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

by Charles Freeman

A radical and powerful reappraisal of the impact of Constantine’s adoption of Christianity on the later Roman world, and on the subsequent development both of Christianity and of Western civilization.

When the Emperor Contstantine converted to Christianity in 368 AD, he changed the course of European history in ways that continue to have repercussions to the present day. Adopting those aspects of the religion that suited his purposes, he turned Rome on a course from the relatively open, tolerant and pluralistic civilization of the Hellenistic world, towards a culture that was based on the rule of fixed authority, whether that of the Bible, or the writings of Ptolemy in astronomy and of Galen and Hippocrates in medicine. Only a thousand years later, with the advent of the Renaissance and the emergence of modern science, did Europe begin to free itself from the effects of Constantine's decision, yet the effects of his establishment of Christianity as a state religion remain with us, in many respects, today. Brilliantly wide-ranging and ambitious, this is a major work of history.

Genres: History, Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Christianity, Politics, European History

432 pages, Paperback

First published August 28, 2002

About the author

Charles Freeman is a freelance academic historian with wide interests in the history of European culture and thought. He is the author of the highly acclaimed Egypt, Greece and Rome, Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean. He has followed this up with The Greek Achievement (Penguin 1999), The Legacy of Ancient Egypt (Facts on File, 1997) and The Closing of the Western Mind, a study of the relationship between Greek philosophy and Christianity in the fourth century and beyond. His The Horses of St. Mark’s (Little Brown, 2004) is a study of these famous works of art in their historical contexts over the centuries. In 2003, Charles Freeman was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Reviews

[Lobstergirl · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book had been languishing on my shelf ever since I bought it in 2005. I think it was one of those broccoli books (which is really a misnomer since I freaking love broccoli)...books that you buy because they look like they'd be good for you rather than hedonistic romps. The Western Mind! Faith, Reason! It sounds like a mini-education!

It is - and the book was an absolute pleasure to read, hard to put down. Freeman seems to be some kind of "freelance" historian - like a Barbara Tuchman, I guess - and he writes brilliantly. All is clear, coherent, beautifully explained, and the paragraphs and chapters flow into one another without resistance. He begins with ancient Greece (don't worry, he doesn't get that deep into the weeds as he only has 340 pp. to work with), Greek philosophy and Greek science, and the rationality of the Greek mind. Even though the Greeks got a lot of stuff wrong, science-wise, they had the right idea: look at things empirically, use the senses to figure out what might be going on. And of course this rationality coexisted with faith - pagan belief in gods. Then we come to Christianity. Jesus and Paul each get their own chapters. This book will be good background as I reread the New Testament. It's with Paul that we get the beginnings of the fall of reason: Paul is very anti-philosophy. Freeman goes into a lot of history on the Roman emperors and the church/state nexus, the eastern church vs. the western church, the results of the battles over doctrine, and how faith rather than reason won these battles. Augustine is a monumental figure here; he seemed to revere Paul but pay very little attention to Jesus, and the church moved further away from rationality. Freeman finishes up with Thomas Aquinas, who folds Aristotle into his theology and thus presages a return to a certain kind of reason and rationality.

The endnotes are thorough and superb. There is an ample bibliography.

[Tim · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is a horrible travesty of historical reporting, but let me quote theologian David Bentley Hart who says it so well and with an appropriate amount of snark.

"Freeman's is the old familiar story that Christianity is somehow to be blamed for a sudden retrogression in Western civilization that set back the cause of human progress by, say, a thousand years. Along the way, Freeman provides a few damning passages from the church fathers (always out of context and without any mention of the plentiful counterexamples found in the same authors), attempts long discourses on theological disputes he simply does not understand, continually falls prey to vulgar misconstruals of the materials he is attempting to interpret, makes large claims about early Christian belief that are simply false, offers vague assertions about philosophers he clearly has not studied, and delivers himself of opinions regarding Christian teaching that are worse than simply inaccurate." Hart has even more to say about Freeman's limited understanding of the history of natural science, but I will stop for now. (from Atheist Delusions, Yale University Press, 2009)

[Ann Without An E · Rating 3 out of 5]

It reads like a textbook so I'm relieved I chose the audio version. The book was well researched but it was very heavy on theology. While the theology could be helpful for someone without a Christian/Catholic background, I would've preferred more history and less scripture.

[Markham Anderson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I actually stopped reading this halfway through. It was not for religious offense; I don't take that sort of offense.

Writing like this troubles me because the people I observe reading and acclaiming it are those who consider themselves intelligent, and yet it appears to me that they let themselves be completely persuaded by the writing, which I find insufficiently cogent.

