If you have a lot of smarts on your side then you can make a(n) (academic) career in the liberal arts. You can always compromise: lately I have been considering a split career --> finish medicine, specialise in a field which is potentially conducive to part time work (e.g. shift work in intensive care or private psychiatry) and then attempt a split between clinical practice / academic humanities. There are a number of people around universities who manage combined professional/academic carrers.
Also, the likes of Kant/Hume simply offer different kinds of answers to Dawkins/Hawking. What I will say in favour of philosophy is that the range of answers is exceptionally broad, such that 'theistic creationism' and 'scientific realism' stand as but two views within the multitude. Both science and religion will tend to leave a number of things assumed and untouched (as will much philosophy, of course).
Thanks for your replies, thoughtful as always.
Firstly in respect to careers, I guess your advantage is that medicine is already clearly defined, with as you point out, philosophy acting as (useful) but complimentary knowledge.
In my case, a commerce degree is far less defined, and whilst I don't doubt the usefulness of the skills a BA teaches, it is a tricky decision (not that a BSc offers fantastic opportunies either, on surface).
I do like the breadth of philosophical enquiry and it certainly destroys any presupposed intellectual arrogance one has stored up when your whole world views (including those which you feel are immune because they are grounded in "science") are evaluated in front of one self. I'll admit though, at the danger of admiting to ignorance, science is
comfortable enquiry. I think psychologically we all seek certainty and "truth" (the lovely word it is) and for many scientists the constant results and advancements give them this. The dreaded enemy in many ways is the philosopher of science who can then make them question their own methodology and ultimately reality. My own critique on the limited philosophy I have read is the complete and utter lack of certainty, to the point where I felt at times its a time-old act of no resolution. Philosophy in essence doesn't produce anything- one well thought through opinion is just as quickly disapated or held equal to something completely contradictory. At the end of the day, do you know the 'truth' in the most objective sense any more then you did before you began? If it leads to nihilism and I know this
a priori then why should I bother- should I feel settled that that is the ultimate truth? Is there any universal advancements in the field such that there is a theory or "law" that is considered standard (besides the rules of logic)?
Science seems to offer that certainty, even if it is deluded in a deep sense, as it constantly builds on itself, throwing out junk but continually expanding our knowledge. Going down the other track means I could be 60 yrs old and still know nothing. Even if this is true in a realistic sense for an old scientist, is it not nice to die with the illusion of certainty?
Shit...I just answered why people are religious lol.
