Kirk Lougheed

African Traditional Religion is a major world religion typically thought to be monotheistic with millions of adherents below the Sahara on the African continent. However, it has been sorely neglected by Anglo-American philosophers of religion, and thus far none of the axiological questions in what has come to be known as the axiology of theism literature have been applied to it. I will break new ground by applying axiological analysis to an important metaphysical position in African Traditional Religion known as the limited-God thesis. This conception of God denies that God is any of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. This has important implications when thinking about the axiological status of monotheism. While it might be thought obvious that it would be worse if the limited-God existed compared to the Anselmian God, I will argue that such a conclusion is not so straightforward for two reasons. First, many exponents of African Traditional Religion deny that the problem of evil applies to the limited-God. A world where the problem of evil does not arise may well be better than a world where it does. Second, and even if this first reason fails, I appeal to recent claims by Guy Kahane suggesting that a world without gratuitous evil is actually worse than a world with gratuitous evil. I conclude that not only does this imply the limited-God is axiologically superior to the Anselmian God, but it also avoids many of the pitfalls typically associated with anti-theism and therefore may also be better than metaphysical naturalism.

In the epistemology of disagreement literature, many authors use certain cases of disagreement in order to lend support to either conciliationism or non-conciliationism. Richard Feldman and David Christensen, among others, are advocates of the view that lessons from simple idealized cases of disagreement shed light on complex cases of disagreement. In this chapter I analyze some of these simple cases in order to demonstrate that while they do lend support for conciliationism, the lessons do not necessarily carry over to more complex cases of disagreement. This is important because cases of disagreement between inquirers are better understood as complex, not simple.

In the previous chapter I argued that there are significant differences between simple and complex cases of disagreement. In this chapter I analyze the strict notion of epistemic peerhood used throughout the epistemology of disagreement literature. Such notions typically involve the idea that agents are strict evidential and cognitive equals. I show that this notion rarely, if ever, obtains in cases of real-world disagreement. If this is true, then the sceptical threat to rational inquiry posed by strong conciliationism would evaporate. However, I conclude with a new account of epistemic peerhood that is broad enough to apply to many cases of real-world disagreement between inquirers, and yet not so permissive so as to lose the epistemic significance of disagreement.

Part of the recent explosion in the literature on the epistemology of disagreement has generally confined itself to the following problem: Suppose that after an agent comes to believe proposition P she finds out that there is an epistemic peer—someone of equal intelligence and ability—who has evaluated the same body of evidence and come to believe not-P. What should her reaction be upon discovering peer disagreement? Does the existence of peer disagreement constitute a (partial) defeater to her original belief that P? Or is she rationally permitted to maintain her belief that P even in the face of peer disagreement? In this chapter I outline the main arguments for conciliationism and non-conciliationism.

In this chapter I outline and respond to a number of objections to the Benefits to Inquiry Argument. I begin with what I take to be the weakest objections and conclude with the strongest objections. The most promising objection to the Benefits to Inquiry Argument is that it conflates practical reasons with epistemic reasons. I respond to this by arguing that future epistemic benefits should indeed be considered benefits of epistemic reasoning. But the objection succeeds only if synchronic epistemic reasons are the only type of epistemic reasons included in one’s account of epistemic rationality. But an all-things-considered epistemic rationality will include both synchronic and diachronic epistemic reasons.

In this chapter I develop and defend an important argument in the epistemology of disagreement literature, initially gestured at by Catherine Z. Elgin (2010). This argument advances the idea that there are possible future epistemic benefits to be gained if an agent continues to develop and defend her beliefs in the face of peer disagreement, particularly within research contexts. These potential epistemic benefits justify a researcher remaining steadfast in the face of peer disagreement. After outlining the broad contours of the argument, I explore some empirical evidence in support of Elgin’s claim. For instance, I examine an economic model developed by Scott Page which demonstrates that in certain scenarios, peer disagreement tends to enhance epistemic practices such as problem solving and prediction making. I also outline some ideas found in psychology regarding bias and motivated reasoning which also lend empirical support to Elgin. I believe that this is one of the most promising arguments for non-conciliationism, albeit a limited version of it since it only applies in research context and as such it will be my focus for the rest of this book.

In this final chapter I tie things together, in part, by addressing the concern that if the Benefits to Inquiry Argument is sound it will license an irrational dogmatism by allowing an agent to remain steadfast in her beliefs by appealing to some vague notion of potential future epistemic benefits. I conclude the project by discussing this worry within the context of intellectual humility and competing epistemic values. My discussion will shed light on the appropriate conclusions to draw about the scope and strength of my argument. I will also note some of the similarities between my view and three dynamic responses to disagreement, Thomas Kelly’s ‘Total Evidence View’ (2010), Jennifer Lackey’s ‘Justificationist View’ (2010a, b), and Han van Wietmarschen’s ‘Well-Groundedness’ (2013).

