Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[I_am_not_mafia]

None of those fields are equipped to answer the questions I asked in my first post and only draw upon their relation to philosophy when they do so. Show me empirical data which favors democracy over theocracy.

I know why democracy is better than theocracy, and it's not because of empirical data. I draw upon something else when answering this question, namely reason, values, and an assessment of the human condition (all firmly within the wheelhouse of philosophy).

If it does not use empirical data why then should we trust philosophers to answer this question for us over any of the fields I mentioned?

You say these fields are not equipped to answer why democracy and not theocracy, and why we shouldn't enforce morning prayer, but why not? (I should have also add history as a field)

I don't know whether philosophers have the answers or not, but fact is, no one is listening to them when these questions get raised and the answers decided. If the field isn't equipped to provide convincing answers and to get people to pay attention to it for whatever reason then the field is irrelevant in its current form.

Isn't it the case though that if philosophers do talk about these issues, that they do use empirical data obtained by many different fields and draw it together into a bigger picture? And that it's when they do this that they get listened to? That's when philosophy becomes useful.