"Except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance." ~ T.S. Eliot in "Burnt Norton"

Sunday, February 3, 2013

The Causes of Being

Aristotle in his day presented the causes of being in part due to an effort to address the reasons for which existence has come about. Aristotle's suggestions entailed four causes: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. The material cause represents that from which a thing is created. The formal cause refers to the pattern by which a thing is created. An example of the formal cause could be the stencil used to create a work of art or the stitching pattern used to knit an article of clothing. The efficient cause is the source or creator of a thing. Lastly is the final cause, which refers to the final cause, considered the purpose of the created thing or the reason for which it was created. 

During our discussion of John Henry Newman's "The Philosophical Temper First Enjoined by the Gospel," we approached a text which was written during a transitional period for the Catholic Church. Newman was one of many Catholic philosophers who accepted the task of studying this concept of evolution in order to better address it and the Catholic approach to it. Newman simultaneously criticized the literalism of some theologians as well as the lack of humility on the part of scientists. Does science fulfill any of the aforementioned causes of being? Does religion?

35 comments:

  1. It’s a difficult task to definitively state if any of Aristotle’s four causes are fulfilled by science or religion. The four causes of being: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause together represent the form from which something was created, the pattern by which something was created, the source or creator of that thing, and the purpose of that created something. In terms of human creation or evolution, these causes are still highly debated between those of scientific and religious background. It’s unclear, if either of these parties will ever come to a unanimous agreement to answer these causes. Thus, as an individual when seeking to answer questions such as these, it is simply a matter of considering propositions of the argument and making a personal choice of belief. There are those to whom the efficient cause would be fulfilled by God, while others may drastically oppose this, instead claiming that efficient cause was fulfilled via the big bang.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gillian, I tend to agree that it's a difficult task to attribute either of the schools of thought to these causes. I think it's true that science has a tendency to approach something from the point of the efficient cause, so to speak. However, I believe that it's certainly not limited to answering only the 'why.' I wonder whether Newman meant to propose that the causes of being are a limit question?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a really interesting idea, Julian. I'm not sure Newman was dealing with anything by efficient cause (as all of science had more or less abandoned thinking about the others, especially final cause, by the time he was writing. Still, it is a really interesting idea to think about the relationship between the four causes and limit questions.

      Delete
  3. I agree with Gillian that it is not a single one of the four causes that define something, but that it is all of the causes together that give something its "being." To some extent, we can say scientifically that somebody's material cause is different organs, cells, etc., but the question becomes much more difficult when determining the material cause of a personality or a soul. I think that people on both sides of the issue can argue their points logically, but when it comes down to it, I don't think that either science or religion can completely fulfill any of the causes of being. There are certain aspects of the causes that science can answer, and certain aspects that it cannot explain. The same goes for religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you bring up the difficulties in thinking about the material cause or a personality or a soul. We'll return to this idea when we discuss human evolution and neurotheology. In thinking about what Julian said above, it is one of the many spaces in which "limit questions" arise.

      Delete
  4. If we are looking for this based on the reasons for why Aristotle came up with his four causes, as you say "[in] an effort to address the reasons for which existence has come about," then we can look existence or being in science and religion in a similar sense. Science would of course breakdown what makes us human to our very foundational components. That is: DNA, cells, organs, bone structure, and the general composition of what a person is. This aspect of science can be argued as the material cause, that which composes us as humans. This alone doesn't answer the question 'why' we exist but more 'how' we exist. Religion wouldn't disagree with this line of thinking but would argue how we came to be the way we are differently; an argument that would branch into a debate about evolution. Religion's material cause, the thing we come from would argue God, but that would then lump the material and efficient causes into one. Science's efficient cause is evolution, a point in this line of thinking where science and religion appear to deviate. The formal cause for each is more difficult to answer. A pattern for which we are created scientifically is universally similar. We all have the same organs, legs, and arms and a brain. These parts function together and work towards sustaining our existence. Religion wouldn't argue with this pattern for creation but would through in that we are made in God's image and likeness, that is to say we are made to emulate his love and forgiveness and to see those same aspects in others. The final cause of others can be broadly defined as an effort to seek out truth, whatever that may be. Religion calls this truth God; we live and exist to reach our end goal which is total oneness communion with the Lord. Science doesn't give a concrete answer as to what truth necessarily is, but asks questions like 'where did we come from,' 'is there anything beyond this world,' 'what is our purpose' 'why?' All of these are questions aimed towards a universal truth. While I may have proposed an argument for each of these causes, my interpretation what you asked may be a bit askew. I believe that the fulfillment of these causes is hard and even my argument may be considered a stretch. Limit questions like 'how' and 'why' are easy to substitute in place of a cause or that the causes themselves limit religion and science. Really this is the best shot I could come up with, even if I steered off course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a very good and thoughtful reply, but I think you are conflating efficient, material, and formal cause. Formal cause is the pattern; material, the stuff a thing is made of. So, in that sense, God cannot really be the material cause of humanity (unless your theology is such that we are all "gods.")Our organs and cells are the material causes of our bodies. As Jeff said above, this gets bit more complicated when we take into account consciousness, minds, and souls. By contrast, religiously a person can say God (or even Aristotle's unmoved mover) is the efficient cause of humanity. Science would say the evolutionary process is the efficient cause. I hope that helps clarify things a bit.

