How to refute this argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcusAndreas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcusAndreas

Guest
Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can’t figure out how to refute it.
 
In a manner of speaking, he’s right. God doesn’t act, per se. (Action implies prior inaction, and stimulus, and response, doesn’t it? And that would imply change within the actor, wouldn’t it?)

Instead, it’s more accurate to say that God wills. His will is eternal and unchanging. Moreover, anything that we perceive of, within the confines of time & space, as being an ‘action’ of God, is instead, in fact, an example of God’s eternal will being actualized in the framework of His creation.

So, would we say that God ‘waited’, and then ‘acted’ in 1 A.D., causing the incarnation of His Son? Nope. Rather, God willed the Incarnation eternally. We experienced the Incarnation, as time-and-space bound humans, as an event that occurred at that point in time.

Hope that helps…!
 
sedonaman said:
How does that follow?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t, that’s the point, but I can’t figure out how to refute the argument beyond going like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Why do only discontented beings act? What is meant by ‘act’?

It would be true that only discontented beings act if by act they are seeking to overcome the cause of their discontentment.

But if I act by taking my dogs for a walk, since I enjoy the exercise & companionship it renders, it doesn’t follow that I am discontent when not walking my dog. Or is that too trivial for such thinking?
 
philial said:
Why do only discontented beings act? What is meant by ‘act’?

It would be true that only discontented beings act if by act they are seeking to overcome the cause of their discontentment.

But if I act by taking my dogs for a walk, since I enjoy the exercise & companionship it renders, it doesn’t follow that I am discontent when not walking my dog. Or is that too trivial for such thinking?
Click to expand...
I suppose the case could be made that your dog was discontented needing a walk thereby making you discontented to see him in distress. But I don’t agree with the original argument either. I’m guessing that by “discontented” von Mises means simply wanting something. Even when you’re happy you want to do something to express it. I think it’s more correct to say that attributing discontent to God is anthropomorphic.
 
seagal said:
I suppose the case could be made that your dog was discontented needing a walk thereby making you discontented to see him in distress. But I don’t agree with the original argument either. I’m guessing that by “discontented” von Mises means simply wanting something. Even when you’re happy you want to do something to express it. I think it’s more correct to say that attributing discontent to God is anthropomorphic.
Click to expand...
… which is, perhaps, the best way of dealing with these arguments - namely, we cannot attribute to God that which is based on human experience only. End of! 👍
 
I think the quote is wiser than I’d normally give Von Mises credit for.

We do anthropomorphize God just in thinking about Him (or even assigning God a gender). So his argument centers around whether, indeed, actions are always motivated by discontentment.

It’s an easy argument in minor ways, but doesn’t necessarily hold true. I go to get a drink of water because I’m thirsty. If I store up water for the future, say in a reservoir, and allow other people to drink from it or play in it am I acting from discontentment? Is a prayer of praise an act of discontentment? I suppose I could say that giving a gift to a person in need is motivated partly by discontent with their circumstances, but I know lots of people who worry about the poor but do nothing. So perhaps there’s an additional element of just love or care.

To me, it seems as though Von Mises is viewing the world through the lens of an economist, where much time is spent considering why people act, either rationally or irrationally. It’s a pretty limited world view – nice for the field but not much to go on in other areas of life.

So if I were arguing with a friend about it, I’d say that there are deeper motivations than economic self-interest and work to find what those might be.
 
Here is the quote in question:
Ludwig von Mises:
But for an almighty supreme being there cannot be any dissatisfaction with the prevailing state of affairs. The Almighty does not act, because there is no state of affairs that he cannot render fully satisfactory without any action.
Click to expand...
I can tell this is wrong but I can’t explain exactly why.
 
MarcusAndreas said:
Here is the quote in question:

I can tell this is wrong but I can’t explain exactly why.
Click to expand...
It’s not wrong. Ludwig von Mises is right.

People too often think of God as a man with conditional love. God’s Love is not conditional. Many people wish to attribute bad things as God’s will or God “acting”
  • I lost my job
  • The bank turned me down for that loan
  • My wife died on a plane
  • I have cancer
  • The market dropped 900 points
All of these terrible things happen to us, why? cause of God? You really think that God does these horrible things to you because He is angry with you and your sin?

Life happens because God has granted us Free Will. I lost my job because of my employer and the economy…not God. I was turned down for credit, because of the loan officer and my credit score…not God.

If bad things happen to us because God made it so, logically that would prove the philosophy of Karma correct. As in that good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished. Now while there may be truth to this…

i.e. The greedy bank manager who let’s his greed take the best of him and he invests his money in a risky bet and loses everything.

or

i.e. The man who constantly helped others and when he found himself in a bind, those whom he had helped, helped him.

…The reality is, if Karma was true, Jesus should have never lived the life He did, for he was the pureist and most good of all humans. Karma should have rewarded him, but Karma didn’t…so does this mean God hated Jesus? How can God hate God? The equation does not compute.

This is all based on Free Will, not God’s “conditional love” or Karma. Things happen in life because of Free Will…however that does not mean that God doesn’t have a plan for you, or won’t help you out in need of prayer.

Things are the way they are because they are.
 
