Contents
Research and Writing
|
Research Interests
Science and Religion
Philosophy of Science
Other Philosophy
Peace and Nonviolence
Selected Current Writing Projects
Quakerism was taking form at the same time as the rationalism/empiricism debate in philosophy and the rise of modern science. While the early Quakers did not participate very much in these debates at the academic level, an implicit epistemology can be drawn from some of their theological writings. The predominant summary account of the rationalism/empiricism debate is that empiricism ultimately “won” through the ascendancy of modern science, leaving us no longer in need of the “God hypothesis.” The implication is that the only way to support belief in God, if God does exist, is with some version of rationalism. Sense experience can give us no knowledge of God because God is not a physical being detectable by the senses. The only possible way to have access to knowledge of a supreme spiritual being would be through innate ideas, or through a reasoning process capable of producing substantive knowledge (hence rationalism rather than empiricism). But, surprisingly, the early Quakers who did write specifically about knowledge (such as Isaac Penington, George Keith, and Robert Barclay) did not seem to be supporting a version of rationalism. They were much too critical of human reasoning. Instead, their implicit epistemology is better described as a version of empiricism that assumes a broader notion of “experience” than we currently assign to empiricism. In my paper, I describe the version of empiricism I see underlying early Quaker thought, with special attention to different ways of understanding “experience,” and then I discuss the further implications of this epistemology and its relevance for today.
|
|
|
Last Revised:
by L. Rediehs |
Laura Rediehs |