      Delete
  5. In addition to the debate of the efficient cause, science and religion are split on the material cause. In regards to human creation, science claims it all started with the Big Bang theory. That is, 14 billion years ago space expanded very quickly due to an explosion of a very hot and dense mass. Thus, an outward expansion of our universe. Darwin states that we all started as single celled organisms and eventually evolved into humans. Therefore, I suppose you could say we are all made up of the same atoms or cells that we began as; if you believe this view. Of course, there are other theories, but it would take forever to list them all.
    On the other hand, the Bible states, in Genesis 2:7, that God created us from the dust of the ground. So, we have two conflicting views. Nonetheless, both science and religion still fulfill the material cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would this change at all if Genesis 2:7 is not understood literally?

      Delete
  6. Julian's address of the question "why" could be separated into two components and reapplied to the aforementioned question of being.
    In one instance, one might ask "Why am I here?" as a means of discovering how it is that one's existence came into place. This view, which concerns itself with the transition between past and present, lends itself more closely with an empirical or scientific mindset. The same question could be reworded "How is it that I came to be?" Material, Formal ,and Efficient Cause seems to all fall into this category of questioning. Both Science and Religion utilize differing patterns of investigation to answer this ultimate question. Newman's sermon, specifically sections 10 and 11, implies that such questions are part of an "excessive attachment to [scientific] system" and lead to ignorance, jealousy, and elitism - qualities which detach from the Divine rather than seeking to be enlightened.
    On the other hand, the same question could be posed as a means of discovering the purpose of being. In this instance, the focus of the question is on the future, rather than the past. This inquiry may be more appropriate for to the topic of Final Cause, which is itself closely linked with both scientific and Divine revelation. The same question could be reworded "What is it I am charged to do before the End?" Again, both Science and Religion offer differing conjectures based on their varying patterns of tradition and definition of END. To this, Newman offers an intriguing correlation: both Science and Religion seek truth through an earnest organization of inquiry and observation and a common denominator of humility, reason, and [Western European] intellect. As was once quoted in the movie "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" one must ask the right questions in order to discover right answers. Two weeks ago, the second reading related to this question: "For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ." (Romans 12:4-5). Newman's address seems to reflect the same quality - that Religion, Science, and the Divine are both different and interdependent to the revelation of truth and being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very nice response, though I wonder if Newman thinks that asking questions about material, formal, and efficient causes is "excessive attachment to science" as much as the means by which they are answered. What I mean is that I don't think questions are so much the problem for him, but rather an excessive attachment to the scientific method or to the idea of scientific materialism that we have been discussing in class.

      Delete
  7. Science and religion are not able to answer everything about one's existence completely. As Jonathan stated from a scientific perspective one can argue that material cause stems from the Big Bang Theory. We have an intricate framework. The religious perspective, on the other hand, from the creation story in Genesis. I believe it to be a matter of give and take, a compromise between religion AND science

    ReplyDelete
  8. I also find it difficult to specify that science or religion fulfill any of these causes. For instance modern science has tended to move away from formal and final clause (if not having thrown them out the window) and tend to only address efficient cause. We have modern philosophers who believe there is no causality only mere appearance of correlation. And even in efficient and material cause, there are always modifications in technology and in theory that makes it hard to specifically say these causes can be satisfied. Nevertheless I do feel science tries to fulfill efficient and material cause through the scientific method. Lastly modern Scientists would not be interested in final cause because what we do now has barring on the future, not the other way around. As for religion I do agree with some posts above that it does try to get to the bottom of material cause, in terms of our creation. Efficient cause in religion is self-explanatory. So I do find religion trying to fulfill efficient and material cause, with to a lesser extent science trying to do similar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you bring up the idea that modern and contemporary philosophy question that idea of causes at all. We won't be talking about that much in class, but it is a good thing to keep in mind in this discussion.

