The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason Paperback – February 8, 2005

This book is compelling and well-argued. It's a comprehensive account of the development of Christianity, and its timeline starts quite awhile before Christianity comes on the scene, so the reader gets a clear sense of the context. Even a novice in ancient history and Christian doctrine will find this book approachable. It is very dense, which I appreciate; the notes and sources section is 75 pages long and very thorough. I was concerned about bias when purchasing this, as I thought it might rail against Christianity. It does not. I think that a major success of this book is that it gives respect where it's due while also giving the most complete account of the development of the Christian doctrine that I have ever seen.

The title of this book made me fear it was a New Atheist screed that would blame everything on Christianity. This is a disservice. After long hesitating to pick it up, I was delighted to find a detailed and profound inquiry into one of the most significant periods in western history, i.e. how Christianity triumphed over previous religions and what it meant at the moment that the Roman Empire was collapsing and the Middle Ages beginning. Far from offering glib condemnations, the book offers a fabulous snapshot of the times and analyses the deep trends that are relevant to this day. It adds up to an essential perspective that every lover of history should consider, successfully combining philosophy, religion, and political science. As a reading experience, it is hard to do better.

There are 3 principal ideas in the text. First, the legacy of pre-Christian philosophy was a method of thinking that enabled man to question anything in a logical manner, including one’s core assumptions, and in some cases to submit them directly to evidence. This was a combination of Platonism, with its otherworldly ideals, and an Aristotelianism that stopped just short of the modern scientific method. This rationalism is, the author argues, one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of human thought.

Second, with its sacred and essentially unquestionable texts, Christianity flatly contradicted this classical tradition. Not only did it contain texts and notions that it was blasphemous or heretical to question, but it argued that faith – i.e. unproven belief – had to be called upon (and later enforced by authorities) to quell any doubts. At its base, Christianity was anti-rational and called for its adherents to bow to the authority of the elites who “knew” the truth (i.e. like Plato's philosopher kings). Of course, there was plenty of fertile ground for Christian philosophers to subsume portions of classical philosophy, in particular the neo-Platonic ideals, and they developed extremely elaborate ways to twist logic around their assumptions.

Third, and this was a very original argument, the political authorities in Rome recognized the utility of the new religion in their pursuit of absolute power, i.e. it provided a pliant ideology that could be wielded to reinforce their positions. This was, the author posits, the principal motive behind Constantine’s embrace of Christianity at his crucial battle. Moreover, as the Roman Empire came under severe pressure from outside groups, the political use of Christianity became a necessity in the failing efforts to mobilize Roman citizens and then stave off catastrophic military collapse. According to this logic, it was political power for statist ideological purpose that institutionalized Christianity in what became Europe.

This review cannot do justice to the density of ideas and vivid writing contained in this book. I recommend it as essential reading for Roman history enthusiasts and anyone with an interest in religious history. It is not that I agree with everything, but the author has many valid points to make.

Exposes the reasons for the intellectual decline after the end of the Roman Empire but too antagonistic to Christian belief. The brain does not always become inactive when someone receives faith in Jesus Christ, but churches as institutions have greatly opposed science unless it is some concept they can "use" such as the "Big Bang Theory".

The mind is like a parachute: if it is not open, it will not work well.
(Not a very new wisecrack, but I just happened to hear it again in a lecture by a public speaking coach.)

Key words of the book are faith and reason, the pair of opposites in the subtitle. These opposites don't attract. Faith has other opposites: disbelief comes to mind. Is there a place for faith when reason rules? Or for reason when faith rules? Historically, reason has rarely been strong (and has its own inborn ambiguities, contradictions, and tendencies for self-destruction). Faith is strong when minds are closed. The word has a large palette of meaning. In some views, `faith' seems to be venerable and deserving of respect in itself, whatever its contents. One could just as well take the opposite stand and reject `faith' as a mental attitude altogether, unless it is purely meant in the sense of confidence or trust or conviction.
However, in a political and historical context, the necessary test for the nature of faith and openness of mind is tolerance. Alas, there has not been much of that commodity in history. Following the history of the Christian faith and its churches is in many respects a sad affair.

The concept of this book is broader than the title suggests. The title seems to imply an argument for a specific development or observation, while the book is actually a much larger treatise on Christian history.
Before the Western mind is closed, we are explained at length how open the Greek mind had been. Aristotle is seen as the man with the empirical mind, the one who is convinced that theory has to survive practical tests. Plato is the idealist who does not think that he needs to wait for practical verification or falsification. (Freeman is moving on Popperian tracks here.)
We are given a crash course in Greek and Roman history. We also get introductions into Greek philosophy and science, and into the origins of Christianity with Jesus, Paul, and the early communities.
Freeman nails the turning point from reason to faith with Paul, whose writings show strong aversion to reason. He opens the book with an epigram by St. Augustine: curiosity is a disease...
The question that the book would seem to try to answer is: how much closing happened in the church and what damage was done?

The author might have taken some time to explain why he decided to use the term `Western'. The term is not as clear as it may seem. In a simple way, `Western' could mean all that is to the west of Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius. With Islam, it already stops working geographically, apart from the aspect of anachronism. Or is he thinking of the Western part of the Roman empire? Is it meant to refer to the coming schism of the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Catholic Church? Wouldn't a Western mind have to exist before it could be closed?
The book, in my opinion, could start with chapter 9, the one on Paul, without major problems to its structure. Chapters 1 to 8 could be summarized in an introduction. (I am given to armchair editing lately.)

The book is too short for a good coverage of all its subjects, but too long for a crisp argument of its main thesis, that the rise of faith caused a decline of reason. This is easily said and looks plausible. Paul is clear enough about his rejection of philosophy throughout his letters. A practical and plausible demonstration of the consequences would have been useful. Otherwise I can't quite ignore the counterargument that not so much faith closed the mind, but the collapse of the empire did.
I am not saying that the book is not worth the time and effort. It is a valuable introduction to an important period. But I think it could have been done better. This is mainly a matter of management of material and of economics of argument.

How did the shift from reason to faith happen? In a nutshell, the 4th century was critical: Christianity became state sponsored during the reign of emperor Constantine, but this happened in the `east', not the `west'. At the same time, Christianity was internally much stressed by factional disputes about the nature of God and Jesus. The emperor did not appreciate the strife and got involved in definitions. (Julian's observation about the fierceness of Christians against each other comes to mind.)
In a general way, all scripture interpretation was burdened by the multiplicity of sources and positions. Without state authority, no consensus on meaning was possible, unless convincing recourse to revelation from high up was possible. Without consensus, the movement was not helpful to the state. This was the entry ticket to a privileged church living in wealth. Next step was the church assuming authority over the state.
The issues and conflicts that might have torn Christianity apart were not reconcilable on a peaceful rational basis. Out goes reason, in comes authority. Faith looks like obedience.
I am paraphrasing. The arguments are plausible.