I’m a Quaker and a philosopher. Some might think this an incompatible, perhaps preposterous combination. I haven’t analysed the effect of my philosophy on my faith and vice versa in great detail.
I am increasingly aware that I should probably begin to tackle this blind spot.
As Socrates said: ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’.
As George Fox said ‘What canst thou say?’
Quaker faith is provisional and grounded in experience. I suppose that means it is less dogmatic than some systems of religious belief, and so less vulnerable to philosophical scrutiny. I do really value the Quaker emphasis on continuing insight and search after truth which is relevant to us today.
On the other hand, the Quaker emphasis on personal experience might lead one to have either trivial or idiosyncratic beliefs. There’s the danger that personal beliefs are squeezed into or otherwise shaped by one’s life experience, which seems wrong for a faith that aspires to depth.
One could say that philosophy is about questioning the assumptions behind our beliefs, big and small. And the kind of philosophy I study and practice emphasises rejecting conclusions that are invalid or speculative.
Of course, there are philosophers with faith in God. But I get the sense that religious belief is not a common characteristic of an earnest contemporary philosopher- particularly not at my institution. Philosophy seems to demand evidence that faith just cannot supply, while religious faith or belief seems to entangle us in unphilosophical beliefs.
However, some of the most hotly-contested philosophical questions are those where opinions are rife and evidence is scarce. For example, what constitutes a rational mind? What are morals? What is knowledge? Is the universe causally determined? These questions remain contentious and challenging even when God or spirituality is kept out of the picture.
It will come as no surprise that I don’t have a neat conclusion to round off this post. Just the sense that it might be time to work out my beliefs a bit more clearly. A renewed commitment to seeking after truth. I’ll try to share my insights here.
In its early days our Society owed much to a people who called themselves Seekers: they joined us in great numbers and were prominent in the spread of Quakerism. It is a name which must appeal strongly to the scientific temperament. The name has died out, but I think that the spirit of seeking is still the prevailing one in our faith, which for that reason is not embodied in any creed or formula.
Arthur S Eddington, 1929
things that might have been otherwise 
It’ll be interesting to see what you discover. As a Quaker and an atheist I think it will have some relevance to myself also.
I’ll be returning to find out what insights there are to be had.
Concerning the philosophy vs faith question, in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts chapter 17 verse18), Paul has a discussion with “certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” at the Aeropagus in Athens. Here he uses philosophy as a springboard or as a ‘hook’ to draw his hearers as he develops his argument of the Christian God as the creator of all. Much of Paul’s speech seems to allude to Stoic beliefs and he cleverly uses the pagan practices of idol worship (and the proliferation of idols as insurance for every eventuality) to introduce a ‘new god’ they had overlooked – the one true God. Could philosophy therefore be used to explain or act as a foil to faith?