      Delete
  9. I believe that science can fulfill the four causes, but it will do so in a more literal sense. Scientist will always want to know why and how something existed. They will always want to know the reason behind everything. Whereas a religious person can accept things just the way they are. They are more willing to have faith that sometimes things exist for a higher purpose and that they came about in a special way. I’m not so sure that the two ideas can be easily blended. The best we can do is accept that people have their own beliefs and we can try our best to discover the best path to fulfill our own belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A couple of things here. I am not sure that science always wants to know the reasons behind everything as much as how everything works and how it got here, which is a bit different. Reasons are closer to final cause. In the same way, I am not sure that religious people always "can accept things just they way they are." Remember that St. Anselm coined the phrase "faith seeking understanding," which I think involves asking questions and investigating (seeking) to know more. I don't think that is the same as just accepting things as the appear on the surface.

      Delete
  10. Aristotle is a famous Greek philosopher who has a lot of contributions in science and interest in religions. I think religion fulfilled the four causes of being mentioned above. Most religions have discussed the four causes of being. However, each one of them has different answers. In Islam for instance, human beings were created from two people Adam and Hawwa (Eva). Allah (God) has described in the Quran how Adam was created and how Hawwa (Eva) was created from Adam which represent the material cause. The efficient cause which is the source or the creator in Islam is Allah (God). The final cause which is the purpose of the creation is in Islam to worship God under his conditions. Science, however, could not answer all of the four causes of being like the final cause which is the purpose of the creation and the efficient cause which is the creator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think this is only true of contemporary science? What about medieval science? Was the approach different?

      Delete
  11. I agree with some of the previous posts that neither science nor religion can fulfill all the causes. To me, science fulfills the material causes by explaining what the human body is made of. However, when it comes to questions like "why am I here?" or "what is my purpose in this world", science cannot provide any useful answer. This is when religion comes in. Religion tends to answer this sort of questioning about purpose of living, which fulfills the final cause. A single cause does not provide a complete being. I think it is possible that the causes of being is suggesting a necessary integration between religion and science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to me that the way you are thinking about final cause fits nicely with Julian's idea that the causes can be limit questions. "Why are we here?" and "What is the purpose of humans in the world?" are both classic limit questions.

      Delete
  12. The reason that there is oftentimes conflict when discussing science, religion, and their relatedness is because in many ways they both provide examples of Aristotle's causes. Religion fulfills the material cause because we are concrete material forms living in a world filled with concrete beings. Religion fulfills formal cause because God created us in his likeness to do works that bring us closer to final cause which is a life with God. Efficient cause when it comes to religion deals with the practice of religion, and the movement and choices we make as beings that bring us either further from God or closer to him. The problem lies with the reality that scientific knowledge can also provide examples of Aristotle's causes. In terms of science, human beings are matter, they move towards an end which is death and the recycling of matter back into the earth, and they make movements in life that bring them towards the sustenance of human life and the fulfillment of needs. However, where one side (either science or religion) provides a less satisfying answer, the opposite side has a better and more coherent answer. It is because of this duality that science and religion are oftentimes at odds. Overall however, the argument between science and religion points at dialogue, and where one argument struggles to answer the question the other can fill in the gaps. While I am not advocating for a "God of the gaps" perspective, I am saying that our society needs to blur the lines between science and religion more and open itself to a happy balance and a more fulfilling perspective on tough issues. In conclusion both science and religion answer Aristotle's causes and when working together they provide the clearest answer possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you bring up the idea of the likeness of God as a formal cause. We'll talk more later about whether this is so or not and how the idea of "image and likeness of God" (Imago Dei in Latin) is understood theologically.

