exile and put or forced to death the great orators like Demosthenes, Hyperides, and Aristonikus. After Alexander "the epoch of the extinction of Grecian political freedom and self-action, but also the decay of productive genius, and the debasement of that consummate literary and rhetorical excellence exhibited by Plato and Demosthenes" again writes Grote. This is what happened to the Greeks, while I have no doubt that "flat world thinking" Christian rules also compressed further Western thought.

It is hard to understand how an intelligent and learned person could write a book like Charles Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind." His entire thesis is absurd. The later classical period and the early Middle Ages do not represent the nadir of philosophy, but the recovery of its vitality following an era when Greek philosophy turned inward (Cynicism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cyrenaic philosophy, skepticism). Metaphysical philosophy recovered its vitality when it combined with the Christian religion. Greek philosophy shaped Christianity in its own image. It is simply ridiculous to assert that Christian theology is not primarily cast in Platonic and Aristotelian forms of thought. The entire theology of the Apostle Paul is a combination of Jewish religious belief and Greek metaphysics. The Gospel of John begins with the world's most famous expression of Greek metaphysical thought: "In the beginning was the word." Augustine's philosophy is steeped in Greek metaphysical ideas. What about John Scotus Eriugena? Does Freeman serious think Christianity was a static faith, that it didn't evolve over time? The reality is that Christianity continually reinvented itself over the centuries by making use of Greek philosophy. Freeman's story is the tired old tale about the decline of the intellect during the Middle Ages. In fact, intellectual life was kept alive only by the Church, and the Church developed its own sense of identity in accordance with the Greek categories of thought. Not to diminish his accomplishment in any way, but Thomas Aquinas merely systematized several traditions that had long been in place. A person like Freeman should know better than to peddle such long discredited ideas.

I'm reading the book in anticipation of validation of my belief that Christianity lacks credibility. The best notion is on page 120 where Freeman opines that Apostle Paul uses rhetoric to proclaim that believing in reason over faith in Christ will damn you to stupidity. At first I loved that but after apologetic debate with a die hard Christian I have tabled my biased journey to deface Christian credibility because the credibility resides in the interpretation of the reader and not Freeman. Is that because Christianity is right? No, its because you can pull two apostles out of the bible and justify the opposite position. I'll water my grass for an hour but I won't spend 5 minutes searching for a Christian psalm to prove Christianity right. That sounds like marketing and I can't get excited about marketing. On page 120 Freeman uses quotes but opines instead of paraphrase. I am not verifying the rest of his quotes but I will take secularist writing and Christian writing with a grain of salt. This is Freemans opine: Romans 1:21-22 'the more stupid they grew...they made non sense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened'. Well if you look at Romans 1:21-22 you see something else which means you are taking back his opinion and not your own. Romans 21:22: 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Ah, I'll finish the book but I will give up the biased witch hunt...it aint my bag.

This book purports to be an account of the replacement of reason by faith. It is not. It is a disconnected series of miniature essays. It has no focus or chronological organization. That is, it is a self-indulgent parade of learning. I will stop reading it and turn to a real experience of reading history: my third reading of Macalulay's history.

This book is warmed over Gibbon. The thesis of the book can be best summed up as nasty Christians and their squabbles led to the Dark Ages and the eclipse of reason for a thousand years. Gibbon had the same argument and delivered it with a style, alas, that Mr. Freeman does not approach. Of course the thesis is completely wrong. The ancient world was in an intellectual dead end long before Christianity came on the scene. It was the much maligned Middle Ages that produced the intellectual trends that led humanity, for better and worse, to surpass in many ways the intellectual accomplishments of the ancient world. This book represents history on a comic book level, and contains a fair amount of Christian bashing. Polemics make poor history.

Greek philosophy was on a very deep descent prior to the rise of the Church. Clearly by the birth of Christ Greek philosphy was almost over. Plato was the highpoint and from there there was descent. Freeman just assumes Aristotelian philsosphy was an advance over Platonic philisophy. Aristotlelian philosophy had to be discarded by Galileo and Newton for science to advance. The idea which apparently Aquinas fell for is that just sensing stuff is the way science advances is clearly Aristoteleian and much more effectively closed the 'Western Mind,' than Platonism. The modern world is much more Platonic than Aristotelian with conservation laws etc. Hard science depends on experiment and neither Aristotle nor Plato promoted experiment. Basically the book blames the Church for what happened prior to the birth of the Church, is seemingly incapable of addressing the the various merits of ancient philsophies and blames Christianity for the actions of emperors who were only nominally Christian by the count of Freeman. Basically the book is a poor brief for modern day materialism and that sums up the book.

