In the last article, we replied to Greek historian Charles Freeman’s claim that the apostle Paul “waged war” on the Greek philosophical tradition. However, Freeman claims that Paul’s attack on Greek philosophy was only part of the problem that Christianity posed to the advancement of the Western intellect. Freeman claims that “the adoption of Platonism by Christian theologians” was to be a second factor in what he titles Christianity’s “closing of the Western mind.”
Freeman outright discounts Platonism in general and Christian Neoplatonism in particular, arguing that “it proved impossible to find secure truths from which to start a rational argument.” At the outset, Freeman’s anti-metaphysical bias seems unapologetically straightforward. A further concern is that, in the light of hindsight, Freeman’s chronological snobbery appears to overlook the fact that the advancement of human knowledge is always tentatively held pending future discovery. Future discoveries often make previously held “truths” appear ridiculous. The Greek philosopher Plato himself seemed quite keen on this truth. Contemporary philosopher Paul Edward writes, “For Plato, the first characteristic of wisdom is that it can face the test of critical discussion.” Indeed, that is how philosophical wisdom advances. From within the crucible of critical discussion, the progression of philosophical advance was driven from Herodotus to Pythagoras, from Socrates to Plato, from Aristotle to Augustine, and even to the practice of philosophy today. It is nothing less than a journey up a rising path toward ultimate Truth. Louis Markos describes this path as “the golden steps that lead the initiate out of this world of illusion and error into a higher realm of light and truth. . . . amovementfromslaverytofreedom, ignorance to knowledge, darkness to light.” That is intellectual advancement. And that is the progressive movement Platonism engendered.
To be sure, Platonism is writ large across the entire philosophical enterprise of all the Christian logicians that followed, including Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Palamas, Augustine, Boethius,Dante,Erasmus,Descartes, Coleridge, Aquinas, Donne, Milton, Newman, Chesterton, and C. S. Lewis. The history of philosophical discoursehasbeenanything but smooth and easy progress, but it is, by nature, cumulative. It is filled with fitful starts, unworkable precepts, dead ends, measured advances, and paradigm shifts. Surely, reason and logic would inform any person that such a chronologically extensive list of Platonian-influenced philosophers represents intellectual advancement.
In that way, the adaptation of Platonic philosophy into a workable Christianphilosophymustbeviewed in and of itself as an extension and, by virtue of that extension, an advancement ofawidelyaccepted,systematic philosophical system of that time. Suppose Platonism was a contemporary form of Greek intellectualism (and it was). In that case, Christianity’s adaptation of Platonism can hardly be considered a “closing of the Western mind” perpetuated by the Christian philosophical enterprise. It was simply another stage in the evolution of philosophical inquiry. In fact, Markos terms the contributions made by Christian Platonists to the advancement of reason as “eschatological evolution.” But even before Christianity adopted Platonism, this “evolution” is no less than how the Greeks got from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle in the first place. That is how the discipline of philosophy has progressed from its inception to the present day: building, criticizing, tearing down, and rebuilding anew. This is precisely how philosophy responds to critical discussion: indefensible arguments are abandoned, weak arguments are strengthened, and knowledge advances. This is precisely what was happening in the Christian West. Intellectual inquiry through logic and reason did not cease; the Western mind was not closed; it simply embraced a Christian-modified Platonic philosophy that was accommodating to the realities of Christianity.
It seems that Charles Freeman’s thesis that early Christian theologians adaptingPlatonismservedasa primary driver in the abandonment of reason is wildly off base. Again, intellectual advancement throughout all times has never been purely incremental or linear. For all of the changes that Christianity brought to humanity, a “dumbing down of the Westernmind”wasnotamongthem.
One final comment concerning Plato’s culpability in the death of rational thought in the Western world: while Freeman openly considers the adaptation of Platonism to be a key factor in the “closing of the Western mind,” he fails to adequately explain how Platonism was itself an enormous influence in the Arab intellectual world where he boasts that the Greek philosophical tradition not only survived but progressed. Freeman teeters on hypocrisy here, writing that the Arabs reflected a “readiness to accept the best of Greek thought, not only was Plato’s The Good appropriated to provide insights into the nature of Allah, but also... most of the great Greek thinkers: Aristotle, Plato, Hippocrates,” were translated into Arabic. Curiously, one might ask Freeman exactly how it is that Allah scholarship in the East benefits from the application of Platonism, while the God of Christianity in the West does not. It seems to me, whether in the West or the East, it’s either Plato’s fault or it is not.
But it is not just Paul’s fault, nor is it just Plato’s fault. According to Freeman, the Roman emperors had a hand in the “closing of the Western mind” as well. To that point, the following article in this series turns.
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.