As with Cahill's book, I was enrapt with the relation of the history, but I found the analysis so distasteful. The author repeatedly asserted interpretations or explanations which were not adequately defended, failing to address alternative explanations which occurred to me as more probable. Having done research elsewhere on the matters of concern, I was yet not able to rule out my alternative ideas, so I do not suppose that he assumed his readers would already have enough background knowledge to see that his conclusions were the correct ones.

(One thing of little significance but great annoyance was that he used one of the highly derivative versions of the Bible for his quotations--one of those ultra modern translated-from-an-earlier-English-version affairs, which butchers the language and distorts semantics terribly. If his readers were incapable of following the English in the KJV, that's perhaps an indication that he's reaching for a not-so-acute audience.)

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The powers that be had a reason for forcing a standard doctrine across the empire and forced uniformity onto what was once diverse with no agreed upon overriding consensus, and this book will delve into that while actually showing that religious truths of today were sometimes determined by fiat. When certainty is dictated for the sake of convivence, reason is used to rationalize beliefs and authority is substituted for rational thought.

This book gives short shrift to those who believe dogmas while claiming scripture alone as their source. Doctrine is necessary in order to turn myth into a religion and the author will point out that recent re-analysis of credal certainties were often forced upon others for the sake of stability, order and control rather than truth.

The book really doesn’t miss a beat within its area of study. I would only fault it for implying that reason existed before the Christians came along and mucked it up. The Christians were no worst than the Pagans who put Socrates to death, for example.

The real theme of the book does lie more with the muddle pathway that led to orthodoxic thought and made those who disagreed anathema even when at times heterodoxy had the better argument (see Pelagius or Arius for examples demonstrated in this book, why are they heterodoxic today? Only because the orthodox say so, ‘almost all Enlightenment thinkers were Pelagians’ for a reason, and Arius is right that the evidence for the Trinity in the bible is almost non-existent, ‘holy, holy, holy is the name of the lord’ is a ridiculous proof for the Trinity).

Plato, Peter, Paul, Augustine, Plotinus (never underestimate Plotinus’ influence on religion), pseudo-Dionysius all are mentioned in this book and they are foundational for giving primacy of feelings over reason such that reason is used in support of what faith (feelings) already thought was true rather than what philosophy alone would support.

This book shows that going from point A of yesteryear to B with its strongly held orthodox beliefs of today was not a straight line and that sometimes the best arguments get shoved down by those in power under the shadow of sham councils or devious machinations.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was loaned this book by an old friend who at that time was a professor of the classics at Loyola University Chicago. Raised a Catholic in St. Louis and having gone to school at Holy Cross and Loyola as a student, first, of astronomy and then of the classics, he was--and is--not very sympathetic to Christianity. Indeed, he is downright hostile. The Closing of the Western Mind, a learned screed against the Church with an intentional reference to Bloom's infamous best seller of similar title, pleased him greatly enough to want to share the pleasure of it.

My own background was pretty much areligious. Mom was a nominal member of the Church of Norway, but except for some months in a Lutheran Sunday school with my best friend Larry Nolden around fourth grade, I was pretty ignorant of the whole religion business. And indeed, to the credit of our Sunday school teacher, attendance at basement classes while Larry's parents worshipped upstairs served more as an introduction to comparative world religions than as indoctrination. Dad, however, announced himself an unapologetic atheist when I finally got around to asking him about his own beliefs. Nobody in the family was religious so far as I could discern and when church was attended it was more for the sake of Norwegian tradition than an expression of any ideology. Basically, no one cared much one way or the other. My brother and I were free to attend any services we liked without criticism. Later, brother Fin, following in my footsteps, got involved in his best friend's church, a Greek orthodox one.

The world around us, however, seemed quite religious, quite Christian in fact, and when we moved from a rural housing development to upscale Park Ridge, Illinois, it seemed almost entirely Protestant and often evangelical--and Republican--at that.

Having had friends of all faiths--and races--while living in the country, the move to Park Ridge in fifth grade was quite upsetting. There I was introduced not only to Protestant enthusiasm, but also to anti-Catholicism, class prejudice and racism. There were Catholics in town, but they had their own schools and virtually their own neighborhoods. By high school, a disproportionate number of my friends were of Catholic backgrounds, though those who still "believed" were quite selective in their beliefs.

By the end of the sixties the New Left had penetrated even Park Ridge, many of my older friends being socialists of one sort or another. With the left also came the appeal of the broader counterculture, many peers and younger friends being freaks of one sort or another. Between the two groups, the political and the apolitical, there was much interaction, much openness. It was from among their number and from a freshman History of Civilization course taught by Kelly Fox that I became exposed to and increasingly interested in non-Western religions.

The first two years of college were devoted to study and politics, the politics often pushing the academics aside. Then, having to drop out for a year while facing draft evasion charges, I found myself with the time to read what I wanted. Thinking my character could use a lot of improvement and having had some rather challenging experiences with psychotropics led me towards the serious study of continental depth psychology and the works of C.G. Jung--a psychiatrist who seemed to know a lot about altered states of consciousness and to care a lot about religion.

