Aristotle believed that everything has a cause. He saw four different explanations for thing being the way they are:1. The material cause-the material or matter than the thing is made of-the bronze of the statue.2. The efficient cause

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Aristotle believed that everything has a cause. He saw four different explanations for thing being the way they are:

The material cause-the material or matter than the thing is made of-the bronze of the statue.
The efficient cause- the agent that brings the thing about- the sculptor of the statue
The formal cause-the model or idea that the statue conforms to-the pattern that the sculptor followed.
The final cause-the reason for the thing- its purpose-the reason the sculptor carved the statue.

Aristotle therefore defines an object not just in terms of the stuff that it is made of. In particular, he defines an object in terms of its purpose. Telos means ‘end’ or ‘goal’. Aristotle shared a belief with many other Greek philosophers. He believed that everything was subject to change. A near contemporary had said “you never step into the same river twice” called Heraclitus. Aristotle agreed with this, that everything is subject to change. This change is caused by something. Aristotle thought that everything is ‘on the move’ and move through the stages of quality of position and of condition. Things are getting darker, lighter, wetter, drier, hotter, cooler, here there and so on. Aristotle believed that something causes this motion. Aristotle thought that there was a chain of ‘causers’ stretching back to something that caused motion, but remains unmoved itself. Aristotle called this the Prime Mover. However, Aristotle isn’t making the unmoved Mover a bit like the bloke that blows the whistle to start a football match. Aristotle believed that change is eternal, there cannot have been a first ‘change’ without some event to have happened just before the change. Aristotle calls the source of all movement and change the Prime Mover. This Mover is the first of all substances, but not in the same way as the sculptor is the ‘cause’ of the sculpture. The sculptor is the Efficient Cause of the statue and he is the means by which the statue comes into being. The prime mover is not the Efficient cause of the change, rather the Prime Mover is the purpose or reason for motion. Aristotle believed that the Prime Mover was The Final cause. There is a problem with calling this final cause ‘God’ as how can ‘God’ be the Efficient cause of movement because the act of moving required a change in the mover. God cannot be changed if He is to remain the Unmoved Mover. Rather, the Prime Mover causes movement by being the Object of desire and love for the World. The Prime Mover causes movement not through ‘pushing’, but by inspiring or attracting movement. The Prime Mover attracts the movers and it’s the final goal or purpose towards which all material things move towards. This prime Mover could not be made of anything physical. ‘Stuff’ in the material world is subject to change and decay, and the Prime Mover cannot be subject to change. Instead, Aristotle believed that the Prime Mover is immaterial. Instead, Aristotle argued that the Prime Mover is made of spiritual energy. God’s activity Is ‘pure thought’. God is occupied with thinking about the highest thought that can be thought which is God himself. This would mean that God is unaffected by the physical world, and utterly removed from it. He is completely transcendent and separate from the world.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Plato has argued that the soul was the driver of the body-the force that animates the human being. The soul is the person’s identity-the body is more like the dwelling of the soul. Aristotle took a more materiality view of the soul and the body. He believed that the body was the ‘stuff’ that a person was made of. The soul is the person’s ‘form’. The soul is more than just an animating spirit. It is more than simply the mind. The “soul” is the pattern of humanity that the person conforms to. Each “soul” includes the unique form of each unique person. For Aristotle, the soul is the complete package of a human being, not simply the spark that makes it go. It the sum total of a thing, including its function and purpose. Considering a set of carpenter’s tools, the thing that makes the axe different to the hammer. Both are made from a wooden handle and a metal head attached. If the axe were a living thing, then its “body” is the wood and metal that it is made of. The “soul” of the axe is its ability to chop through wood. The soul is not separate from the body. It is a basic part of it, and does not live on after death. However, Aristotle believed that reason is associated with the pure thought of the Prime Mover. The prime Mover is eternal and infinite. In this way, it is possible to think of the reason of a person living on after their death, but not in any recognisably individual form. But Aristotle argued that there was no evidence for Plato’s belief in the World of the Idea. Is there any evidence for Aristotle’s contention that true knowledge is established in the material world? Aristotle believed that everything has a final cause. However, Bertrand Russell argued that “the universe is just there, and that’s that”. Sigmund Freud argued that our perception of order and purpose in the universe is simply “wishful thinking”.

Aristotle and the form

Aristotle was Plato’s student. Plato had argued that a person has prior knowledge of the physical world through knowledge of the world of the form. Aristotle argued that there was no concrete evidence for Plato’s claim. Instead Aristotle argued that knowledge of the form of a thing came from experience. However there is no direct evidence for Aristotle’s claims either. He argues that we can have true knowledge only through direct sense experience. Empiricists believe that the world is knowable through sense experience and rationalists believe that reason (without the support of external experience) is the only way to acquire knowledge. Aristotle is an empiricist. He believes that knowledge is a posterior. However, the History of Philosophy id littered with battles between Rationalists and Empiricists. While Aristotle may have a point about Plato’s theory about Forms, there are many different claims about knowledge. Aristotle criticises Plato for failing to support his belief in the “Realm of Forms” with evidence. However Aristotle doesn’t provide concrete evidence for believing that this material world is the source of true knowledge. Religious believers may argue that revelation from God is a source of true knowledge and understanding. Aristotle assumes that everything in nature does so for a reason and has a “final cause”. He also believes that the universe as a whole has a purpose or reason. But does it? A more favourable view is the 20th century is that the universe is entirely random and has no overall purpose. Bertrains Russell argued there was no reason or design in the universe at all. He described the universe as ‘gratuitous’ and said ‘I should say that the universe is just there and that’s all.’ Sigmund freud argued that our perception of order and purpose in the universe is simply ‘wishful thinking’ by humanity who want to feel the important and purposeful. French author, Albert Camus described the universe as ‘absurd’. Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover is problematic. For Christians this is not their idea of “God”! The Prime Mover does not do anything! He is completely separate from the world, has no interest in the world of the people in it. The Prime Mover cannot answer prayers or act in the world. There is no way this “God” can have a relationship with individuals. The Prime Mover’s nature as “Pure thought” seems to contradict Aristotle’s empirical view of the world, where he asserts that true knowledge is gained from studying the material world. How can study of the world around us provide knowledge of the Prime Mover?

Aristotle’s theory of the Prime Mover is impossible for Christians to accept by it has influenced their ideas about the ‘Christian God’, particularly the idea that God is unchanging and exists eternally beyond space and time. In my opinion Aristotle uses the idea of the Prime Mover as an explanation for purpose in the universe. It also allows him to ‘elevate’ (thinking) to a divine status, this is what the Prime Mover does! The Prime Mover and the Final Cause (everything has an ultimate purpose) are the areas of Aristotle’s theory that provoke the most criticism.