In recent years, intellectual virtue has garnered significant attention in the philosophical literature. Though there is significant work on how to cultivate intellectual virtues, there is less explicitly on this topic within the context of religion. I aim to show how work in the epistemology of disagreement can contribute to cultivating intellectual virtue, including in the context of religious disagreement. There are epistemic benefits to be gained from fostering disagreement, at least in certain scenarios. I explain how these ideas apply to at least some cases of religious disagreement. Any religious adherent seeking to cultivate intellectual virtues should be interested in gaining epistemic benefits, and therefore should be interested in fostering religious disagreements in the relevant types of scenarios. I conclude with a brief case study in philosophy of religion that shows that disagreement in the context of cross-cultural dialogue can be quite epistemically productive.

Metz’s Moral Relational Theory says that an action is right if it respects our capacity to be party to friendly relationships. Friendliness involves exhibiting solidarity and identification with others. Though Metz’s theory often issues intuitively correct moral judgments, I argue that it fails to do so in the cases of female genital mutilation, religious offense, and homosexual romantic relationships. I conclude by exploring whether there are possible replies that can be made on behalf of Metz by examining African conceptions of well-being and flourishing, before turning to ask questions about the role that intuitions play in justifying his theory.

If believing P will result in epistemically good outcomes, does this generate an epistemic reason to believe P, or just a pragmatic reason? Conceiving of such reasons as epistemic reasons seems to lead to absurdity, e.g. by allowing that someone can rationally hold beliefs that conflict with her assessment of her evidence's probative force. We explain how this and other intuitively unwelcome results can be avoided. We also suggest a positive case for conceiving of such reasons as epistemic reasons, namely, that they exhibit a form of interpersonal normative parity that's typical of epistemic reasons but not pragmatic reasons. We then link this discussion to religious belief, suggesting that there are sometimes indirect epistemic reasons for religious belief, and that certain characterizations of religious belief are instructive in thinking about how to take account of indirect epistemic reasons.

This article is part of Religious Studies’ new initiative to publish a series of interviews with distinguished philosophers of religion. Each interview explores the personal and academic background of the interviewee and discusses their core philosophical views. The aim is to inspire students and scholars and to provide an overview of some of the most important works developed by contemporary philosophers of religion. In this interview, Kirk Lougheed interviews John Leslie, covering such topics as working in advertising after finishing his BA at Oxford, returning to graduate school, and developing and defending Axiarchism throughout his philosophical career.

This chapter introduces the reader to the main themes of the project, in addition to the contours of the book. The first question addressed is what counts as African philosophy. It argues that whether an idea counts as African is a matter of degree. It then briefly explains that the normative conception of personhood and accounts that focus on harmonious relationships are the two streams that have dominated contemporary African moral philosophy, thereby providing some of the motivation for an alternative in this book. The primary objective of the book is to construct the strongest possible account of liveliness as a moral theory, not to argue that such a theory is in fact true. The description offered in this book will necessarily include reasons to think the theory is true, but this is incidental to the main goal of offering the strongest and most plausible description of it.

One argument for the permissibility of euthanasia found in the African philosophical tradition suggests that the sole goal of life is to develop one’s vital force, which is done by relating harmoniously with one’s community. However, this is impossible for people with certain medical conditions. If the goals of life cannot be achieved, then euthanasia is permissible. I challenge this argument by showing that it overlooks the fact that severely ill patients can still be the _objects_ of communal relationships, in addition to a way for caregivers to strengthen their own vital force. I also suggest that usual readings of vital force imply that life itself is to be preserved at all costs and that this acts as a kind of deontological constraint.

I am honoured and grateful to the commentators for their thoughtful responses to my article, ‘African Life Force and the Permissibility of Euthanasia’.1 In the article, I attempted to show that any argument for the permissibility of euthanasia based on life force or vitalism is bound to fail because any ethic based on that worldview is required to preserve life above all else. Three key themes emerged in their responses and in what follows I address each of them in turn. The first theme that emerges from the commentaries has to do with dignity. In the article, I did not suggest a grounds for dignity based on a life force ethic. Instead, I focused on describing the appropriate teleological aim of anyone who endorses such an ethic since that was the most relevant to the argument. However, in different ways, many of the commentaries raise questions about the relevant account of dignity (or lack thereof) implied by life force.i Mariana Dittborn, Daniela Rojas and Sofia Salas worry that being the object of a communal relationship violates Kant’s (true) universal moral principle of respect for persons.2 For example, it could justify keeping a terminally ill patient alive as a mere means to the end of increasing the life force of caregivers. Xiang Yu and Daniel Kim suggest that the life force ethic ‘implies that a person who is the object of very few relationships has a much weaker duty to stay alive than a person who is well-loved and the …

