Abstract

Newman’s English empiricist background had alienated him from neoscholastic and analytic philosophers. His theological concerns separated him fromother empiricists, while his empiricism separated him from idealist philosophers who gave serious consideration to religious ideas. It is only recently that Newman has begun to be taken seriously as a philosopher as well as a theologian. We can now see that Newman identifies epistemological problems and offers solutions that are philosophically relevant today. In the words of Basil Mitchell, Newman was original because he demanded “a much more subtle appreciation of the way reason works, not only in relation to religious truth, but also in respect to all matter of serious importance,” including the philosophy of science. For Newman realized that science and philosophy are like religious faith in that none of these branches of knowledge is ‘rational’ in the traditional Lockean sense, and thus none can appeal to a neutral, objective standard of rationality. Since he rejects foundationalism, the problem for Newman (as for Plantinga) is how to judge between differing systems of belief. Newman’s resolution, in Mitchell’s words, lay in the recognition that “a rational resolution of disputes between rival traditions does not depend on... a neutral standpoint.” Instead, one can always re-examine and revise one’s first principles or antecedent assumptions in light of one’s evolving understanding and appeal to tradition. All branches of knowledge, not only religious convictions, require one to refine one’s judgment in this manner.