Student Post: Kaganzi Lester

KAGANZI LESTER
LAW AND CHRISTIAN POLTICAL THOUGHT
Wednesday 04/02/2009

QN: Do you agree with the use of Aristotelian thought by Christian philosophers? Are there any advantages or disadvantages that you can discern based on your readings?

Yes I agree with the use of Aristotelian thought by Christian philosophers. I particularly find that, Aristotle’s regard for the world as made up of individuals occurring in fixed natural kinds; each with an in-built specific pattern of development and growth towards proper self-realization as a true specimen of its type, ties in befittingly well with the Christian doctrine of intelligent design thus by implication making proof of an all powerful, all knowing, loving and limitless Christian God, a mere logical conclusion.

The notion of causality, as introduced by Aristotle demands for a balance between the empirical claims based on observation and sense experience, and formalism based on rational deduction. This appropriately balanced position strengthens the Christian doctrine of higher purpose and scriptural claims like, `all creation is ordered for the sole reason of worship of God. In this empirical climate, ideas like these are guaranteed to flourish as opposed to formalism.

I also particularly like and agree with the position of Aristotle when he contends that the “four causes” of; `matter cause’, ` efficient cause’, `formal cause’, and `final cause’; provide for better understanding of nature, man and everything around us. This approach of appreciation of nature, coupled with the pursuit of virtue, together with causality, provide a very realistic and inspirational grounding of thought which is by far more compatible with Christian doctrines of God’s purpose for man before and after the fall, right through the patriarchs and all the way to Jesus Christ and how he is the center of all scripture.

I would also like to point out the Aristotelian thought of the community or polis being greater than the individual as going a long way in fostering sacrifice, servant leadership and the idea of a higher calling; all of which are central to Christianity.
It is therefore no wonder that Aquinas managed to marry the two, Aristotelian thought and Christian doctrine, thereby fulfilling his teacher’s prophecy of “the ox will fill the world with his bellowing”. Even exceedingly so!

In my opinion Aristotelian thought is by far the most practical and thus more real philosophy on offer at the time, and that being so, semi-detached Augustinian philosophies really had no chance against it. And they befittingly were cast aside.
I think that Christian doctrines are more profoundly evident when examined empirically, thus a theme like all nature and the universe is created by one supreme being are evidenced by the obvious intelligent design and causality ripple effect. Other themes like the struggle for moral virtue cut across the two sides.

However Aristotelian thought imports certain weaknesses into the Christian philosophy; an example being the blatant ignoring of the creation story and the obvious disparities in the existence of other communities other than Adam’s descendants, which have haunted the church for long and this can partly be blamed on Aristotle’s ignoring of the subject.
I find Aristotle’s thoughts apologetic in nature when introduced in the religious sphere by Aquinas, to the extent that the Christian faith is viewed very suspiciously by other faiths.

Ideas like the sanction of slavery, dominion and killing a tyrant leader as solutions to the various relevant problems is not Christian-like and thus is a deviation from Christian doctrines and problematic at best.

Lastly I will point out that admitting inequality as natural is at variance with Christian philosophy.

In conclusion therefore, I would like to emphasize that the weaknesses notwithstanding, Aristotelian thought is by far the best philosophy for Christian philosophers as evidenced by the influence and popularity of Aquinas as one who excelled by integrating the two sides and succeeding at that.