Along at the New Statesman there's a panel of 'prominent personalities' reflecting on the limits of science. Richard Dawkins says:
[W]hat we do know is that, if there is a question about the universe that science can never answer, no other discipline will.
I'm not sure what counts for him as a question about the universe, but another contributor, Carolyn Porco, has some observations concerning why-questions about the universe - like 'if there is no God, why is the universe here?' She says:
Scientific inquiry can't be expected to answer such a question, not because its methodology is inherently flawed or feeble, but because the question is absurd and the reasoning underlying it is circular.
In asking that question, we are, first, guilty of anthropomorphism, ascribing human-like motivation to an observed phenomenon. But there doesn't have to be a motive or a reason for the existence of a natural physical phenomenon, and so the question is ill-posed because its premise is faulty: it presumes there was a motive and hence a creator with attributes such as motives, but there needn't be either.
Of course, Porco is not exactly answering the why-question in question here, but she is dealing with it effectively. And she's doing so like a philosopher. Science is of huge importance but it's not the only 'discipline'. Just saying.