It is sad when "an intellectual" rehashes lies, misconceptions, and long ago corrected myths about Christianity. I'm so glad I checked this book out of the local library and did not pay for it. I would have demanded a refund! The best response to this shallow attempt at "scholarship" is to give intellectual antidotes to the poison.
To read how Christianity helped keep the western mind open without our brains falling all over the place you should read:
Christianity and Western Thought: A History of Philosophers, Ideas and Movements: From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment by Colin Brown
The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity; Medieval Essays; Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (all three by Christopher Dawson) The last book alone undoes the nonsense of the accusation that Christianity is "anti-intellectual"
One more excellent response to a typical myth about Christian non-thinking is Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell
Most recently Robert Wilken's The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God. This masterpiece of intellectual history "chronicles the emergence of a specifically Christian intellectual tradition... Wilken shows that the energy and vitality of early Christianity arose from within the life of the Church. While early Christian thinkers drew on the philosophical and rhetorical traditions of the ancient world, it was the versatile vocabulary of the Bible that loosened their tongues and minds and allowed them to construct the world anew, intellectually and spiritually."
It is time for another world class historian like Russell or Dawson to write a book entitled-Inventing the Dumb Christian and A Retarded Oppressive Christianity: The Last Acceptable Bigoted Lie
So to finish with a quote from the author of this dismal distortion of the role Christianity played in the western intellectual tradition, "Keep the western mind open and good reading!"

This book seeks to blame Christianity for the "suppression" of rationalism in Western intellectual thought during the First Millennium (p.337, hardcover edition). Ironically, the book has its own anti-rational bent, depending more on misinformation than diligent inquiry. Consider that when Charles Freeman selects evidence, he does not consider the counter evidence. For example, there is no discussion of concurrent events that discouraged scientific inquiry, such as the division of the Roman Empire, barbarian invasions, periods of major economic decline, the break-up of Western Empire into smaller nations, ignorance of the Greek language in the West, the rise of feudalism, and the proliferation of pagan superstitions in the church. Freeman ignores them all.

Consider also that Freeman targets the Council of Nicaea in the Fourth Century as the focal point for the movement away from rationalism. There, he says, certain church leaders for the first time on a large scale proclaimed the deity of Christ, and with the Emperor's help forced it on the church as a condition of faith. However, Freeman has a huge obstacle: the New Testament predates the Council by over 200 years and clearly affirms the deity of Christ based on eyewitness accounts to His life, miracles and resurrection, not simply on an "ambiguous faith". Freeman's tactic is to try to prove that most of the NT sees Christ as not God, but he offers no NT texts that actually back up the statements or he quotes out of context. In the following examples, the parenthesis show the pages where Freeman's claims are made followed by NT references that refute the claim. Freeman claims that Christ: was not considered deity by Matthew, Mark or Luke (p.90; see Matt. 1:23, 28:30, Mark 9:37-39, Luke: 24:47); may not have expected his teaching to spread beyond the Jews (p.97; see Matt. 28:19-20); may not have accepted Messiah status (p.99; see John 4:26); and was driven to Jerusalem by insecurity (p.100; see John 10:17). The claims are obviously false. Paul is also egregiously misrepresented. Examples follow. Freeman claims, "it is not clear whether Paul believed Jesus had been preexistent from the dawn of time" (p.116; see Col.1:16-17); Paul was "desperately afraid of competition," since he never asks his followers to personally evangelize others (p.113; see 2 Tim 4:5); and "does not go so far as to make [Christ] part of the Godhead" (p.117; see Col.2:9). Again, all false.

Perhaps Freeman's most untruthful and outrageous claim is that Paul encouraged the rejection of rational thought, generating in Freeman's words, "the roots of the conflict between religion and science that still pervades debates on Christianity to this day" (p.120). Freeman tries to support this by quoting I Corinthians 3:19 (Freeman incorrectly references I Cor 1:25), "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God." But this verse is taken out of context. Reading the entire passage in I Cor.3, it is obvious that Paul is actually responding to those who promote cliques and personal status in the church. Paul is not talking about the rejection of rational thought!

Freeman's thesis is no more than a personal dogma, around which his book modifies the facts until they fit.

Mr. Freeman's response posted here is no more than extended Renaissance and Enlightenment sophistry if not out and out bad will against Christianity and specifically the Catholic Church and Catholic Tradition. So this has all been argued before and in spite of the mischief caused over the centuries, it doesn't seem to ever deliver a knock out punch as is perhaps desired. Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Faith And Reason, alone, trumps Mr. Freeman's thesis. And, by the way, with the election of Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), you will see even more examples of the marriage of faith and reason, faith and art, faith and education.