Early Christian Attitudes Toward Nature PDF

EARLY CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURE (Ferngren p. 37) Introduction: The early Christian church has often been portrayed as a fountainhead of antirationalistic and antiscientific sentiment, and one of the agents responsible for propelling Europe into what are popularly referred to as the Dark Ages...

EARLY CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURE (Ferngren p. 37) Introduction: The early Christian church has often been portrayed as a fountainhead of antirationalistic and antiscientific sentiment, and one of the agents responsible for propelling Europe into what are popularly referred to as the Dark Ages. This portrayal has been achieved in large part through selective quotation and, especially, by the choice of the church father Tertullian as representative of early Christian attitudes to science. The historical reality was a great deal more complicated and much more interesting. When we speak of Christian attitudes toward nature, we are referring to the attitudes of a small highly educated Christian1 elite. This elite emerged during the 2nd and 3rd2 centuries AD as educated Christians3, attempting to come to terms with Greek and Roman intellectual culture, entered into dialogue with pagans on critical philosophical and theological issues. In the course of this dialogue they took important steps toward the definition, refinement, and defense of the fundamentals of Christian belief and practice. Many who belonged to this Christian intelligentsia (they are conventionally called ‘fathers4’ or in the 2nd century, ‘apologists.’ The period in which the fathers/apologists ‘fathers’5 wrote is called the ‘patristic age’). These Fathers had been the recipients of a pagan literary, rhetorical, and philosophical education before their conversion to Christianity, and inevitably they brought with them attitudes and ideals that they acquired in the 1 Apostolic Fathers (1st-2nd centuries AD): (Gemini)  Believed to have known the Apostles personally or been influenced by them.  Their writings weren't included in the New Testament but were important in early Christianity.  Clement of Rome (c. 35 – c. 99 AD)  Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 110 AD)  Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155 AD)  Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 130 AD)  Quadratus of Athens (died c. 129 AD)  Hermas (c. mid-2nd century AD)  Didache (1st century AD) – Anonymous document 2 This would be the years 100-199 AD and 200-299 AD, respectively. 3 Ante-Nicene Fathers (2nd-3rd centuries AD): (Gemini)  Lived before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which established key Christian doctrines.  Focused on defending Christianity against paganism and developing Christian theology.  Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165 AD)  Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 – c. 202 AD)  Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155 – c. 222 AD)  Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD)  Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 249 AD)  Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 254 AD)  Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 – c. 258 AD) 4 Focused on defending Christianity against paganism and developing Christian theology. (Gemini) 5 The Church Fathers are a group of influential theologians, bishops, and scholars whose writings significantly shaped Christian doctrine in the early centuries of the Church. They are revered for their role in defending, expounding, and developing Catholic doctrines during a formative period of the Church. The era of the Church Fathers, known as the Patristic period, is generally considered to have lasted from the end of the 1st century to the middle of the 8th century (Perplexity) schools of Greek and Rome. Although they frequently turned against significant portion of the content learned in their prior educational experience, especially where it touch upon theological issues, they had absorbed the broad intellectual values and methods of this pagan schooling too deeply to abandon them easily. The early church as often been portrayed as a haven of anti-intellectualism and evidence to this affect is not hard to find. Tertullian (c. 160-c.220)6, who frequently expressed this sentiment, elaborated these thoughts in a celebrated passage: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem” “What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians: … Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith we desire no further belief. For once we believe this, there is nothing else that we ought to believe.”7 Denunciations of Greek philosophy for its vanity, its contradictions, its occupation with the trivial and disregard for the consequential, and its instigation of heresy became standard, almost formulaic, elements in the works of Tertullian and other early Christian writers. But to stop here would be to present an incomplete and highly misleading picture. The very writers who denounced Greek philosophy also employed its methods and incorporated parts of its content into their own systems of thought. In the battle for the minds of the educated, Christian apologists had no alternative but to meet pagan intellectuals