Returning to college to find the politics now more subdued and inspired by my independent studies, I started taking psychology courses and even a two semester sequence on the bible taught by the Grinnell College chaplain. Dennis Haas, the bible professor, managed to get me enthusiastic about the new Religious Studies Department and to switch to that from the History Department, a change that led me to go straight to Union Theological Seminary in New York upon graduation.

Although the Religious Studies major in college and the subsequent M.Div. did not serve to make a Christian of me, they give me a bit of expertise and an abiding interest in the antique world and religions in general and in Christianity in particular. Consequently, Jim's recommendation of Freeman was well taken and the book thoroughly enjoyed.

This does not, however, mean that I buy into Freeman's arguments entirely. The ideology of Christianity need not be seen as inherently authoritarian, though its alliance with such a state in the fourth century has had that consequence.

Now my stepbrother has walked in for a planned dinner to be eaten together, so this will have to stop...

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best sentence of this 430 page book: "History suggests that conflicts between religions tend to be more destructive than those between scientists!"

[Lynn Weber · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an incredible history of the transition from the classical world to the medieval world, centering in particular on the rise of Christianity within the context of an increasingly brittle, and thus authoritarian, Roman empire. One of the best nonfiction books I've ever read. In one poignant passage, Freeman talks about the first astronomical observations recorded in Greece in 585 BCE by Thales---the accurate prediction of an eclipse. The last astronomical observations in the classical world was made in 475 CE, and it would be almost 1100 years before another was recorded, by Galileo . . . so far had the respect for natural knowledge and science fallen.

[Dimitri · Rating 3 out of 5]

*** 1/2 because it's a bit long in the teeth about the Trinity

[Willowwind · Rating 5 out of 5]

A meticulously constructed discussion of how the rise of orthodox Christianity as a means of imposing social control in the crumbling Roman Empire led to the suppression of the classical tradition of rational and empirical inquiry, supplanting reason with faith. The result was a centuries long retreat from scientific discovery in Western culture, the effects of which we still feel today in the inability of many segments of the population to process scientific knowledge in favor of revealed belief. Freeman is scrupulously fair to the philosophers whose works he discusses, detailing both their strengths and weaknesses. Yet is it clear that the Christian philosophers like Augustine and Jerome come across as those whose works were significantly impacted by their personal instabilities while the pagan philosophers of the earlier period(such as Aristotle and Epicurus) are notably less emotionally disturbed. Those unfamiliar with the history of the early church may well be surprised at the degree to which imperial politics shaped Christian doctrine in ways that had nothing to do with either the life and work of Jesus or with anything resembling historical fact. This is a work of fine scholarship, judicious and detailed, as well as copiously notated. It is clear, however, that Freeman feels that the triumph of faith was a tragedy for the development of western culture. It represents, he concludes, the complete abdication of the power to think for oneself in favor of letting external authority dictate what is known and not known. I highly recommend this book to anyone whose inquiry into the development of western culture is sincere and independent.

[Art · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I'm not completely convinced of the author's central argument--that the rise of Christianity and the waning of Greek intellectual tradition were not merely coincident, but that the former has a causal relationship with the latter--I have to say that this is an absolutely riveting history of early Christianity.

One thing I found particularly interesting is how much of what I'd considered fundamental tenets of Christianity had no basis in scripture but rather are the work of a small handful of influential theologians. For instance, Christianity's disdain for sexuality is based solely on the writings of men who clearly had serious issues that they projected into their theology--Paul and Augustine, for example.

Freeman also runs down some obligatory fidelity of transmission issues. For example, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is based on a (willful?) mistranslation of Isaiah. The original Hebrew says the messiah will be born to a 'young woman,' but we wind up with 'virgin.' Another fine example is Jerome and Tertullian creating doctrine from abysmal Latin translations.

Even though 'The Closing of the Western Mind' doesn't live up to the promise of its central argument (and Mr. Freeman admits as much in the epilogue), I'd still recommend it to anyone interested in the complicated relationship between the historical Jesus, the Gospels, Paul, Judaism, the Roman Empire, the Greek intellectual tradition and what would become the Roman Catholic Church.

[Eric Wojciechowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sapientiam Sapientum Perdam, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise.” These are the words of Saul of Tarsus, or St. Paul. 1 Corinthians 1:19. This passage is almost a direct quote from Isaiah 29:14, which reads, “...for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish”. And it appears Paul's declaration to be the first volley against Greek reason in favor of faith in the divine. A faith, belief system, void of Greek logic, that kept mankind in the dark ages far too long.