      Delete
  13. I think that both science and religion fulfill the four causes of being. The material cause, which is what something is made of can be fulfilled by science. Through science it can be fully known what a person is made of, ie their cells, organs, ect. However religion can also fulfill the material cause of being. This can be argued when the question what really makes a being, is it physical materiel? Or is it the soul that is really the materiel that makes a being? The formal cause is a bit more difficult to relate to science, because their must have been a higher power, that is most in being, to have generated this idea of being. An idea of being could not have come from their own being, because that would have meant it was thinking of itself before it was even created. Next is the efficient cause, this is the source from which being was created. From a scientific perspective the source of being is their biological parents. However religion brings a deeper meaning to this. The source of all being, in religion is that of a higher power. As mentioned before a being cannot be its own source of creation. Lastly the final cause. All humans move towards a final cause, which most were to think was death, however I believe it to be the opposite, life. In a biological life a humans body will always strive for life. However from a religious perspective you can ask yourself what is the final cause of life, or in other words what is the purpose of life. I think that only this answer can be reached though the meaning you find in religion. I think that both religion and science both have a place in fulfilling the four causes of being.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Emily brings up a good question. Is it the soul or physical material that really makes a being. The formal and final cause constitute a being in a religious way. The material and efficient cause in a scientific way. Personally, I see our soul as the formal cause. The soul is a blueprint/framework; it is what makes human beings unique. The final cause (the reason for our existence) is to live the life God intended for each of us, individually. I also see the contemplation of God as the final cause as well - coming to the notion of God. The material and efficient cause being the idea of DNA, cells, etc making up the human body in a physical way. For me, the final and formal cause explain spirituality

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my opinion the science is not able to fulfill the four causes of being. It does a good job in explaining the material cause and the formal cause but efficient and final causes. For example, science can show us what a thing is made of: an atom is made of electrons, neutron and protons; a bottle used to hold water could be considered as a formal cause. Reversely, religion can fulfill the efficient cause and final cause better. The creator or the source of being is God.He is the beginning of everything and reason of everything. With the religion, people can easily find their life's purposes which cannot be reached by science. So, only science itself cannot fulfill the four cases of being and neither does religion. Taking them both, four cases are well perceived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is good, but I think that science also attempts to answer efficient cause, depending on what is being discussed. The efficient cause of a child are its parents, for instance, so in many ways the science of genetics is strongly focused on efficient cause.

      Delete
  16. I feel that both science and religion can satisfy the first three causes (the material, the formal, and the efficient) to some degree, but never the final cause. I will refer to two examples. In the realm of science, one can determine the structure of an substance down to its subatomic particles (material), the way in which these particles arrange themselves to create the substance (formal), and the process by which this substance is created (efficient). Mind you, this cannot be said for all matter, but for quite a bit. In the same way, religion tells us the origin of man in regards to what we were made from (e.g. Woman from the rib of man), what we were made in the image of (God), and our source (also God). However, neither can reveal the true purpose of our existence and the existence of other things.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think another aspect that must be considered is the merger of these two questions. Can both science and religion fill the same causes? Can they integrate or be harmonious in agreement in regards to each of the four causes of being. Something that must be considered, on a more grand scale, is the Five Ways of Existence that originated with Aquinas but which he took much from Aristotle. He used religion as a backbone for the reason and direction that he ultimately went on, the why so to speak. But he aimed to prove the existence through reason. Why do I bring this up you might ask? Well, the Second Way of Aquinas is his argument of God (the First Cause) by using Efficient Causes. In an effort to not be repetitive, I thought it would be interesting to consider this argument. First, there are efficient causes in the world, which we perceive. Nothing exists without an efficient cause. And since we cannot go on to an infinity of efficient causes, there must be some first cause. It is in this way, in which religion must step in and be integrated with science. But I think here is where I differ with some of the prior posters in this blog. It is not a personal choice to decide whether it is God(or some Unmoved Mover as Aristotle calls it) who is the ultimate or first cause versus the big bang. The first cause of all other efficient causes must be some metaphysical being, not purely physical. Therefore, it does seem that it could be JUST the big bang. Who or what then was the cause of the big bang. Here, we would see a continuation of infinite regress which is quite simply impossible. Therefore, to have an answer to one of Aristotle's most important causes, the efficient cause, in the grand scheme of things we must address the possibly of some higher being being the first cause. And I think this definitely relates to an integration on the biggest stage of how religion and science interact and how, at least in this instance, we can use science and religion to come up with a reasonable answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your assertion about science and religion going hand in hand to answer, as you say, the efficient cause. Both have their own proper applications with the causes respectively, and in my opinion, can be correctly applied in that they do not conflict with one another. However, I feel that points like what Nina made mustn't be ignored, because religion and science can only tell us so much about the world that we already know. Hence the question should move from "how" to "why." Truth be told, I don't think there is a real, end-all answer to the latter.