on their own ground from Justin Martyr to St. Augustine and beyond, Christian scholars allied themselves with Greek philosophical traditions that they considered congenial to Christian thought. Chief among these traditions was Platonism or Neoplatonism8, but they also borrowed from Stoic, Aristotelian, and 6 An early Christian apologist from Carthage, first to use the term "Trinity." (Chatgpt) Tertullian 1986, 246b, with minor revision 8 Platonism and Neoplatonism have historically found a congenial ally in Christian thought through various philosophical and theological affinities. These alignments are both explicit, where Christian writers and theologians have directly incorporated Platonic and Neoplatonic concepts into their works, and implicit, where the underlying metaphysical and epistemological principles align closely with Christian dogma. Here are several ways in which these alignments manifest: Metaphysics and the Theory of Forms  Theory of Forms: Platonism's Theory of Forms, which posits that the material world is only a shadow of a more real world of immaterial forms or ideas, resonated with Christian notions of the eternal soul and the heavenly realm. The Platonic idea that true knowledge involves recollection of these forms parallels Christian views on divine illumination and revelation. The Good, the One, and God  The Good and the One: Neoplatonism, particularly through the work of Plotinus, conceived of "The One" or "The Good" as the ultimate principle of reality, from which emanates the Nous (Divine Mind) and the World Soul. This concept aligned with Christian monotheism and the idea of God as the ultimate source of all being and goodness. Emanation and Creation  Emanation vs. Creation: While the Neoplatonic model of emanation (the idea that all existence flows down from The One in a graded hierarchy of being) differs from the Christian concept of creation ex nihilo 7 Neo-Pythagorean philosophy. Even the denunciations that issued from Christian pens, whether of specific philosophical potions or of philosophy generally, often reflected an impressive command of the Greek philosophical tradition. THE CHURCH FATHERS AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHY – but where and how did science enter the picture? In the first place, we must understand that there was no activity and no body of knowledge during the patristic period that bore a close resemblance to modern science. However, there were beliefs about nature: about the origins and structure of the cosmos (universe), the motions of celestial bodies, the elements, sickness and health, the explanation of dramatic natural phenomena (thunder, lightning, eclipse, and the like), and the relationship between the cosmos and the gods. These are the ingredients of what would develop centuries later into modern science, and if we are interested in the origin of Western science, they are what we must investigate. But in the classical world they fell under the rubric9 of ‘natural philosophy’ (what we would call “science”). Among come Christian writers we find expressions of antagonism toward natural philosophy, just as we do toward philosophy in general. Tertullian, for example, attacked the pagan philosophers for their assignment of divinity to the elements and the sun, moon, other planets, and stars. In the course of his argument, he writes disparagingly of the vanity of the ancient philosophers: “Now pray tell me, what wisdom is there in this hankering after conjectural speculation: what proof is afforded to us … by the useless affectation of a scrupulous curiosity, which is tricked out with an artful show of language: it therefore served Thales of Miletus quiet right, when, stargazing as he walked, … he had the mortification of falling (creation out of nothing), early Christian thinkers like Augustine found ways to reconcile these views. They saw emanation as a metaphor for the ordered, hierarchical nature of God's creation. Logos  Logos: The concept of the Logos in both Stoicism and Platonic philosophy, which refers to the divine reason or order that structures the cosmos, was directly adopted into Christian theology. John’s Gospel begins with the identification of Christ as the Logos, indicating the harmonization of Greek philosophical concepts with the Christian understanding of Jesus as the divine Word or Reason made flesh. Virtue Ethics  Virtue Ethics: The Platonic and Neoplatonic emphasis on virtue ethics, focusing on the cultivation of virtues and the health of the soul, found a parallel in Christian moral teaching. The development of the self towards the good and the emphasis on inner transformation are key themes in both traditions. Ascetic Practices  Asceticism: The Neoplatonic practice of asceticism, aimed at purifying the soul and ascending the intellect towards the contemplation of the divine, found a strong resonance in Christian monastic practices. The pursuit of spiritual purity and detachment from worldly desires are central in both contexts. Mystical Union  Mysticism: The Neoplatonic pursuit of mystical union with The One echoes in Christian mystical traditions, where the soul's union with God becomes the ultimate goal of spiritual life. This shared emphasis on direct, experiential knowledge of the divine marks a profound point of intersection. These points of alignment allowed Platonism and Neoplatonism to be integrated into Christian thought not just as philosophical underpinnings but as tools for articulating and understanding Christian doctrines and practices. Christian theologians and philosophers, such as Augustine, Origen, and later Aquinas, engaged deeply with these traditions, adopting and adapting Platonic and Neoplatonic concepts to enrich Christian theology. 