If anything, religion provides an accessible, "practical philosophy" for how people are to live their lives and treat other people. — Paulm12

That part of religion is a part of religion, but it is not the religious part. Psychologists, psychiatrists do the same thing for and to people. Teachers in school do the same. Parents do it to their children. Peers do it to their peers, be they children, teens or adults.

You can scour the Holy Books for everyday advice how to live. Such as this:

Deuteronomy 25: 11: If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Or this:

Deuteronomy 20: 16: However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

So if you inherit a house in New Jersey left to you by an aunt, then you must kill everyone and everything that breathes and preaches in that city.

Therefore I say unto you, Paul, that thou shan't read the Holy Bible for guidance for everyday moral or civil behaviour; instead, thou shalt read the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for thy purpose for behaving normally. Just don't do anything that's in the DSM.

Be that as it may; I'll offer no opinion. Instead I am suggesting a methodological distinction between theology and philosophy. At the simplest level, if a discussion begins with or makes any substantial use of a creed that is taken as incontrovertible, then it is theology.

Contrast that with, for example, Kierkegaard's use of examples from scripture to play with the relation between faith and truth. That seems to me to be philosophical, not theological. Hence, as you said, "The value of Holy Books or religion isn't only tied to the reliability of their supernatural claims". They may have a place in philosophical discussion as example or metaphor, but not as assumptions.

Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"? — Paine

I think this was rhetorical. He is reported to have said:

I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy

In other words, he was well aware of the danger of allegations of impiety and atheism. So, the first thing to be said about first things must be said about the gods. But perhaps what is most revealing is what is not said. A prime mover is not something to be prayed to or sacrificed to. Prime movers do not protect or intervene on our behalf or reward and punish. They do not have priests or oracles or occult mysteries.

In other words, he was well aware of the danger of allegations of impiety and atheism. So, the first thing to be said about first things must be said about the gods. But perhaps what is most revealing is what is not said. A prime mover is not something to be prayed to or sacrificed to. Prime movers do not protect or intervene on our behalf or reward and punish. They do not have priests or oracles or occult mysteries. — Fooloso4

Yes, Aristotle was clearly opposed to religion. He calls God (theos) the Prime Mover, but it has no properties of subjectivity.

I understand the distinction between methods that you make. I agree with Fooloso4 that people do not build temples to the Prime Mover.

The emphasis upon creeds is not the same amongst different kinds of worship. The difference of methods is not so much about beliefs being 'incontrovertible' as it involves a relationship to a divine agent (or agents). In that sense, Aristotle's god is impersonal in comparison to the Olympian pantheon as well as those groups gathered in particular testimonies of faith connected to a world shaped by our decisions.

So, Paul's faith, for instance, is not a good measure of what giving respect to Apollo or Dionysus involves. The differences of method that separates the 'personal' from the 'impersonal', is not self-explanatory toward the purpose of distinguishing the divine from the natural for all who try to do it. That would clump together what should be seen in contrast.

My impression from reading Aristotle is that the unfolding of beings according to their potential to become what they were meant to be is the clearest encounter with a maker of the world. There is encouragement to become 'more like' this agent but those encouragements happen in the context of recognizing that what makes us is tied to our agency no matter what.

Aristotle is not that far from approaching creation stories in the manner of Timaeus, where we are told constantly that the stories are 'likely' but cannot be confirmed. What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X. He does not know the value but can proceed without knowing it. It has a function.

Paul was not content to disagree with the 'natural' world but presented his vision as a "foolishness to the Greeks and a scandal for the Jews," It was a diremption with the philosophical that became philosophical. A personal vision that would sweep away tradition and the 'thinking' of the time which others tried to heal.

That is a lot different from Apollo cutting a deal with the Furies over the limits of revenge.

My impression from reading Aristotle is that the unfolding of beings according to their potential to become what they were meant to be is the clearest encounter with a maker of the world. There is encouragement to become 'more like' this agent but those encouragements happen in the context of recognizing that what makes us is tied to our agency no matter what.