It's a shame that Alexander the Great's conquest, and Hellenization, from Macedona to Egypt and far into India didn't take a deeper root. For while the reason of the Greeks was upon the known world, it was soon to take a backseat to the rise of Christianity, dogma and the closing of the Western mind. While the Persians were preserving the texts of the Greeks and accumulating and welcoming knowledge and science, the lands once liberated by Alexander were turning into territories ruled by Christian clerics who wouldn't hear of anything outside of Christian scripture. Reason and experiment were cast aside in favor of an authoritarian model from an infallible pulpit.

The early Christians didn't completely abandon the reason and philosophy of the Greeks. What they did do, however, was adopt the Platonic idea of the logos to explain Jesus. Casting aside Aristotle, Christian thought was imposed upon the already existing philosophy of Plato which made it more attractive (and understandable) to the already accepting audience of the Greeks.

What is of interest is how this happened. How did a small Jewish sect become so dominate? A pinpoint on the map of history suggests it was with emperor Constantine, the first “Christian” Roman emperor. But Mr. Freeman makes it rather clear that Constantine's concern with the Christians was more to do with bringing them in line with Roman authority. Early Christians weren't silent about the inclusion and outright paganism accepted in the Roman/Greek world. They were not content in living alongside those who still worshiped Apollo, Zeus and the older gods. And because of this, they refrained from participating in Roman society to the dislike of local governors and the emperors alike.

What emperor Constantine accomplished with the First Council of Nicaea was not a joint agreement of all the bishops from all the opposing opinions but an almost forcibly signed Creed. As Jaroslave Pelikan put it, “(Other than Arius and the exiled bishops) all the rest saluted the emperor, signed the formula and went on teaching as they always had.” Along with this, Constantine never truly adopted Christianity as his religion of choice, using it and its churches and members as political pieces to keep stability during his reign.

Shortly after Constantine's death, for a short term, the Roman empire returned to paganism with emperor Julian who wrote his own critic of Christianity, showing it to be “less superior” to the older religions and gods. Yet after his death, a series of floundering emperors couldn't hold Rome together and what was once a great civilization, fell into the hands of the “barbarians”. The authorities left, were the bishops and the church which continued to gain more and more power, legal and social, throughout what was left of Rome.

From then until around 1500 AD to the Enlightenment, reigning Christian governments and authorities stamped out all other thought. Faith took precedent over reason and the west launched itself into a thousand years of dark ages. Aside from some very few dissidents, the only intellectuals left were those debating whether or not Jesus and God were the same or separate entities, what happened to unbaptized babies and the like. Basically, one-thousand-years of human history was wasted debating the merits and qualities of invisible friends.

It was a shame to read this, finding myself constantly taking breaks to walk out the absurdity. It is a shame this was ever part of human history. It is my not so humble opinion that if the Greek spark had been allowed to grow from a small ember into a full out inferno, the human race would have had its first moon landing in 1500 AD. It's disheartening that an authority like Christianity ever got a foothold for it is the grounds for generations of lost wisdom, lost opportunity and lost life.

Although studies show that religion in the west is falling by the wayside and more people are considering themselves not in need of it, those who are cemented to the churches and basing their lives on old texts written by goat herders are still squabbling over who Jesus really was. Was he and God the same? Was he divine or, like stated in the Qur'an, just another messenger? The debate continues among the faithful but luckily, for the rest of us and the future of the human race, this debate will eventually be seen as meaningless as debating the color of jealousy.

[Dan · Rating 2 out of 5]

My rating notwithstanding, this is a pretty good book. What it's not, though, is a book about how Christianity stifled intellectual thought in the western world. It's more a history of the development of orthodox Christianity (in a Nicene sense). And it's a good one. Just not what I was praying for.

[Vidur Kapur · Rating 4 out of 5]

A delightful read. Despite the title and subtitle, this is hardly a New Atheist tract. It does contain some inaccurate canards, but these are largely peripheral. It is primarily an erudite account of classical history, of the development of Christian scripture and doctrine, and of the rise of Christianity as a state religion. From the outset, it reminded me of Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies; some figures (Aristotle, Philip of Macedon, Jesus of Nazareth, Aquinas) certainly come in for better treatment than others (Plato, Alexander, Saint Paul, Augustine).

[Stephie Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is about how the dark ages came upon Europe with rise of Christendom; it is also about much more. Thomas Aquinas bookends the book, but it begins in earnest with the beginnings of Greek philosophy. After covering the development of Greek philosophy the book discusses the Hellenistic period which arose after Alexander the Great. This period runs from about 300 BC to 200 BCE. Within this period the Romans came to power, Christianity was founded with its the Jewish background, and its growth is discussed. Then Constantine coming to power and Christianity becoming the state religion is presented. Within this period the bishops’ squabbling and Constantine’s attempt to bring them together through Church counsels is related. Finally, how both the Eastern and the Western Roman empires with Christianity having triumph over all of society is given. During all this statist period the wheedling out of reason and the firm grip of faith is described.