9 An explanatory or introductory commentary into a well…. His fall, therefore, is a figurative picture of the philosophers; of those, I mean, who persist in applying their studies to a vain purpose, since they indulge a stupid curiosity on natural object: (Tertullian 1986, 133). But it is an argument that Tertullian presents, and to a very significant degree he builds it out of materials and by the use of methods drawn from the Greek philosophical tradition. He argues, for example, that the precise regularity of the orbital motions of the celestial bodies (a clear reference to the findings of the Greek astronomical tradition) bespeaks a “governing power” that rules over them, and, if they are ruled over, they surely cannot be gods. He also introduces the “enlightened view of Plato” to support the claim that the universe must have had a beginning and therefore cannot partake of divinity. In this and other works, he “triumphantly parades” his learning by naming a long list of other ancient authorities (Barnes 1985, 196). Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-79), representing a different century and a different region of the Christian world (Greece), revels similar attitudes toward Greek natural philosophy. He sharply attacks philosophers and astronomers who “have willfully and voluntarily blinded themselves to the knowledge of the truth.” These men, he continues, have “discovered everything, except one thing: they have not discovered the fact that God is the creator of the universe.” Elsewhere he inquires why we should “torment ourselves by refuting the errors or rather the lies of the Greek philosophers, when it is sufficient to produce and compare their mutually contradictory books.” And he attacks belief in transmigration (the movement of a soul into another body after death) of souls by admonishing his listeners to “avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to linen their own soul to the soul of a dog” (Amand de Mendieta 1976, 38, 31, 37). But while attacking the errors of the Greek natural philosophy – and what he didn’t fine erroneous, he generally found useless – Basil also revealed a solid mastery of its content. He argued against Aristotle’s fifth element, the quintessence; he recounted the Stoic theory of cyclic conflagration and regeneration; he ridiculed theories of the eternity and divinity of the cosmos; he applauded those who employed the law of geometry to refute the possibility of multiple worlds (a clear reference to Aristotle’s argument for the uniqueness of the cosmos); he derided the Pythagorean notion of music of the planetary spheres; he proclaimed the vanity of mathematical astronomy; and he revealed familiarity with various opinions about the shape of the earth and calculation of its circumference by those who believed it to be spherical. Tertullian and Basil have generally been portrayed as outsiders to the philosophical tradition, attempting to discredit and destroy what they regarded as a menace to the Christian faith. Certainly much of their rhetoric supports such an interpretation, as when they appealed for simple faith as an alternative to philosophical reasoning. But we need to look beyond rhetoric to actual practice; it is one thing to deride natural philosophy or declare it useless, another to abandon it. Despite their derision, Tertullian, Basil, and other like them were continuously engaged in serious philosophical argumentation. It is no distortion of the evidence to see them as insiders, attempting to formulate an alternative natural philosophy based on Christian principles and opposed not to the enterprise of natural philosophy BUT TO SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES of natural philosophy that they considered both erroneous and dangerous. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO10 – Augustine did not devote himself to the promotion of natural science, but neither did he fear pagan versions of it to the degree that some of his Christian predecessors had. Scattered throughout his voluminous writings are worries about pagan philosophy (including natural philosophy) and admonitions for Christian not to overvalue it in his Enchiridion, he assures his readers that there is no need to be “dismayed if Christians are ignorant about the properties and the number of the basic elements of nature, or about the motion, order, and deviations of the stars, the map of the heavens, the kinds and nature of animals, plants, stones, springs, rivers, and mountains…. For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the cause of all created things … is … the goodness of the Creator” (Augustine 1955, 341-42) In his On Christian Doctrine, he comments on the uselessness of astronomical knowledge; “Although the course of the moon…is known to many, there are only a few who know well the rising or setting or other movements of the rest of