Is there anything philosophy proves that science can't prove

[catholictiger]

is there anything outside of the existence of God?

anything that atheist would accept as proof?

 

[JackVk]

intellect and morals are not a property of matter. Atheists write off morality as subjective, and then claim moral superiority over Christians. For example, you have an atheist professor who says that morals are relative. If you cheat on one of his tests, he will chastize you like a Christian. And if what he believes is just a chemical process, then how does he know he’s right? He can’t account for the reliability of the human mind. He basically says, “every thought is a chemical reaction. Except that one.”

 

[Anselm33]

is there anything outside of the existence of God?

anything that atheist would accept as proof?

Referring to the heading of your question, there’s lots. See particularly “The Limits of a Limitless Science”, by Fr. Stanley Jaki (a philosopher with physics degrees and winner of the Templeton Prize), books by Keith Ward, John Polkinghorne, Fr. Robert Spitzer and Nancey Pearcy.
Referring to the question in the quote above, whether a devout atheist (whose faith in scientism is bed-rock) would accept any of the logical arguments or evidence in these books, is another question. My first inclination is to say no.

 

[reggieM]

Science itself is a philosophical construct. It begins and proceeds only from philosophical conclusions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Philosophy can prove that the love of wisdom is more important than the love of science. Science cannot prove that the love of science is more important than the love of wisdom.

 

[Liinus]

Philosophy deals with the causes of things, why they exist, etc and their underlying principles and reaches its conclusins by inferences drawn from the things which exist. Science dealss with the physical analysis of things and their interactions through observation and constructs mathematical models of their behavior so their future actions can be predicted.

 

[Touchstone]

intellect and morals are not a property of matter. Atheists write off morality as subjective, and then claim moral superiority over Christians.

Many atheists claim that morality is objective. Objectivists and followers of Ayn Rand for example would claim this, and while they may not be correct, they at least have a coherent conceptual framework to work in – “objective” for them is a consistent concept, where Catholic notions of “objective morality” are typically confused if not outright false, and actually beliefs in subjective morality, themselves.

For example, you have an atheist professor who says that morals are relative. If you cheat on one of his tests, he will chastize you like a Christian.

That’s not a problem for a moral relativist, at all. His grounds as a moral relativist may be much sounder and reasonable for his negative reaction than the Christian’s. A Christian basis for their moral claims are problematic in ways that an atheist-relativist may not be.

And if what he believes is just a chemical process, then how does he know he’s right?

I suggest the use of reasoning and evidence. If he’s using that to inform his values and morals, then I’d say he’s on solid ground.

He can’t account for the reliability of the human mind. He basically says, “every thought is a chemical reaction. Except that one.”

Even and especially that one. Thoughts as physical and mind as natural in no way undermine the moral integrity of values that come from it. Rather, in contrast to supernaturalism, it obtains natural, from real (name removed by moderator)uts, reasoning on real terms, and with a real “reasoner”, the natural mind. This idea that physical and natural are somehow incapable of supporting complex systems and interactions is what drives the superstitious intuition.

-TS