Aristotle is not that far from approaching creation stories in the manner of Timaeus, where we are told constantly that the stories are 'likely' but cannot be confirmed. What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X. He does not know the value but can proceed without knowing it. It has a function. — Paine

A few comments. Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. This is a Christian concept. For Aristotle, God has no agency.

Will you expand and explain the second paragraph, especially, "What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X.

A few comments. Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. — Jackson

The demiurg sets it in motion only?

The demiurg sets it in motion only? — Haglund

Aristotle never refers to a demiurg.

What I find engaging in Aristotle's thought about God is that it is both similar and very different from Christian theology.

Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. This is a Christian concept. For Aristotle, God has no agency. — Jackson

Aristotle does not assign the role of 'creator of the universe' to the Prime Mover but there is much agency implied in being both the efficient and formal cause of all that is generated. Aristotle does sharply separate what is generated from what is 'eternal'. The discussion has more to do with departures from Plato than anything "Christian".

I don't have an image for what you are thinking of in this regard.

Aristotle does not assign the role of 'creator of the universe' to the Prime Mover but there is much agency implied in being both the efficient and formal cause of all that is generated. — Paine

Prime Mover is only final cause. There is no efficient cause.

And the unmoved mover? How he moves?

And the unmoved mover? How he moves? — Haglund

The Prime Mover does not move.

Why is he called mover then?

Why is he called mover then? — Haglund

The cause of motion without itself being in motion.

Prime Mover is only final cause. There is no efficient cause. — Jackson

Rather than present a challenge to this statement, I ask you to provide the basis for it.

The 'formal' cause, by the way, is to say that what one has been made for, is for the sake of fulfilling that possibility to the furthest extent.

That sounds like agency to me. I figure some amount of mutual understanding about this should come before explaining my use of X idea.

I don't understand your reference to this as a 'Christian' idea.

Yes, but how can you set something in motion without moving yourself? Is he inert, supermassive?

Yes, but how can you set something in motion without moving yourself? Is he inert, supermassive? — Haglund

Aristotle is talking about the cause of all motion.

Rather than present a challenge to this statement, I ask you to provide the basis for it.

The 'formal' cause, by the way, is to say that what one has been made for, is for the sake of fulfilling that possibility to the furthest extent. — Paine

Formal cause just means the shape or form of something. Final cause is the that for the sake of which something happens.

Aristotle is talking about the cause of all motion. — Jackson

So that's not motion? How can things get in motion without giving them a start kick?

Point taken. I see them as joined together. But proceed with the same question regarding 'final cause'.

So that's not motion? How can things get in motion without giving them a start kick? — Haglund

God has legs? What is the kick start?

Point taken. I see them as joined together. But proceed with the same question regarding 'final cause'. — Paine

My point is that St Thomas used Aristotle's concept of God but added the efficient cause of causing the physical universe to exist. The Prime Mover does not cause physical things to exist.

To give it a push.

To give it a push. — Haglund

That is the question I am asking. How does God do that?

That is the question I am asking. How does God do that? — Jackson

Ah. With his hands?

Please cite where you read this in Aquinas.

From the point of view in Aristotle, referring to an 'unmoved' mover is the ultimate image of an efficient cause.

Please cite where you read this in Aquinas. From the point of view in Aristotle, referring to an 'unmoved' mover is the ultimate image of an efficient cause. — Paine

The Summa. St Thomas refers to Aristotle as "The Philosopher." I do not remember exactly the section, but he says The Church believes the world was created, without saying Aristotle was wrong.

Prime Mover. The Prime Mover does not move. There are many unmoved movers. Only one Prime Unmoved Mover.

Yes, I get the unmoved part. Where in Aquinas does he suggest this agency is not an 'efficient cause'?

Yes, I get the unmoved part. Where in Aquinas does he suggest this agency is not an 'efficient cause'? — Paine

St Thomas is not attributing to Aristotle that his concept of God (Prime Mover) was an efficient cause. It seems quite clear that for Aristotle God has no agency.