While I don’t believe Charles Freeman is a professional historian, meaning holding a Ph.D., which trains a person in using primary sources and some form or forms of historical methodology. I say some form(s) because there are many methodologies, some of which clashes, sometimes heavily. Anyway, Freeman does seem to make good use of secondary historical sources, which does not automatically disqualify one, providing a useful historical piece of writing. I found the book quite enjoyable, and I even learned some new stuff, having lost my notes I cannot recall them at the moment, but given the appropriate associations they would probably surface again.

I could definitely recommend this book for anyone interested in how the dark ages descended upon Europe. While Freeman doesn’t seem to use much primary historical sources in the book, I do feel that he provides good information and supportive evidence for how the dark ages developed. For those of the evangelical Christian persuasion they might find it useful in having exposed the poverty of reason in some Christian’s minds.

[Ray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christianity in 4th and 5th centuries had big problems: riven within by doctrinal disputes, disagreements about what implementing the Christian message meant, and on the outside political domination and interference from the Roman and Byzantine emperors. The famous councils of the time (such as Ephesus, Nicea, Chalcedon) tried to address these issues, but did so poorly. As the empire's grip on the Western part of the continent weakened, the stresses between what eventually became the Orthodox church in the east and the Roman Catholic church in the west led to a split that remains today. The western church suffered further problems: the texts it used (in Latin) came from poorly translated Greek. The early great thinkers of the Church (Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome among others) worked with poor quality texts. Jerome (famed for fluency in many languages) did much to try to fix this problem, but wound up being loathed in his own time for his troubles.

Looking at this problem led to looking more closely at the basic texts to see why there are so many doctrinal conflicts in early Christian thought. And the problems only increased from there: the first gospels (Mark or Matthew, depending upon whose analysis you take) did not appear until some time in the 2nd century). Which means that Paul wrote all of his influential work without any benefit of the gospels in written form. Additionally, Paul wrote his letters to communities for specific purposes in his specific time. Interestingly, none of the Christian communities survived long after Paul's death. Those place later became re-Christianized many years later. So the foundational documents of Christianity come from disparate sources, say different things, and support different objectives. The only solution the early church fathers could find was to seek recourse in faith. The other prevailing tradition in the area was Greek rational study. The church decided to make empirical thought, reasoned argument, and conclusions based on evidence its enemy. From the 5th century to Thomas Aquinas (himself considered heretical until just before his canonization in the 13th century), the church in both east and west made itself an enemy to other forms of thought in order to quell its own contradictions and conflicts and make it a better instrument of wielding political power.

The results of these approaches affect modern politics and religious thought today, and Freeman makes a very well researched and compelling case for how the closing of the western mind made for a lost era of human achievement of nearly 1500 years.

[Andi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this. The author does a great job of tracing the threads of classical philosophy and inquiry from their Greek foundations and seeing how they grew and were co-opted, altered, and suppressed throughout the political and religious turmoil of the late Roman empire and the early Middle Ages. The path is not a straightforward one; in the epilogue, he comments, "It is simplistic to talk of the Greek tradition of rational thought being suppressed by Christians." Rather, he stresses the way the Church interacted with and was influenced by imperial politics, and the consequences these interactions had for both political policy and Church doctrine.

The discussions of philosophy and theology are woven through a surprisingly thorough, albeit brief, history of the Greek and Roman empires, as well as the early Church and some of its foundational thinkers. I found this very helpful since I came in with a fairly surface-level knowledge of the topics (the standard one chapter each on the Greeks, the Romans, and the Middle Ages in 10th grade World History, plus the totally-unbiased-you-guys Catholic-school version of Church history). A Classics major might get bored here from time to time, but for the interested layman, I think it's a good level of information.

[Margot Tesch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. This was a bit of a marathon read. I left and came back to it several times. It was tough going but presented such fascinating arguments that I couldn't abandon it.
It begins with a wonderful summary and timeline of the early philosophers. Then it traces the development fo the christian ideology / theology and how the political and other religious influences played a part. Christians have been arguing since Christ about what it means to be a Christian and from my own personal experience as a Christian (not any more) I know this is still the case today. There is often a perception that Christianity (particularly compared with Islam) is non-violent. But you don't have to look far back in history to realise this is a fallacy. All ideology is violent. I heard this phrase some time ago and it hasn't left me. Extreme views bring conflict.
Anyway, if you're up for a challenge, this book is highly thought provoking. Christianity never succeeded in using reason to justify is tenants. It always falls back onto the unchallengeable ... faith. But faith in something they have never been able to successfully describe.

