Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 29, 2019 at 7:04 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's nice? How about the wonderful folks at creation.com, are they respected thinkers, or more respected thinkers? Probably not, and yet they manage to hit the nail on the head.
Quote:Plato is often termed the father of Western philosophy. His ideas have had a massive impact on the West, including on Christian thinkers, and continue to do so even today. But how indebted is Christianity to Plato? Did Christianity come from Plato’s philosophy? T.S. from Spain writes:
wikipedia.org plato
Plato: copy of portrait bust by Silanion
I´m a student and I´m trying to do a research of philosophy vs Christianity to do a project for my philosophy teacher. He said that Christianity came from Plato’s philosophy (theory of forms). I´m really not agree with that. I would like to know how to refute that. And what articles would be better to share with him from your website. Thank you and God bless.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
Plato’s philosophy was by no means the historical ground from which Christianity sprouted. Historically speaking, Christianity is a form of early Jewish messianism—it was birthed in a 1st century AD Palestinian Jewish milieu in which there was a lot of messianic speculation. Many Jews of the period hoped that the Messiah would come and overthrow the Romans, and establish universal Israelite rule. Jesus came into that context claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, though with a very different agenda than what many Jews were expecting. Of course, to understand any of this, one needs to be familiar with the Old Testament—the creative and sovereign supremacy of the God of Israel, His promise to Israel to make them a nation of priests and a light to the world, and the historical dealings God had with Adam, Noah, and Abraham before that, and David and his royal line after that. In other words, the foundational corpus for understanding the ideological origins of Christianity is not Plato’s dialogues, but the Old Testament. Christianity certainly didn’t start off as a Greek philosophical school of thought.
And since Plato thought disembodiment was the best, he certainly would not have liked the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body!
Nonetheless, in terms of philosophy, Christianity does share some important features with Plato. The New Testament writers believed that we remain conscious after physical death (e.g. Philippians 1:23), as Plato did. The Bible rejects atheism and materialism, as Plato did. Both believed in a supreme beneficent reality. Both believed that the physical universe was designed.
However, there are also important differences. For instance, Christianity is a form of monotheism—the belief that there is one supreme being who is the beneficent source and sovereign of all things. While Plato certainly believed in some sort of ultimate beneficent reality, so that many of his ideas are easily conformable to monotheism, he’s not really clear on the precise nature of that ultimate reality. He had two notions that he never really systematized into a single coherent worldview—his Form of the Good, and his Demiurge. The Form of the Good was the ultimate form for Plato, from which every other form derived its goodness, but it was impersonal. The Demiurge was the ‘craftsman’ who gave shape to the material universe by moulding the matter (which Plato believed to be eternal, which the Bible rejects) after the pattern of the forms. However, his Demiurge was in a real sense ‘subordinate’ to the realm of the forms. Later thinkers identified Plato’s form of the Good with God, and located the other forms in His mind as divine ideas (many early church fathers were champions of this modification of Plato), and others identified the Form of the Good with the ultimate good god, and the Demiurge with a bad, subordinate god who made the physical universe (as the ultimate good god wouldn’t sully himself by using or creating matter)—this was Gnosticism.
Moreover, Plato believed that souls are indestructible, which the New Testament rejects. We are God’s creatures, soul and body, and God has the power to annihilate our souls. We only remain conscious after death because God wills it so, not because He can’t destroy our souls.1 Moreover, Plato’s assessment of the disembodied state is very different from that found in the New Testament. For Plato, being disembodied was the desirable final destination. In the New Testament, being disembodied is a form of nakedness (and thus shame), so the dead await to be re-embodied at the final resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:4–10). This is why the disembodied state of a dead person is called the intermediate state. And since Plato thought disembodiment was the best, he certainly would not have liked the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body! For more on this, please see Soulless humans?
Nonetheless, early Christians certainly utilized some of Plato’s ideas, such as his theory of the forms, to construct defences of Christianity against competing philosophies. However, Platonism was one of those philosophies that competed with Christianity in the early centuries of the church. As such, the early church fathers almost always modified Platonic ideas in light of the data of Scripture.
