Philosophical Inquiry?

I stated previously that both Adams are equally provoked by the mystery of Being even though the methods they employ in their heroic attempt to come to terms and to arrange a modus vivendi with the mysterium magnum are incongruous. ...The incongruity of methods is a result not of diverse objectives but of diverse interpretive approaches to the one objective they both pursue. The two Adams do not concur in their interpretations of this objective...While Adam the first wants to reclaim himself from a closed-in, non-reflective, natural existence by setting himself up as a dignified majestic being capable of ruling his environment, Adam the second sees his separateness from nature and his existential uniqueness not in dignity or majesty but in something else (the redemptive). Quite often, an existence might be replete with dignity and mastery, and yet remain unredeemed .An atheist cosmonaut circling the earth, advising his superiors who placed him in orbit that he did not encounter any angels.
- The Lonely Man of Faith

Both cosmos-conscious man and origin-conscious man quest for God, although they are not always aware of this quest. Man yearns for God, both in his feverish haste to get farther and farther from home, and in his lonesomeness for home and his experiencing the spell that home casts upon him. Cosmic man finds God (if ready for Him) in the vastness and boundlessness of the cosmic drama, in the heavenly galaxies billions of light years away. Home-bound, origin-minded man finds God in the
limitedness and narrowness of finitude, in the smallness of the modest home into which man was born and to which he willy nilly returns. He discovers God in the origin, in the source, in the center of the burning bush.
- Majesty and Humility

Alas, you probably remember that Tycho Brahe, as well as most other folks at the time, thought that the earth was the center of the heavens. Kepler was one of the first persons to regard the earth as revolving around the sun. If the earth moves around the sun, then it appears as though your friend is correct. The sun does not really rise, the earth turns. Even worse, he’s apparently right when he said the sun has never risen.
-Guide to Philosophical Inquiry Chapter 2

When questions finally seem to make no sense, very often, we have reached one of those ultimate fundamental unquestioned assumptions. In this case, a basic principle by which Stephen lives his life seems to be based on seeking happiness. So, in a sense, although he might not be aware of it at the moment, he believes he is working toward this goal by reading this textbook. Of course, his choice of a means to obtain happiness could be mistaken or perhaps even chosen in ignorance—in which case he might not be able to obtain what he wants out of life. If the thought occurs to you that it is sometimes the case that we might not be mistaken about our choices and might actually be choosing
knowledgeably and even so might not achieve what we desire, then you are already doing philosophy.
-Ibid., Chapter 3

In distinguishing philosophy from the sciences, it may not be amiss at the outset to guard against the possible misunderstanding that philosophy is concerned with a subject-matter different from, and in some obscure way transcending, the subject-matter of the sciences. Now that psychology, or the
observational and experimental study of mind, may be said to have been definitively included among the positive sciences, there is not even the apparent ground which once existed for such an idea. Philosophy, even under its most discredited name of metaphysics, has no other subject-matter than
the nature of the real world, as that world lies around us in everyday life, and lies open to observers on every side. But if this is so, it may be asked what function can remain for philosophy when every portion of the field is already alotted out and enclosed by specialists? Philosophy claims to be the science of the whole; but, if we get the knowledge of the parts from the different sciences, what is there left for philosophy to tell us? To this it is sufficient to answer generally that the synthesis of the
parts is something more than that detailed knowledge of the parts in separation which is gained by the man of science. It is with the ultimate synthesis that philosophy concerns itself; it has to show that the subject-matter which we are all dealing with in detail really is a whole, consisting of articulated members. Evidently, therefore, the relation existing between and the sciences will be, to some extent, one of reciprocal influence.

The aim of philosophy (whether fully attainable or not) is to exhibit the universe as a rational system in the harmony of all its parts; and accordingly the philosopher refuses to consider the parts out of
their relation to the whole whose parts they are. Philosophy corrects in this way the abstractions which are inevitably made by the scientific specialist.
--Ibid. Chapter 3

“Science is about explanation. Religion is about meaning… Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be” (p. 6, God, Science and the Search for Meaning, Rav Sacks)
"The very nature of science is much more understandable within a religious framework. Our visual and audial spectra allow us to observe the universe. Higher consciousness–our ability to think abstractly–yields art, poetry, mathematics and the science that accurately reflects the world. Its very existence makes great sense if humans were created in God’s image but is otherwise difficult to understand. Regularity in the world allows for science based on observation and prediction, the kind of constancy (many) religion(s) teaches but cannot otherwise be assumed true. Laws of nature are certainly familiar to a religion that also teaches about divine laws for humans." (Torah Musings)

figure 18