Abstract
In a recent book devoted to the axiology of theism, Kirk Lougheed has argued that the ‘complete understanding’ argument should be numbered among the arguments for anti-theism. According to this argument, God’s existence is detrimental to us because, if a supernatural and never completely understandable God exists, then human beings are fated to never achieve complete understanding. In this article, I argue that the complete understanding argument for anti-theism fails for three reasons. First, complete understanding is simply impossible to achieve. Second, even if achieving complete understanding were possible, it would not be beneficial. Third, the only type of complete understanding that is possible to achieve and is beneficial to human beings is the understanding of that which is of primary importance to us, and not the understanding of everything, as Lougheed seems to assume. God can grant us complete understanding of that which is of primary importance to us. As a consequence, God’s existence ends up being beneficial and not detrimental to us.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For an overview, see K. Lougheed, ‘The Axiology of Theism’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/axio-thei/, accessed on May 10, 2021. See also K. Kraay (ed.), Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism (London: Routledge, 2018).
T. Nagel, The Last Word (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 130, my emphasis.
For more on these different positions, see K. Kraay, ‘Invitation to the Axiology of Theism’, in K. Kraay (ed.), Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism, pp. 10ff.
K. Lougheed, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), pp. 154–62.
K. Lougheed, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews, p. 155.
The first complete presentation of this view is in H. Moravec Mind Children (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); among recent criticisms of it, see R. Bjork, ‘Will Transhumanism Solve Death?’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 72/2, June 2020, pp. 89–94.
See Charles Taylor, ‘Philosophy and its history.’ In Philosophy in History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophy, ed. by Richard Rorty, Jerome B. Schneewind and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge-London-New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 17.
See K. Lougheed, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews, p. 161.
K. Lougheed, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews, p. 160.
M. Murray, ‘Deus Absconditus’, in P. Moser and D. Howard-Snyder (eds), Divine Hiddenness: New Essays (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 63.
Lougheed makes reference to Kahane’s claim that ‘many theists see striving for complete understanding as a vice’ (K. Lougheed, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews, p. 154; the work cited is G. Kahane, ‘Should We Want God to Exist?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 [2011], pp. 674–696).
See J. Schellenberg, ‘Divine hiddenness and human philosophy’, in A. Green and E. Stump (eds), Hidden Divinity and Religious Belief (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 17 f., footnote 8. Schellenberg’s view is in line with the position advocated by E. Stump, Wandering in Darkness. Narrative and the Problem of Suffering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 103.
J. Schellenberg, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), p. 21.
J. Schellenberg, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason, p. 18.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, tr. by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, second and revised edition (London: Oates and Washbourne, 1935, hereafter: Summa theologiae), II-II q. 2 a. 5.
Many thanks go to one Referee for this journal, whose insightful comments I welcomed and used to improve a first draft of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Di Ceglie, R. Revisiting the Complete Understanding Argument for Anti-Theism: a Reply to Kirk Lougheed. Philosophia 50, 1001–1008 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00443-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00443-2