I aim to more fully develop a theory of meaning in life based on the concept of life force that is important to a substantial number of Africans in the sub-Sahara region. While life force implies a large invisible ontology, Thaddeus Metz has recently developed an entirely naturalistic version of it known as liveliness. However, he also offers two objections that hinge on the idea that life force cannot accommodate intuitions that certain types of knowledge and progress are valuable for their own sakes. I respond by noting that elsewhere Metz has developed a defense of the intrinsic value of knowledge by appealing to the idea that meeting a person's existential needs can be important for self-realization and hence for their meaning. If this is right, then the community ought to support such a person in their pursuit of knowledge even if doing so leads to no useful outcomes.

An important belief in African Traditional Religion holds that everything, both animate and inanimate objects, are imbued with an imperceptible energy known as life force. Since life force is the greatest value, it is the grounds of morality. However, it is undertheorized in contemporary African ethics, with work on personhood and harmonious relationships taking centerstage. I seek to fill this gap in the literature by further developing an entirely secular and naturalistic moral theory of life force that avoids metaphysical controversies and is known as liveliness, which was first gestured at by Thaddeus Metz (2012, 2022). I demonstrate that while a series of objections that Metz levels against liveliness affect teleological versions, they do not apply with equal force to deontological versions. Liveliness, particularly deontological versions, ought to be considered as a contender for the best African moral theory alongside those that focus on personhood or harmonious relationships.

While there has long been philosophical thinking on the African continent, it was not until the middle of the 20th century that professional philosophy emerged on the continent. Though traditional African cultures have rich oral histories that some contemporary philosophers explicitly draw upon, it was not until universities emerged that there was philosophy conducted by professional philosophers who published their findings in academic venues. To date, much of this work has been conducted in English. The emphasis this tradition places on the community and social harmony will probably stand out immediately to any reader steeped in the Western philosophical tradition. The articles in this issue represent different styles of conducting African philosophy, such as employing analytic methods in order to develop moral theories, questioning the use of Western epistemic standards, and mining ideas from the history of Africa.

One theistic account of creation says that God created the best possible world in the form of a multiverse containing all and only all of the universes sufficiently good enough to create. Certain proponents of this view urge that it solves the problem of no best world and need not commit one to affirming divine middle knowledge. We address two recent challenges to the (open) theistic multiverse. First, Marshall Naylor argues that what he calls the Cantorian account of divine creation is better than any theistic multiverse account because it provides more satisfying answers to a number of philosophical problems (2020). Second, Elliot Crozat criticizes the open theistic multiverse by arguing that if God lacks middle knowledge, God cannot know infallibly that the universe token he creates will be the right type (i.e., sufficiently good enough for inclusion in the multiverse) (2019). We show that Naylor’s alternative violates incredibly strong moral intuitions and that Crozat’s objection fails to appreciate that on open theism God still knows all the possible future outcomes. Theistic multiverse accounts of divine creation in general, and one cojoined with open theism in particular, remain unscathed in the face of the criticisms offered by Naylor and Crozat.

In the recent Anglo-American philosophy of religion, significant attention has been given to the nature of faith. My goal is to show that some of the recent discussion of faith can be fruitfully brought to bear on a problem for a less globally well-known version of monotheism found in African Traditional Religion. I argue that African Traditional Religion could benefit from utilizing non-doxastic accounts of faith. For a significant number of Africans questioning authority or tradition, including the tenets of African Traditional Religion is viewed as harmful to the community and hence beyond the pale. A non-doxastic account of faith would be helpful for adherents of African Traditional Religion who find themselves disbelieving yet wanting to continue in religious practice and maintain communal harmony. This is because a non-doxastic state such as hope is within one’s direct control and does not require as much evidential justification as rational belief.

Existential gratitude-gratitude for one's very existence or life as a whole-is pervasive across the most influential human, cultural and religious traditions. Weaving together analytic and continental, as well as non-western and historical philosophical perspectives, this volume explores the nexus of gratitude, existence and God as an inter-subjective phenomenon for the first time. A team of leading scholars introduce existential gratitude as a perennially and characteristically human phenomenon, central to the distinctive life of our species. Attention is given to the conditions under which existence itself might be construed as having a gift-like or otherwise gratitude-inducing character. Drawing on a diversity of perspectives, chapters mark out new territory in philosophical inquiry, addressing whether and in what sense we ought to be grateful for our very existence. By analysing gratitude, this collection makes a novel contribution to the discourse on moral emotions, phenomenology, anti-natalism and theology.

