Early Christian Attitudes Toward Nature (F3).pdf

When we speak of Christian attitudes toward nature, we are referring to the attitudes of a small highly educated Christian elite. This elite emerged during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD as educated Christians, attempting to come to terms with Greek and Roman intellectual culture, entered into dialogu...

When we speak of Christian attitudes toward nature, we are referring to the attitudes of a small highly educated Christian elite. This elite emerged during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD as educated Christians, attempting to come to terms with Greek and Roman intellectual culture, entered into dialogue with pagans on critical philosophical and theological issues. Many who belonged to this Christian intelligentsia (they are conventionally called ‘fathers’) or in the 2nd century, ‘apologists.’ The period in which the Fathers/apologists (“Fathers”) 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 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), 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.” 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 Neoplatonism1, but they also borrowed from Stoic, Aristotelian, and 1 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 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, 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. (Transmigration: the movement of a soul into another body after death). Basil applauded those who employed the law of geometry to refute the possibility of multiple worlds. Furthermore, it is one thing to deride natural philosophy or declare it useless, another to abandon it. Despite their derision, Tertullian, Basil, and others 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 HIPPO – Augustine did not devote himself to the promotion of natural  Logos  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 (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: 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. science, but neither did he fear pagan versions of it to the degree that some of his Christian predecessors had. Knowledge for the sake of knowing is without value and, therefore, illegitimate. 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 in Augustine’s day), and natural history renders us incapable of grasping the literal sense of scripture. Augustine said “if those who are called philosophers, especially the Platonists2, 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. First, it is certainly true that the early 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 than was Christian culture. It is arguable that the presence of the Christian church enhanced, rather than damaged, the prospects for the natural sciences. 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 – 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 2nd 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 2 a follower of Plato's philosophy or someone who has a similar philosophical approach. different. 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. 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 by devotion to the 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. 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.