(December 15, 2015 at 8:49 pm)athrock Wrote: I came across an interesting quote today from a guy by the name of Dr. Edward Fesser. He was an atheist at one point; today he is a Christian and a philosopher at some university in California. I think I quoted him once before in a thread somewhere.
Anyway, he wrote the following which seems to explain the value or purpose of philosophical arguments when considering the existence of a supreme being:
Think of it this way: you can’t find out why checkers boards exist by looking at the rules of checkers themselves, which concern only what goes on within the game. The rules tell you how each piece moves, how the game is won, and so forth. But why are the pieces governed by these rules, specifically, rather than others? Why do any checkers boards exist at all in the first place? No scrutiny of the rules can answer those questions. It is impossible to answer them, or indeed even to understand the questions, unless you take a vantage point from outsidethe game and its rules.
Similarly, what science uncovers are, in effect, the “rules” that govern the “game” that is the natural world. Its domain of study is what is internal to the natural order of things. It presupposes that there is such an order, just as the rules of checkers presuppose that there are such things as checkers boards and game pieces. For that very reason, though, science has nothing to say about why there is any natural order or laws in the first place, any more than the rules of checkers tell you why there are any checkers boards or checkers rules in the first place.
Thus, science cannot answer the question why there is any world at all, or any laws at all. To answer those questions, or even to understand them properly, you must take an intellectual vantage point from outside the world and its laws, and thus outside of science. You need to look to philosophical argument, which goes deeper than anything mere physics can uncover. [emphasis added]
This seems to explain what philosophy can do that science can't accomplish.
Thoughts?
Yep, science does not fantasize, philosophy can and does.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.