[Mason Frierson · Rating 1 out of 5]

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. As a result, this book is full of holes. The author deliberately ignored - and never even mentioned - the works of many modern historians who did a lot of work digging into the past and discovering medieval science, engineering and philosophy - everything that was so conveniently ignored and forgotten by the so called philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment (I’m talking about you Voltaire).

The real renaissance of knowledge started by the times of Charlemagne and took speed in the years 1000-1500. But the battle for the vision of the Middle Ages is an important part of the ideological war, and the author is not impartial. He chose a side in this war, censoring knowledge and distorting historical truth. 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. To read how Christianity really helped keep the western mind open without our brains falling all over the place you should read:

“The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries”; “How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity”; & “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success” all 3 books by Rodney Stark

Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland

The Forge of Christendom: The End of Days and the Epic Rise of the West by Tom Holland

The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000 by Chris Wickham

God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science by James Hannam

Those Terrible Middle Ages!: Debunking the Myths

The Bright Ages by Matthew Gabrielle and David Perry

Misconceptions About the Middle Ages (Routledge Studies in Medieval Religion and Culture Book 7) Edited by Stephen Harris

The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century by Charles Hawkins

The Light Ages: The Surprising Story of Medieval Science” by Seb Falk

The Middle Ages: A Very Short Introduction” by Miri Rubin

Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages” by Frances and Joseph Gies

The Civilization of the Middle Ages” by Norman F. Cantor

Medieval Technology and Social Change” by Lynn White Jr.

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature” by C.S. Lewis

Medieval Cities: Their Origins and the Revival of Trade” by Henri Pirenne

The Myth of the Dark Ages: How the Middle Ages Shaped the Modern World” by Susan Wise Bauer

The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950-1350” by Robert Bartlett

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!"

[Rob Atkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this more of a duty than a pleasure to read, but it does lay out the intellectual climate in the waning days of the Roman Empire more completely than any of the more general histories of the period I've read (such as the excellent "How Rome Fell: Death of an Empire" by Adrian Goldsworthy). It's essential reading for those who are interested in the end of the Classical tradition and the birth of the Medieval mindset in those turbulent days, and the role that the Empire's official adoption of Christianity played in that transition. That said, many lay readers are likely to find the intricacies of theological debate in the third to fifth centuries a fairly heavy slog, and these disputes make up the greatest share of the book. I would have appreciated more on the embattled last representatives of the pagan cults and classical philosophy to balance out the account, but perhaps the record is scant due to suppression of these 'heresies'; apparently many of the fathers of the church were enthusiastic book-burners. One of the last great thinkers in the old tradition, the brilliant female mathematician Hypatia of Alexandria, was actually herself torn to pieces by a Christian mob. Amidst sectarian riots and vituperative charges of heresy made by bishops against bishops, Christian orthodoxy was gradually imposed by imperial fiat in an attempt to restore order, and dissenting theological opinion of any sort became dangerous to express. Most everything pre-Christian was regarded as pagan, and therefore anathema, excepting a narrow form of Platonism which was made useful in formulating Christian doctrine. A thousand year long tradition of rational inquiry, argument and experiment in philosophy and the natural sciences effectively ceased.
Fortunately for posterity, the Islamic invaders who conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain soon thereafter were tolerant and included some deep and rational thinkers; they recognized the brilliance of the Greek tradition and saved many pre-Christian works since lost to the West, even making their own significant contributions to them over the centuries. Not until Thomas Aquinas' Scholasticism began to reconcile faith with objective reasoning in the early 13th century -- nearly another thousand years later -- would the Church begin to loosen its stranglehold on philosophy and science, allowing the surviving Greco-Roman intellectual legacy to re-enter Europe, in new Latin translations from the Arabic.

[Mike Clinton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Freeman does a fine job of balancing the history of ideas and institutions with human stories of the events that influenced them. He has a thesis composed of several elements woven together to historicize the emergence of Christian thought during the transitional period between the late classical and the early medieval eras. He examines how the configuration of power, ideas, and historical actors produced a culture that privileged faith and renounced empirical rational thought, effectively distancing medieval Christianity from a robust and diverse heritage of classical ideas that had contributed to its early articulation. Freeman reaches back to the origins of the Greek rational tradition, examining various tensions within it, especially that between Plato and Aristotle; analyzes the dynamic interaction between culture and authority in the Greek, Hellenistic, Roman-Byzantine, and early medieval contexts; retells the story of Christianity's origins from a historicist perspective; depicts the various conflicts over critical theological questions that characterized a multifarious Christian world; and briefly but pointedly draws a contrast with Islamic monotheism, a tradition that more easily reconciled itself to the varieties of classical thought without compromising its spiritual integrity. He successfully explains the development of Christian thought and culture as the outcome of human events and worldly forces rather than the absolute truth of divine revelation and does so engagingly and compellingly.