the stars without error. Knowledge of this kind in itself, although is not allied with any superstition, is of very little use in the treatment of the divine Scripture and even impedes it through fruitless study; and since it is associated with the most pernicious error of vain [astrological] prediction it is more appropriate and virtuous to condemn it” (Augustine 1976, 65-66). And in his confessions he argues that “because of this disease of curiosity … men proceed to investigate the phenomena of nature,… though this knowledge is of no value to them; for they wish to know simply for the sake of knowing” (Augustine 1942, 201, slightly edited). Knowledge for the sake of knowing is without value and, therefore, illegitimate. But once again, this is not the whole story. Natural philosophy may be without value for its own sake, but from this we are not entitled to conclude that Augustine believed it to be without value. Knowledge of natural phenomena acquires value and legitimacy insofar as it serves other, higher, purposes. One such purpose is biblical exegesis, since ignorance of mathematics, music (conceived as a mathematical art n Augustine’s day), and natural history renders us incapable of grasping the literal sense of scripture. For example, only if we are familiar 10 Post-Nicene Fathers (4th-5th centuries AD): (Gemini)  Flourished after the Council of Nicaea and continued to develop Christian thought.  This era is known as the Golden Age of Church Fathers. o Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 – c. 373 AD) o Basil the Great (c. 329 – c. 379 AD) o Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 – c. 389 AD) o Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395 AD) o Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 348 – c. 386 AD) o Ambrose of Milan (c. 339 – c. 397 AD) o John Chrysostom (c. 347 – c. 407 AD) o Jerome (c. 347 – c. 420 AD) o Augustine of Hippo (c. 354 – c. 430 AD) with serpents will we grasp the meaning of the biblical admonition to “be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16). Augustine also conceded that such topics of pagan knowledge as history, dialectic, mathematics, the mechanical arts, and “teachings that concern the corporeal senses” contribute to the necessities of life (Augustine 1976, 74). Augustine not only authorized the use of natural philosophy in biblical exegesis; he also practiced what he preached. In his Literal Commentary on Genesis, Augustine produced a verseby-verse exposition of the biblical account of creation as it appears in the first three chapters of Genesis. In the course of this work of his mature years, he brought to bear all knowledge that would help to elucidate the meaning of the biblical text, including the Greek tradition of natural philosophy. In so doing, he transmitted to medieval scholars (before the 13th century one of their richest sources of cosmological, physical, and biological knowledge. In his Literal Commentary on Genesis, where he puts his own superb grasp on Greek cosmology and natural philosophy to good use, Augustine expresses dismay at the ignorance of some Christians: Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positons, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian … talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. (Augustine 1982, 1.42-43) Augustine said “if those who are called philosophers, especially the Platonists11, have said things which are indeed true and are well accommodated to our faith, they should not be feared; rather, what they have said should be taken from them as from unjust possessors and convert it to our use.” All truth is ultimately God’s truth, even if found in the books of pagan authors, and we should seize it and use it without hesitation. In Augustine’s view, then, knowledge of the things of this world is not a legitimate end in itself, but as a means to other ends it is indispensable. Since the temporal must be made to serve the eternal, natural philosophy will accept a subordinate position as the handmaiden of theology and religion. Natural philosophy is not to be loved, but it m ay be legitimately used. This attitude toward scientific knowledge was to flourish throughout the Middle Ages and well into the modern period. But does endowing natural philosophy with handmaiden status constitute a blow against scientific progress? Are there critics of the early church right in viewing it as the opponent of genuine science? We need to make three points here. First, it is certainly true that the early 11 A follower of Plato's philosophy or someone who has a similar philosophical approach. church was no great patron of the natural sciences. They had low priority for the church fathers, for whom the major concerns were establishment of Christian doctrine, defense of the faith, and the edification of believers. Second, low priority was far from no priority. Throughout the Middle Ages and well into the modern period, the handmaiden formula was employed countless times to justify the investigation of nature. Indeed, some of the most celebrated achievements of the Western scientific tradition were made by scholars who justified their labors by appeal to the handmaiden formula. Third, there were no institutions or cultural forces during the patristic period that offered more encouragement