As such, in many ways, Plato was on the right track, but the specifics of biblical theism he didn’t have access to better explain many of the things he ‘saw as through a glass darkly’.
For instance, Plato’s theory of the forms, and especially his notion of the Form of the Good, were ‘rolled together’ into the mind of the God of Scripture. This meant God himself played the role that Plato’s Form of the Good played in his philosophy. Moreover, Plato’s forms were reconceptualized by Christians as divine ideas, which internalized them into God, meaning that they didn’t have a separate and independent existence apart from God.
Now, the big difference between Christianity and Plato at this point was that Plato’s Form of the Good was an impersonal object, but God is personal. But this also provided Christianity with several advantages. For instance, Plato’s realm of distinct forms could all be internalized into God as His ideas, making ultimate reality much simpler. God’s personhood also means that God, unlike the Form of the Good, can act and create, and even create from nothing. This does away with the need for eternal matter, so that time, space, matter, and the forms are all ultimately dependent on God, whether as His thoughts (the forms) or His creations (space, time, and matter). It also means that Plato’s Demiurge is a superfluous concept; a poor substitute for the God who makes all things from nothing. As such, in many ways, Plato was on the right track, but the specifics of biblical theism he didn’t have access to better explain many of the things he ‘saw as through a glass darkly’.
Christianity has a long and interesting interaction with platonic ideas; sometimes fruitful, many times detrimental. But the true ideological grounds for Christianity are not to be found in Plato; they are found in the Old Testament.
If you Google around enough you can find pretty much anything.
I don't have a high opinion of people who call themselves creationists. As I pointed out at the beginning of this conversation, I am talking about non-literalist non-sola scriptura Christians.
January 29, 2019 at 7:19 pm (This post was last modified: January 29, 2019 at 7:25 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 29, 2019 at 7:15 pm)Belaqua Wrote:
(January 29, 2019 at 7:04 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's nice? How about the wonderful folks at creation.com, are they respected thinkers, or more respected thinkers? Probably not, and yet they manage to hit the nail on the head.
If you Google around enough you can find pretty much anything.
Indeed.
Quote:I don't have a high opinion of people who call themselves creationists. As I pointed out at the beginning of this conversation, I am talking about non-literalist non-sola scriptura Christians.
Neither do I, but they showed their work, and got the right of it.
Now, they obviously weren't going to say "and then those particular christians went full-on disingenuous exploitation of a wildly divergent god-concept"..but that's what they did. The long and short is that in no way is the christian god...nothing to do with sola scriptura or whatever....the platonic god. Classical philosophy was simply perceived to have great intellectual weight, and so..was coopted for the new god.
Mind, I don't think that you, in expressing the sentiment, are being disingenuous, more that the intervening centuries have scrubbed that initial relationship. They've been saying it for a long time, and saying it often.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(January 29, 2019 at 7:19 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: The long and short is that in no way is the christian god...nothing to do with sola scriptura or whatever....the platonic god.
I understand that you believe this. No doubt it's true of the Christians you're familiar with.
January 29, 2019 at 8:23 pm (This post was last modified: January 29, 2019 at 8:29 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The christians I'm referring to have been dead for centuries, Bel.
The christians I'm familiar with are not those christians who've been dead for centuries. The christians I'm familiar with don't even have the first clue who plato was or why it is or isn't relevant to their religion, lol. Those christians, are irrelevant to the issue of a piece of historic trivia that I've already told you I have no interest in debating. That the god contained in and described by plato is not the god contained in or described by -any- christian dogma. It doesn;t matter who or how many people have claimed that it was throughout time or what christians I'm most familiar with, or who or how many people have souught to draw a line from the one to the other. The simple fact of the contents of the respective works is that they are not describing the same concept.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
January 30, 2019 at 3:33 am (This post was last modified: January 30, 2019 at 3:35 am by Belacqua.)
(January 29, 2019 at 8:23 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: The christians I'm referring to have been dead for centuries, Bel.