[Elliott Bignell · Rating 5 out of 5]

To understand the post-Enlightenment world we inhabit, it is necessary to perceive the Dark which it relieved. No Dark is perceived as such by those who draw the blinds, of course, who generally believe that we could use some shade. So it is in this highly readable but very thorough treatment of the transition from the conceptual world of late Antiquity to that of the Christian millennium. While it has been clear since Gibbon that the closing of the Western mind did not merely coincide with but was intimately bound up in the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, it is not trivially clear why this should be. With precision and erudition, Freeman investigates this question.

Clearly there was not only one current flowing through the Roman world during the last centuries of the Empire, as Paul's talk of "empty philosophy" contrasts with Jesuit reverence for "the philosopher" Aristotle. Understanding how the Church could revere convenient aspects of Greek thought while repudiating its spirit is as much a political as a religious or philosophical conundrum, and Freeman does much to chart this ebb and flow and the eventual inundation.

Some background in the history of Western thought will help to get the best out of this book, but is probably not required, since Freeman addresses the ideas and their originators as well as the political and religious considerations that motivated their eclipse.

[Dustin · Rating 5 out of 5]

They say there are always two sides to every story. The Closing of the Western Mind presents early Christian history in a way it isn't usually presented in Sunday school. Freeman is especially interested in "rational thought" in contrast to "faith." He begins with the classical Greeks (the Forms of Plato and Aristotle's deductive reasoning) and takes us on a journey through early Christianity (both east and west) that ends with Thomas Aquinas. In short, Freeman's argument is that Christians suppressed the use of reason in their search for theological truth with disastrous results. This book is well written (and easy to read) and, as such, is a good introduction to Church history. However, his sources for the "historical" Jesus and Paul are a bit dated: newer scholarship and ideas are available. In addition, his opposition between the classical world and Christianity has many critics in the academic world. Nonetheless, this book will be challenging for many Christians, especially those who are not aware of the politics of Late Antiquity. Even if you don't buy his thesis, understanding the past and exploring it from different perspectives is necessary to build a better tomorrow.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Freeman rights a book that's right up there with Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians" in some ways.

It's not quite as academic as Fox's book, but it's not that far below it. That said, it made me think of Fox.

One main difference is that Freeman is looking at the upper level — that is, archbishops, etc., on one side, and emperors on the other — during the central period of the book, which is when Christianity hits critical mass, gains social acceptance, then imperial toleration.

Also, Freeman covers a somewhat longer time period even in the core sections than does Fox in his book.

The book is well-footnoted as well as well-researched. The footnotes aren't just documentary; they're usually of explanatory value as well.

The fact that a Mary Beard plumps for it should give you additional indication of its value.

[Arturo Castillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Isahia 29:14
"... for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent menshall be hid."

Also,

1 Corinthans 1:19
_For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”_

Wisdom or Sophia was how any science was known in biblical times. Add ambitious Christian fundamentalists and there you have it. The conflict between faith and reason or the closing of the Western mind. Beautiful book!

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book - if you already have doubts about how wonderful Christianity is then you won't be shocked by anything Mr. Freeman has to say. If you are still in thrall to middle Eastern sky gods and imagine that something called 'paganism' was replaced by christianity after the Roman emperor Constantine saw something in the clouds then you probably won't like what he has to say. I found it amusing, refreshing, stimulating - in a thought provoking way, and an excellent and very readable book.

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably one of the most informative works of intellectual history I've ever read, and it's overall message is one that contemporary society would do well to digest.

Freeman's basic thesis is that the decline of the culture of rational thought that had been developed by Greek civilization was caused by Constantine's--and then later emperors'--attempt to use Christianity as a tool to solidify Roman society under the threats of northern and eastern invaders which, in turn, led to the church itself becoming politically powerful in pursuit of social order. Because the early Christian communities were spread out and diverse, there was--despite orthodox Christian history's telling of it--little overall agreement on what one might call orthodoxy. Thus, the political need to standardize doctrine in order for Christianity to serve the political purpose for which Constantine integrated it into Roman society.

This, of course, led to the onset of what we commonly call the "Dark Ages"--a recession in rationalism, empiricism, and open inquiry. As Freeman puts it, the last overt act of Greek science during the late Roman Empire was an astronomical observation by the Athenian Proclus in 475 A.D., approximately 800 years before Aquinas would integrate Aristotle's philosophy into Christianity. That's also a full millennium before the Renaissance and the first rumblings of the Reformation would mark the end of the Middle Ages in Europe. In between, Freeman points out, there were a few bright flashes of hope--Anselm of Canterbury, Scholasticism, and, of course, the Muslim Arabs' preservation of Greek learning.

