Double post.

Bruno was not burned at the stake for suggesting there were alien species. Nicholas of Cusa — who later became a Cardinal — speculated on the possibility of aliens two hundred years before Bruno. So the Church didn't really have a problem with that idea.

Whenever I see articles like this, I know that it's inevitable that someone (always left of center for some reason) will use it as a way of saying that this explains why their political opponents remain in power.

"I just want to make it clear here, I don't advocate any force or imposition on those who don't wish to join."

"This may indeed lend great emotional comfort to him and to those like him (such as Fesser) who would like to see the materialist consensus overturned, but it doesn't make it true."

No, that's good. To be an honest coward is a kind of virtue. It's almost endearing.

"Scientists aren't going to have to give up a damn thing..."

"Does philosophy ask questions that science can never answer?"

More like they ask different questions (and, in many cases, one field can inform the other):

"The comparison was solely to illustrate that the relevance of an origin does not carry over across centuries..."

I think I meant to include a different link in that comment. But it was late, I was tired. (In any case, that post is still good.) I think I meant to link here:

"That's the thing about Science vs Philosophy, science is a branch of philosophy that redefined itself to be more result oriented and accountable..."

Only pointing out that the people objecting to Nagel have been met with their own objections — and, indeed, many of Nagel's critics prove that they don't even understand Nagel's argument.

"I compared the relationship between philosophy and science as the relationship between shamanism and pharmacology."

No Corpore, I actually suspect you're just a coward who, when he realizes he can't actually defend an argument, just throws up his hands, and accuses the other person of arguing "minutia" or some other nonsense.

What you meant to say was that a whole bunch of philosophers have been attempting to take Nagel to task, but actually have no clue what Nagel is actually arguing:

That philosophy laid down the foundations of modern science was only part of my point. A larger point would be that science is running up against questions that will increasingly require philosophy, or a re-conception of philosophical assumptions, to answer. That Atlantic article was a good example.

"Oh yeah, just like shamanism must necessarily have a practical use in pharmacology. That's an entirely reasonable argument."

Well, I assume you would agree that science has "practical use in modern day."

"It is, again, some kind of philosophical ideal to claim that God is not a hypothesis put forward to explain unknowable truths about the natural world."