Although physics may have been the first science in a practical sense, for Aristotle, it was not the highest science. Aristotle reserved this honor for metaphysics, or what he called theology, which is the study of being as being. Even so, Aristotle’s method would not allow one to engage in idle mystical speculation. He insisted that one could only know of that which is beyond our immediate awareness by studying that which is immediate, that is, the physical world. Aristotle’s pedagogical epistemology required that “one must start from that which is barely knowable but knowable to oneself, and try to know what is knowable without qualification, passing…by way of those very things which one does know” (Metaphysics, 1029b 10-13).

For example, it is through a study of motion and change in the physical world that we conclude that material causes cannot be infinite and that there must therefore be a first mover that is immaterial and unchanging. It is through reflection upon the uniqueness of human intellection and abstraction that we discover that mental processes must be non-emergent and immaterial since such processes do not involve change or motion.

Finally, it is by means of consideration of the form or the essence of a living material substance that we realize that its form cannot itself be matter, because the form is the actualizing principle of the matter, delineating what it is. Consequently, by studying the physical objects of this world, we can extrapolate to the world of the immaterial. In fact, this is the only means by which we can claim any knowledge of an immaterial realm, since that realm does not immediately present its objects to us. Only the physical world is at our immediate disposal, since it is for knowledge of this world that our minds are fashioned. Therefore, by applying ourselves to the first science of physics, we become aware of a higher reality that justifies our pursuit of the highest science of metaphysics.

Is there a payoff for a Christian in Aristotle’s thought? One might be disappointed with the apparent absence of a revelatory component in Aristotle’s view of knowledge, and draw more naturally toward Plato on this account. Do we not know the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in an exemplary manner by means of God’s direct communication to us? Nonetheless, we must keep in mind that Aristotle was not necessarily denying some element of revelation in his theory. He was a scientist, strictly submitting himself to a method that yielded truth about the natural world, since this was the world immediately before us. If there were a world beyond, then he was confident that we could encounter a glimpse of it by being faithful to an empirical and abstractive scientific method.

In this sense, he was remarkably consistent with Romans 1:20, in which the Apostle Paul asserts that God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” Paul insisted that God had revealed certain things about himself that one could ascertain by empirical observation of the natural world. Aristotle, in his own way, said no less than Paul did. Just as Paul recognized the benefits of creation in acquiring knowledge of the divine, so did Aristotle see knowledge of the natural world as the preliminary pathway to knowledge of another world beyond it. Therefore, Aristotle, as much as Paul, is our ally as we seek to formulate and communicate the rational basis for the Christian worldview.

So who was right, Plato or Aristotle? Actually, integrating the thought of these two great philosophers with Christianity is not a matter of either/or, but both/and. Plato rightly perceived that sensible objects required a higher principle in order to explain their natures, while Aristotle rightly perceived that this principle of intelligibility somehow adhered within the objects themselves. Plato pondered the source, discerning that it had to be a transcendent and unblemished efficient cause of whatever intelligibility one could recognize in corrupt, physical objects. Aristotle saw the product, identifying a universal essence, a real principle of potentiality immanent within each individual, accounting for its inherent intelligibility, and pressing outward toward an ultimate purpose, a final cause.

Hence, we need a merging of these two giants to get the full picture. Aristotle frees us to investigate the natural world and to draw knowledge from it. Plato frees us to embrace our intuitive sense of the real existence of transcendent truths and ideal standards that seem to be only imperfectly exemplified in the natural world. If we find ourselves, on the one hand, curious about the material world around us, and yet, on the other hand, equally curious about where it all came from, perhaps we have been internally hardwired with an element that enables us to satisfy this dual curiosity. The Scriptures call this element the image of God in man. By virtue of this image, we are hungry for understanding of both the Creator and his creation, and enjoy, by the Creator’s grace, the innate capacity to pursue and to attain knowledge of both.

Blessings,

Arnie Gentile