I find this important for two reasons. First, this is history to which Christians--even seminary-trained Christians like me--do not get enough exposure. It is important to understand that much of what we call today orthodoxy was driven less by ideal motives of doctrinal purity than social and political demands that came from both inside and outside the church.

Second, I think that a lot of the social upheaval and lack of rational, civil discourse and debate in our society today is driven by similar, and equally nefarious, motives. We are caught between competing narratives peddled by centers of power and influence who, in an attempt to assert dominance and maintain control, are pushing out reason and rationalism. Like the Roman emperors in the 4th and 5th centuries, it's tempting to misinterpret a diverse but flourishing social and intellectual environment as threatening to order. And, I think that critique holds for both the political left and the political right in the United States today. But, what is more important in terms of liberty and human flourishing is that a diverse and flourishing social and intellectual environment is difficult to control.

Not to sound apocalyptic--that's not my purpose--but we ought not risk another Dark Ages by sacrificing reason and rational thought on the altar of today's cause célèbre.

On a side note for those who like reading intellectual history, this book meshes well with Arthur L. Herman's book, The Cave and the Light.

[Kenji · Rating 4 out of 5]

Timely read! (although I certainly took my time finishing this book… not exactly a page-turner). A detailed treatise on how religious and governmental leadership came together to sweep the western world and lead to a deep distrust of intellectualism and science. I picked up a lot of insight and nuance in this rarely addressed time period and movement from Christ’s presence on Earth to the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance. It’s fascinating to consider how people, communities and entire cultures interpret the flood of information coming at them today in ways that discount the scientific method in preference of sound bites that resonate personally… intellectually lazy pondering and blind to contextual considerations. The roots of that behavior were planted long ago… and this book attempts to make sense of it. Would benefit from having a flow chart or graphic reference to track the various Gregory’s and Theodosius’.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Freeman tries to determine why in the early days of the Christian church the Greek intellectual tradition was suppressed. The author discusses early church fathers (Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, for example) and their attempts to consolidate church doctrine (which at the time was varied and messy) which led to the discarding of rational thought and discourse. It was not until a thousand years later when Thomas Aquinas showed up that the veil of unintellectual thinking was lifted.
Why and how this occurred is the premise of Freeman's book.
Interesting read for those who would like to understand more of how humanity went from the Greeks and Romans to the Dark Ages.

[Joe Pratt · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book if you, like me, enjoy boring topics like the evolution of the early Christian churches. If that's interesting to you, this might be a good book. If you're not engaged by the first 50 pages though then it's not for you.

I used to think books on history were definitive — that historians could accurately tell their students exactly what happened and why. I've since learned that history is actually biased and it's not only tough to tease out what happened in the past but nearly impossible to say why.

That said, I thought Charles Freeman made a good attempt to do that. I don't agree with everything he said — at times I felt he balanced some big claims on some shaky evidence — but over all it was a well reasoned and informed book. His main contention is basically that the pushing of a state Christian religion in the 4th century led to an abandonement of debate, opposition to science, and injured human progress in every field of learning.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I believe in a great apostasy after the deaths of Christ's original twelve apostles. Though Freeman isn't arguing for the existence of a great apostasy, he does outline how political expediency, personal quibbles, and sincere seekers of truth who were bound by previous doctrines created a Gordian knot of extra-biblical doctrines that often went directly against Christ's teachings as found in the Bible. This wasn't even his intention, but it was interesting for me to see it okay out nonetheless.

The history of how and why the Christian creeds were established is fascinating. While I'm not advocating everyone abandon their beliefs in them, I do think understanding the historical context of them would help creedal Christians give more grace to people who don't believe in them — religious and not.

Regardless of if you read this book as absolute historical truth or total fiction created from a depraved and sinful mind, I believe this book can be a benefit in that it highlights the dangers of what happens when we (again, whether those are historically real or imagined) let go of our God-give rationality, critical thinking, and toleration for opposing view points. When we refuse to engage with new ideas, we resign ourselves to forever wallow in our current level of understanding and knowledge. Progression is impossible. We are damned in the truest sense of the word.

The biggest issue I had with the book was that Freeman seemed to suggest faith was antithetical to reason but that hasn't been my experience at all. Faith is rational and we all have faith in something — our lives experience and learning is simply too small to allow us to live without faith. Furthermore, any advance in science, technology, literature, theology, or other endeavor requires us to have faith — to temporarily suspend our doubts or questions in order to achieve something that our experience, our rationality, and learning, and our hearts tell us is true. This can certainly be done in an irrational way, but to condemn faith absolutely because some people have done this is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Faith and rationality have helped me be more tolerant, more hopeful, more rational, more willing to confront questions and concerns, closer to God, and more knowledgeable. I've got a lot to learn, certainly but faith has and will continue to be an irreplaceable tool helping me in that process.