In The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews (2020), I defend the Complete Understanding Argument for anti-theism, which says that God’s existence makes the world worse with respect to our ability to understand it. In a recent article, Roberto Di Ceglie offers three objections to my argument. I seek to rescue my argument by showing (1) that understanding can come in degrees; (2) that I’m not a consequentialist about the value of understanding; and (3) that my argument is consistent with God providing us with sufficient knowledge of important spiritual matters. Di Ceglie’s objections point to future areas for fruitful exploration but do not defeat my argument.

The Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are typically recognized as the world’s major monotheistic religions. However, African Traditional Religion is, despite often including lesser spirits and gods, a monotheistic religion with numerous adherents in sub-Saharan Africa; it includes the idea of a single most powerful God responsible for the creation and sustenance of everything else. This Element focuses on drawing attention to this major world religion that has been much neglected by scholars around the globe, particularly those working in the West or Northern Hemisphere. It accomplishes this primarily by bringing it into conversation with topics in the Anglo-American philosophy of religion.

David Benatar argues that one important consideration in favour of anti-natalism is based on the fact that all humans lack cosmic meaning; we will never transcend space and time such that we will have an impact on the entire universe, forever. Instead of denying Benatar’s claim that we lack cosmic meaning, Thaddeus Metz recently argues that our lack of cosmic meaning is not that significant because we ought not to regret lacking a good that we could not have in the first place. He explains the principle behind this idea in modal terms: “the closer the world in which one could access a benefit, the more reasonable are attitudes such as sadness, disappointment, regret when does not acquire it.” I argue that this principle faces a serious counterexample in the form of death. The possible worlds in which one doesn’t die are incredibly distant. Yet, it is appropriate to express deep sadness, disappointment, and regret at the fact that one must inevitably face death. Metz is wrong that we shouldn’t regret lacking a good unavailable to us in the first place. His criticism of Benatar therefore fails. While it might be objected that immortality is not good, my basic point still stands when considering the fact that our lives are not significantly longer. Benatar’s claims about the significance of our lack of cosmic meaning might not be true, but not for the reasons suggested by Metz.

Abstract:Epistemic paternalism occurs when evidence is withheld or shaped in particular ways in order to help an agent arrive at the truth, but this is done without their consent (and sometimes without their knowledge). While general defenses of epistemic paternalism are garnering more attention in the recent literature, little has been said regarding the practice in religious contexts. We explore a defense of epistemic paternalism in religious settings inspired by the work of the medieval Islamic philosopher Averroes. According to Averroes, epistemic paternalism is permissible in cases where it would help a layperson arrive at religious knowledge via imagination because they are incapable of arriving at it by demonstration. We conclude by explaining how the distinction between imagination and demonstration can be used to justify epistemic paternalism in contemporary settings.

Deke Caiñas Gould (2021) argues that the possibility of future non-human-like minds who are not harmed by coming into existence poses a challenge to David Benatar's well-known Asymmetry Argument for anti-natalism. Since the good of these future minds has the potential to outweigh the current harms of human existence, they can be appealed to in order to justify procreation. I argue that Gould's argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of Benatar's argument. According to the Asymmetry Argument, if a person experiences any harm at all, then bringing them into existence is unjustified. It does not depend upon on-balance judgments about the relative harms and benefits of existence. It therefore remains impermissible to procreate right now in our world, regardless of the prospect of future humans contributing to the successful development of beings who are not harmed by existence. I conclude by addressing two alternate readings of Gould, which, for the sake of argument, permit such on-balance judgments, and show why they fail to rescue his case. Benatar's Asymmetry Argument might be unsound, but not for any reason identified by Gould.

Contemporary philosophy of religion and analytic theology has recently experienced a revival regarding the nature of the Christian Atonement. The Kaleidoscope theory of the atonement says that the major theories such as Christus Victor, Satisfaction, Penal Substitution, and Moral Exemplar each capture an important aspect of the significance of the atonement. When taken together, they offer a fuller picture of the atonement than they do as individual theories. My goal is to add to the Kaleidoscope theory by drawing on insights from the African philosophical tradition. I argue that there are ideas to be found in the African communitarian ethic of ubuntu that can be mined to help deepen our understanding of the atonement. I thus seek to widen the kaleidoscope theory of the atonement to include important African perspectives.