I see what you’re saying, but the author of the quote was an atheist, not a theist or deist. This has been nagging at my brain for awhile now but I just keep telling myself that if the argument was worthwhile Aquinas would’ve thought of it and came up with the best version and then destroyed it. 😃
 
MarcusAndreas said:
Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can’t figure out how to refute it.
Click to expand...
Great challenge! Please consider the following concepts:
  1. Jesus is God, and He acts.
  2. One can act while being content for the purpose of greater happiness.
  3. If one argues that seeking greater happiness means being discontent, then one would be claiming that trying to fulfill a purpose means being discontent. If one equates God being content as not trying to fulfill a purpose, then one is claiming that God is purposeless. ← Seems to me like a bad position to take, if one desires a heavenly afterlife.
Thoughts?
 
MarcusAndreas said:
I see what you’re saying, but the author of the quote was an atheist, not a theist or deist. This has been nagging at my brain for awhile now but I just keep telling myself that if the argument was worthwhile Aquinas would’ve thought of it and came up with the best version and then destroyed it. 😃
Click to expand...
Actually, austenboston and Gorgias are right. As is Ludqig Von Mises.

Mises’s problem is that he doesn’t realize that theistic philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas would cheerfully accept the premise!

Read article 1, “Whether there is will in God?” It addresses Von Mises’s issue.

Gorgias is right. God does not “act”. He is, technically speaking, PURE act. Instead, he wills.
 
austenbosten said:
Life happens because God has granted us Free Will. I lost my job because of my employer and the economy…not God. I was turned down for credit, because of the loan officer and my credit score…not God.
Click to expand...
I believe that God set laws in place, physical laws, that create a world of cause and effect, largely impersonal.

On the other hand, in a world where there is no direct involvement of God negates what we believe about the Holy Spirit acting and guiding us in our lives as well as the miracles we attribute to the intercession of saints. Miracles by definition defy physical law.

I’ve never understood those who doubt God because a hurricane wiped out a family, as if God directly created the circumstances or failed somehow to intervene. But I still very much believe that those who are open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit often manage to avoid such things with better “luck” than those who are focused only on the noisy world in front of them.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Actually, austenboston and Gorgias are right. As is Ludqig Von Mises.

Mises’s problem is that he doesn’t realize that theistic philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas would cheerfully accept the premise!

Read article 1, “Whether there is will in God?” It addresses Von Mises’s issue.

Gorgias is right. God does not “act”. He is, technically speaking, PURE act. Instead, he wills.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I forgot to put a link. By “article 1” I was referring to this section of the “Summa Theologica”:

newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm
 
Well, in a sense it is true. God does not decide “I am not happy with things”, and therefore, get up, and ‘act’ to change them.

God is being. The world is not being, but only ‘becoming’. It is therefore the world which acts (in the sense of changes from one action to another, initiates an action, etc.). But it does so in relation to a teleology (which is being, i.e. God). Therefore, it appears as if God acts.

Yes the image of God ‘acting’, is an anthropomorphism. But, why not anthopomorphism? All our language about God is figurative and ‘images’. Anthropomorphism seems like an effective image.
 
MarcusAndreas said:
Libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises argued that God does not act because only discontented beings act, and attributing action to God is an anthropomorphism. I know this is an absurd argument but I can’t figure out how to refute it.
Click to expand...
Although the question has been addressed, I’ll address it again for fun. It’s really not so absurd an argument. Let’s not worry about the fact that Mises was not a christian–that does not make him automatically wrong! I think, perhaps, it’s important to evaluate the inverse. This might help for understanding the concept

If a being were perfectly content, what need would it have to act? Any action by any being can be said to represent be an attempt at change. If the aforementioned content being is attempting to change anything, how can we claim he is truly content? Either he is intentionally attempting to dissatisfy himself–which in itself represents a discontentment with his own feelings of perfect content–and to interrupt his otherwise perfect situation, or he is not perfectly content in his current state.

The argument has been made that we can act while content with the purpose of greater happiness, yet this state is not without discontent. I can hold this contentment while at the same being discontent with the fact that abortion is illegal, for example. This discontentment would likely cause me to act against it.

As for the difference between acting/willing, I’ll leave you to the very capable hands of Marc Anthony and austenbosten. Apologies if my explanation is unclear or lacking.
 
Gorgias said:
In a manner of speaking, he’s right. God doesn’t act, per se. (Action implies prior inaction, and stimulus, and response, doesn’t it? And that would imply change within the actor, wouldn’t it?)

Instead, it’s more accurate to say that God wills. His will is eternal and unchanging. Moreover, anything that we perceive of, within the confines of time & space, as being an ‘action’ of God, is instead, in fact, an example of God’s eternal will being actualized in the framework of His creation.

So, would we say that God ‘waited’, and then ‘acted’ in 1 A.D., causing the incarnation of His Son? Nope. Rather, God willed the Incarnation eternally. We experienced the Incarnation, as time-and-space bound humans, as an event that occurred at that point in time.

Hope that helps…!
Click to expand...
Spot on. The argument is refuted by rejecting the givens. If the premiss on which the assertion lies, is not shared, then the framework of the discussion in question should be rejected; never mind the conclusion.

Example: “Since all Catholics are actually pagan heathens, they all should burn in hell”

Now, if one was to focus on trying to rescue the reputation of the Catholic faith by trying explain why heathens shouldn’t burn in hell, rather than Saying: “I reject the givens, Catholicism is not populated by heretics ( 😉 mostly)” then the defense would be unintelligible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top