      Delete
    2. Nice job here. I just wanted to point out again that the space that you are talking about (unmoved mover as efficient cause of everything) is the space of natural theology. As we have discussed, Brendan points out that philosophy/science leads to this ultimate question of "What caused the causes?" How that question is answered can depend on religious revelation or faith as we have discussed it. But don't forget the middle space before that question is answered specifically, it is answered generally (the unmoved mover) in the realm of natural theology.

      Delete
  18. There is no definite answer as to whether science or religion fulfill the four causes of being. However, you are able to break it down to a more detailed level and see that there are some similarities and differences between the two. The material, as stated above, it "that from which" or what it is made of. For us humans, I would consider this as something science could answer: we are composed of cells and organs. However, one could also argue that religion could pertain to the material cause in the sense that there is something more physical and deeply rooted in us, i.e. our soul, and that our soul is what we are made of. I believe the formal cause can also be answered by both science and religion. Formal cause is the pattern by which something has come. Therefore, for religion one could say that we come from God's own sketchings. However, from the science point of view, one could say that we have simply evolved over the years and that creation never occurred. Religion easily answers the efficient cause, which is the source of where we come from-God. Science on the other hand will just say that we came from something known as The Big Bang Theory. Final cause is the most difficult to asses. The final cause is defined as "what it is for, the end." The religious view on this is that life has been brought about by god, and all of us are made individually though his own mind and intentions. However, a scientific way of looking at the final cause is that our reason of being here is to reproduce and continue out the cycle of life. In conclusion as you can see, depending on which view point you believe in, science and religion both have sufficient evidence that fulfill Aristotle's four cases of being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how you put this: "For religion one could say that we come from God's own sketchings." Very poetic as I tend to think theology should be :)

      Delete
  19. I believe that neither science or religion can fulfill all of Aristotle's 4 causes. I support Teresa's statements about the similarities and differences between the two. It all comes down to the fact that everything is changing and there has to be something that causes the changes. The religious view is that God is the prime, unmoved mover and science uses the Big Bang theory explanation. They each support Aristotle's causes argument; however, while scientists are continually searching for answers to explain certain phenomenon, the religious view accepts the unknown because of faith in God. There needs to be a prime mover for the universe the function and I'm interested in the why and how question. Does Aristotle believe that the unmoved mover (God) represents an abstract truth?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Both science and religion are able to answer all 4 of Aristotle's causes of being. The reason I say this is because both science and religion are mankind's answer for why and how something is. For example science is able to answer us, or at least come up with hypothesis, about the formal cause and the efficient cause. For the efficient cause it is the Big Bang the one event in which everything that we are and see was created from. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed all matter present today was derived from the Big Bang in at least some way shape or form. The same can be said of the formal cause as science is able to answer how beings such as humans are made and the predictable manner in which we are formed. The material cause is another cause which science is able to answer because if we take a look at a piece of rock we are able to deduce what its different components are made up of and the type of rock it is. the final cause is the one cause in which i believe science has the most difficulty in explaining only because science is not able to tell us what a thing or even a persons final cause is supposed to be because it may change or shift over time. Religion is able to do the same as science in these regards yet do so in a contradicting manner. In religion it is believed that everything is what God made so that he is the efficient cause of everything. Using the same deductive methods are science religion would be able to tell us about the material causes of things and people as well except other than science goes into detail about the soul. The final cause is the cause in which i believe it has a better explanation than science does in the fact that in all religions there is a purpose for every person for God or the religions gods have a divinely preordained purpose for every person whether it be a king or a shoemaker and they are able to say where we go when we die depending on our action here on Earth. So I believe that science and religion are able to give us the 4 causes and explain them yet I believe that science is stronger in the efficient and material causes yet religion has more weight in the final cause and the formal cause is a cause in which both can adequately explain.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In my view of point, religion does a good job in term of explaining 4 of Aristotle's causes of being. but the science only satisfy the first three of them. Let me give an example to explain how I think about this issue.
    Religion said that; we created by GOD(material cause) by a part of GOD's body (formal cause), everything of us is from GOD(efficient cause), and we are created to live, love and help GOD to protect the world
    On the other hands, Science said that: we are from evaluation, beggining at the protozoan and being human now (material cause), atoms including electrons, neutrons, protons are all we have(formal cause), we are from our ancestors(efficient cause). But we donot know what our existence for. We donot know the purpose of human being. We line in the present but we do not know the future, and the final purpose of us is set in the future. present is "finite" but the future is "infinite". So, in term of teh final cause, science cannot give the comfortable explaning, even if it had, it would been the unfounded thought.

    ReplyDelete