The christians I'm familiar with are not those christians who've been dead for centuries. The christians I'm familiar with don't even have the first clue who plato was or why it is or isn't relevant to their religion, lol. Those christians, are irrelevant to the issue of a piece of historic trivia that I've already told you I have no interest in debating. That the god contained in and described by plato is not the god contained in or described by -any- christian dogma. It doesn;t matter who or how many people have claimed that it was throughout time or what christians I'm most familiar with, or who or how many people have souught to draw a line from the one to the other. The simple fact of the contents of the respective works is that they are not describing the same concept.
It occurs to me that your idea of the Christian God may be derived from descriptions given by Christianity's opponents. Certainly Dawkins and Hitchens and those guys describe God as something like the Platonic demiurge. This is why people educated in the field find their criticism irrelevant. In his latest book, Seven Types of Atheism, John Gray calls them entertainers, which is a fair judgment.
It's sad, because those "new atheist" types ignore Popper's wise advice to engage with your opponent's position at its strongest point. By hitting the low-hanging fruit and then declaring victory, these entertainers damage public understanding.
To get past their over-simple understanding, there are a couple of entry-level books. David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies explains in clear language why the demiurgic view of God is wrong. Terry Eagleton's Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate covers some of the same ground, in a light-hearted way.
Once the ground has been cleared, more scholarly works to describe the near-Platonic view of the Christian God include Christian Moevs' The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy, Jaroslav Pelikan's Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism, or Edward Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. (This latter one is more Aristotelian than Platonic, but shows the difference from the simple-minded demiurgic view.)
A succinct listing of the differences between Christianity and Neoplatonic philosophy is available in R.T. Wallis, Neoplatonism.
All of these books will be useful in pointing you to primary sources. If you're interested in the field, you'll eventually want to read Augustine, etc.
As always, I know that the rank and file Christians in your neighborhood have probably not read these things. This does not give anybody the right to declare that real Christianity is unlike what these books describe. There are many views within what is called Christianity, and it isn't fair to dismiss them all together.
January 30, 2019 at 5:50 pm (This post was last modified: January 30, 2019 at 6:08 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 30, 2019 at 3:33 am)Belaqua Wrote: It occurs to me that your idea of the Christian God may be derived from descriptions given by Christianity's opponents.
You'd be wrong. By brute force of demographics almost anything I have to say on the subject of christianity was initially expressed by a christian...though it's certainly a fact that christianity has no greater opposition than...christians.
Never read dawkins, and I didn't read anything by hitchens for anything other than entertainment, lol. He was very entertaining.
I dismissed your claim that the platonic god concept was the christian god concept, that depending on a particular shaman they were nearly indistinguishable. They are not, regardless of ones shaman. I dismissed it because it simply isn't true.
So..you know, contain yourself.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
January 31, 2019 at 5:49 am (This post was last modified: January 31, 2019 at 5:49 am by Belacqua.)
(January 30, 2019 at 5:50 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I dismissed your claim that the platonic god concept was the christian god concept, that depending on a particular shaman they were nearly indistinguishable. They are not, regardless of ones shaman. I dismissed it because it simply isn't true.
There are of course differences between what non-Christian Platonists and Christians say about the Form of the Good. Non-Christian Platonists of course deny that the Good could ever incarnate as a person. Then there are differences about, for example, whether the world has a temporal beginning, though you'll know from Augustine that this difference can be reconciled.
At any rate, the books I pointed you to will make it clear that the Christian God is nothing like the Platonic demiurge, and far more like the impassible Good which the Platonists describe, in the minds of the theologians. I understand that you are basing your version on what you've heard from Christians. Again, if you'd like to read the version that Augustine and the other theologians believe in, including Dante, the texts I named will get you started.
Bel, you're still running with the idea that I'm getting my intel from Cletus and am unfamiliar with augustine. Neither of these two assumptions are accurate.
Platos form of the good and the christian god concept (any theistic god, in truth) are fundamentally incompatible. This, ofc, has never stopped christian theologians from pulling a texas sharpshooter. Pointing to examples of that like augustine isn't going to modify or correct my understanding of the nature of the relationship between platonism and traditional theism.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
