If proper functionalism is true, then god is omni-ignorant

According to proper functionalism, a belief for an agent has warrant only if that belief was produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties. Accounts of knowledge are supposed to apply irrespective of the agent in question, even if that agent is God (or, if you prefer, a necessarily existent, uncreated, ideal cognizer). Unfortunately, this is where proper functionalism founders, i.e., proper functionalism is inconsistent with God having knowledge. Whether one understands ‘proper function’ non-naturalistically or naturalistically, accounts of proper function entail that God does not have knowledge. The upshot of this is that if proper functionalism is true, then we cannot apply our concept of knowledge to God; moreover, even if one holds that our terms or concepts apply analogically to God, any plausible way of understanding how our terms or concepts analogically apply to God leads to the same result—or to the falsity of proper functionalism. This result, however, is implausible, and gives us sufficient reason to reject proper functionalism as an account of knowledge.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05359-y
Primary Topic
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

If proper functionalism is true, then god is omni-ignorant

Daniel Lightsey
Synthese
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
article

If proper functionalism is true, then god is omni-ignorant

Daniel Lightsey
article en

Abstract

According to proper functionalism, a belief for an agent has warrant only if that belief was produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties. Accounts of knowledge are supposed to apply irrespective of the agent in question, even if that agent is God (or, if you prefer, a necessarily existent, uncreated, ideal cognizer). Unfortunately, this is where proper functionalism founders, i.e., proper functionalism is inconsistent with God having knowledge. Whether one understands ‘proper function’ non-naturalistically or naturalistically, accounts of proper function entail that God does not have knowledge. The upshot of this is that if proper functionalism is true, then we cannot apply our concept of knowledge to God; moreover, even if one holds that our terms or concepts apply analogically to God, any plausible way of understanding how our terms or concepts analogically apply to God leads to the same result—or to the falsity of proper functionalism. This result, however, is implausible, and gives us sufficient reason to reject proper functionalism as an account of knowledge.

SyntheseVol. 206(5)
University of Notre Dame (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.