Rating: 
Summary: Interesting perspective on Western thought
Review: This is a book with an interesting perspective, pity it is too long. The basic thesis is that Christian faith pushed aside Greek rationality aside for more than a millennium, until Thomas Acquinas finally reconciled faith and rationality again. The first one third of the book, the best, attempts to demonstrate how the Christian faith is a collection of beliefs from various sources. Only a small but obviously very important part of the Christian faith has come to us from Christ through the gospels. Paul was another major source for Christianity, for example in his hostility to sexuality and in particular homosexuality (about which Christ seems to have said little). A third source were the four oecumenical councils in the fourth century which settled on numerous detailed and often formal questions, such as the theory of the Holy Trinity. In many cases the Roman emperor had to intervene between squabbling rival factions within Christianity to take decisions in religious issues, subsequently ratified by the Church fathers, more on the basis of political expediency than on any other basis. The consequence of this pyramid of sources is that, although the main principles had been formulated by Christ - most notably, love thy neighbour -, Paul and the early Church have added so much to this body, that Christ might not have recognised his own faith by the fourth century. And it gets worse. Christianity moved in two directions. Firstly, following the proclamation by Constantine, turning Christianity into the State religion of the empire, the Church became materialistic, in contrast to its early roots which emphasized poverty and abstinence. In some ways this is reminiscent of what happened with communist parties, many of which probably started with the best intentions, but soon the party degenerated into an institution which was used by its leaders to gain wealth and prestige while at the same time the original beliefs became dogma to beat up heretics. Freeman does not focus on subsequent reactions to the materialism of the Church (from within the Catholic Church, starting in Cluny, and by Protestantism). The second direction of Christianity, the move away from Greek rationalism to a belief in miracles and making science subservient to faith, gets most of Freeman's attention. Augustine comes in for most of the blame : he advocated an unquestioning acceptance of faith and believed that rationality - and therefore science - was a threat to the true faith. Augustine was perhaps the most influential figure in Christianity after Paul, so when we look at the Middle Ages and see the Church fighting science, people believing in superstitions, persecuting witches etc... more than one and a half millennium after Aristotle advocated rational explanations for every phenomenon, we have to blame Augustine to a large degree. Augustine - and the Church - borrowed heavily from Plato who believed that body and soul were separate worlds and that the soul was paramount. This implied that knowing about the material world, i.e. science was unimportant, if not dangerous. Freeman cites the example of astronomy, where the last recorded observation by the Greeks was by the Proclus in AD 475, after which there are no recorded observations for over a thousand years, until Copernicus in 1543. A similar gap exists in many sciences. Contrary to Plato's teachings, Aristotles' books had been lost in Europe until the renaissance and in fact came back to Europe through Islamic philosophers in Andalusian Spain. (A graphic illustration of this crucial period in Europe, the break between ignorant and superstitious Middle Ages and the rebirth of Greek rational thinking, when the Church was desperately trying to prevent the subversive translations of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers from spreading, can be seen in the film In the Name of the Rose.) The Christian philosopher who finally reconciled rational thought and Christian faith, and whose theories were largely accepted by the Church itself, was Thomas Aquinas, as such perhaps the most influential person in the western world after Aristotle himself. According to Thomas, rationality was not to be feared, because it would strengthen faith. This meant that after more than 1000 years of hostility to science, the Church suddenly accepted science and rationality. It is ironic though that only a few hundred years later, many scientific discoveries would undermine established Christian dogma and indeed threaten if not the faith, then at least the Church, but by then this movement had become unstoppable. Given the huge impact on Western history and culture of the Church's attitude to science, I think this book paints a very interesting perspective. I do not think this book is blaming the Church of today; it merely illustrates that until Thomas, Christian faith for over a thousand years had been Platonic, with an emphasis on the soul and a rejection of rationality, but the Church itself quickly embraced Aristotle's rationality following publication by Thomas of his Summa Theologiae.
Rating:
Summary: A must for anybody with on open mind
Review: This is a very well written and well researched book. Some of the arguments may not be entirely new, but I have not yet found a single book which deals so extensively with this topic. A must read for anybody interested in church history, philosophy or Christianity.
I particularly like the style of the book, which is not too academic, but nevertheless written with authority. The extensive references allow a even deeper study of the topic. Also, Freeman is a very fair author. Many writers might have been much harsher with the "church fathers". Freeman does not allow emotions or polemic muddle his facts. Orthodox Christians may not like his conclusions, and - as with all historical topics - you will find scholars who disagree with certain parts.
But this is just the usual academic discussion and argument of "reasonable" people!
Rating:
Summary: Good overview of the early formative church
Review: While the premise (from the title) is to tie the rise of Christianity with the decline of reason (rational/empirical approach) this book is actually better seen as a history of aspects of the early church. Freeman spends some time delineating Greek philosophy and background before relating some of the history of the early church and Roman empire. He then describes the events and controversies relating to Christian doctrine within the Roman empire. Toward the end, there is a brief mention of Islam's tolerance of reason and a small amount relating to the recrudescence of critical inquiry in the middle ages.
The value of this book for me was the detailed history of the early church with its fervent arguments over doctrine. A history which was later suppressed. While there are a number of quotations and some events relating to suppression of a rational/empirical approach, these are not fully drawn in support of the title argument. It is left for the reader to draw this conclusion from references such as the empty library shelves and absence of debates in one ancient city.
This book is worth the time for someone interested in seeing the suppressed history of early Christian/Catholic beliefs and how they actually developed.
| 
