Aristotle referred to the idea of the gods as being ''the unmoved mover''. His concept of the gods was largely empty of the kind of religious doctrines that are usually associated with religion. He saw the divine as existing outside the world, supplying the efficient cause of the universe. In this sense, Artistotle, like his teacher Plato, was a dualist.
Aristotle was not interested in seeing the gods as the source of love, mercy, justice, compassion, forgiveness, redemption or any of the other attributes religion looks for in its deities. He was purely concerned with attributing to the gods the metaphysical explanation of the efficient cause and progress of the universe itself. In this sense, Artistotle believed in the gods (or God, if you want to Christianise his arguments like St Thomas Aquinas) only as the Prime Mover of the universe; as deities requiring worship, they were without value or importance to him. For Aristotle, this kind of study of the gods (call it theology, if you will) was a theoretical science of limited importance or value.
You could say that Aristotle's god is a metaphysical idea and acts only as an explanation of the universe and nothing more.
2007-11-24 17:25:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by chris m 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Aristotle lived in a atime of Pantheism in Greece, but he also developed a particular philosophy that was at odds with that pantheism (no free will hence the term Fates, at the whim of the gods).
"Many of Aristotle's ideas are outmoded today. But far more important than any of his individual theories is the rational approach underlying his work. Implicit in Aristotle's writings is the attitude that every aspect of human life and society may be an appropriate object of thought and analysis; the notion that the universe is not controlled by blind chance, by magic, or by the whims of capricious deities, but that its behavior is subject to rational laws; the belief that it is worthwhile for human beings to conduct a systematic inquiry into every aspect of the natural world; and the conviction that we should utilize both empirical observations and logical reasoning in forming our conclusions. This set of attitudes--which is contrary to traditionalism, superstition, and mysticism--has profoundly influenced Western civilization.
2007-11-24 17:25:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anna P 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/avWTp
First, the existence of Aristotle has nothing to do with the existence of Jesus. It's just a red herring. There is extensive reliable evidence for Aristotle, including copies of his writings and writings about him, done while he was alive. None of this exists for Jesus, and I note that you didn't even try to present any. Here's the long answer, which is needed to cover all bases. All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, and the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the time. The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth cobbled together out of prophesy and stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming. Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past. If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:16) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8. If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark. If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples. Therefore Jesus didn't exist. The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Dionysus, Mithra, and Horus). Some early Christians attributed this to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity. Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo, Helios, and Sol Invictus -- whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.” There were more than a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths -- Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus. Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine. For much more evidence, see the links. -
2016-04-07 05:45:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