for the investigation of nature than did the Christian church. Contemporary pagan culture was no more favorable to disinterested speculation about the cosmos that was Christian culture. It is arguable that the presence of the Christian church enhanced, rather than damaged, the prospects for the natural sciences. Yet, popular myths to the contrary remain. It is almost universally held that Europeans of the Roman and medieval periods believed in a flat earth and that biblical literalism had something to do with this belief. The truth is quite otherwise. The sphericity of the earth was proposed by Pythagorean philosophers no later than the 5th century BC. The sphericity of the earth was never seriously doubted after Aristotle, and the earth’s circumference was satisfactorily calculated by Eratosthenes. But what about Christian opinion? The literal interpretation of certain biblical passages did not compel Christians to deny the earth’s sphericity. The shape of the earth was not even a source of controversy during the patristic period, and the evidence is therefore thin. Scholars have been able to discover only two Christian writers of the patristic period who denied the sphericity of the earth: the Latin church father Lacantus and the Byzantine merchant Cosmas Indicopleustes. MEDICINE – Religious cures, including miracle cures, were an important part of Greek and Roman healing. Moreover, belief in sickness as a divine visitation did not rule out simultaneous belief in natural causes. When Christians maintained that disease could be both natural and divine, conceiving natural causes as instruments of divine purpose, they were not breaking new ground, for this was a commonplace of the Greek medical tradition. Belief in the existence of supernatural healing did not prevent Christians from availing themselves simultaneously of secular, naturalistic medicine. Healing by natural means had become part of the general cultural framework in which Christianity arose and spread. Because medicine was, for those who could afford it, the most widely accepted means of healing. Christians were required to define their attitude toward it. That the naturalistic basis of Greek medicine was value-neutral in religious terms made it relatively benign. Its accepted place in the curriculum of general education was a testimony to it cultural authority. While early Christians seem for the most part to have accepted Greek medicine for the healing of disease, one finds nuances in the manner of its reception, as we shall see by examining two important Christian apologists of the 2 nd century, Tertullian and Origen, both of whom have been cited as being opposed to medicine. While neither can be said to have been hostile to medicine, the approach taken by each was somewhat different. It is clear to any reader of his works that Tertullian had studied medicine a good deal, probably as part of his general education. He makes frequent use of medical analogies to illustrate theological and religious concepts. And he cites several medical writers approvingly, most prominently Soranus, a prolific medical writer who penned far more than the Gynecology for which he is best known. Soranus assumed an authority for Tertullian in medical matters that Galen was to have for later Christian writers. Tertullian’s frequent and respectful citation of Soranus is difficult to harmonize with his alleged antipathy toward medicine; more importantly, Tertullian’s works suggest that he had a high regard for both medicine and physicians. Medicine was for him a gift of God. Far from speaking of medicine disparagingly, Tertullian treats it as beneficial to mankind. A somewhat different approach is that of the prolific theologian Origen (c. 185-254). Origen’s view of medicine is also a highly positive one. In asking if all knowledge comes from god, he wonders what knowledge could have greater likelihood of divine origin that medicine, which is, after all, merely the understanding of health (Homily 18 on Numbers 3). God, he writes, provided medical knowledge for mankind, just as he provided herbs and other healing properties (Adnotationes in librum iii regum 15:23).Origen considers medicine “beneficial to mankind” and recommends that Christians employ it for healing. In discussing the use of medicine for healing, however, he distinguishes between two classes of Christians. “A man,” he writes, “ought to use medical means to heal his body if he aims to live in the simple and ordinary way. If he wishes to live in a way superior to that of the multitude, he should do this my devotion to eh supreme God and by praying to Him.” He is here enunciating a principle that came to be adopted by a number of later Christian ascetics – namely, that medicine, however lawful (and indeed efficacious) for all Christians, might freely be renounced by those who seek a closer dependence on God and who look for bodily healing through prayer alone. With that exception one finds among the early fathers no break, but rather a continuity, with classical culture in their appreciation of secular medicine. Medicine (healing by natural means) enjoyed nearly universal recognition in the classical world as a humane art that transcended local cultures and particular ideologies and as such it was readily appropriated by early Christians.