Moving the Unmoved Mover

We spent a great deal of time today in class discussing Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover. He proposed that there is a first cause behind all subsequent causes and effects. This uncaused cause is static and responsible for the changing of everything else. It can set things in motion, but is never set in motion itself. Also, Aristotle was attempting to explain in the text that there must be a first motion responsible for holding all subsequent motions in flux. This first motion must be constantly acted upon by the unmoved mover. The mover must be outside of nature entirely because all physical systems are in flux. He ascribes this unmoved mover simply as ‘intelligence’.

Using the diagram presented in class, we can say that our ‘A’ is an intelligent unmoved mover, ‘B’ is the material in motion, and ‘C’ represents the forms created by the material. All material has the potential to become forms, but it must be acted upon firstly by the Mover. This is essentially describing a deity of sorts. Aristotle’s logical arguments can only go as far as what is called deism, or the belief that a creator god set the universe in motion and then ceased any interaction with it. Although this explanation can be articulated, it fails on its own accord. If the Mover is outside of nature then how is it that we can understand it at all? All our scientific facts and theories are based on observations and experimentation within the natural world. I understand the logic that ‘causes’ should not extend backwards infinitely, but how is it that we may simply infer the existence of an unmoved mover? It’s a convenient insertion nonetheless, but it does not yield a practical explanation for the universe.

The only way around this would be to infer a theistic deity. Theism claims that the creator is a personal being in which people may have an intimate relationship with. Under theism, the intelligent mover is discovered through revelations. Subsequent ‘religious’ experiences are then interpreted based on the original revelations. A personal and intelligent unmoved mover is the explanation offered by advocates of intelligent design. Their ‘proof’ ultimately relies on revelation, in part because the logic used by Aristotle may only justify a deistic god.

Nevertheless, let’s consider for a moment that ‘A’ is an intelligent and personal unmoved mover, ‘B’ is material in motion, and ‘C’ represents the forms of material. The unmoved mover is static, being outside nature, and never changes. An intelligent creator would have a divine plan for the motions of material and this specific plan would be implemented by the first eternal motion. Human beings are forms of material that were meant to come about because of the divine plan and first motion. This all seems to follow reasonably enough until human beings attempt to move the unmoved mover.

Prayer is one such attempt. People pray for all sorts of things: world peace, end to poverty, financial success. As forms of material, human beings are seeking to change the mind of the intelligent designer. If the unmoved mover decides to change his plan to appease the prayers of people then he is, after all, capable of change and not eternally static. This would be an occurrence of ‘C’ changing the composition of ‘A’ and this would make the Mover a part of the dynamics of nature. The fact that there has not been any measurable data to indicate the effectiveness of prayer to begin with, though, means that either the divine plan cannot be interrupted (leaving us with deism) or there is no grand plan to begin with (leaving us with materialism).

My questions to the class are: Do you think there is an unmoved mover? What is the nature of this being? How can it be logically inferred without the aid of evidence? What purpose does the insertion of an unmoved mover serve other than convenience and comfort for human beings? Are there other explanations that I have not addressed?