I was inspired by this thought because of a lecture given by Sam Harris and the following discussion between him and Richard Dawkins.
Do you think science can say anything about what morality is.
I think it actually can and on the contrary Religion can't. It is an argument I hear very often by religious people. I think religious "morality" is very immoral because it is absolute. Morality has to be relative, has to be discussed and reasoned.
Furthermore I act morally because I want to. A religious person acts "morally" because he or she wants to be rewarded for it in the afterlife. I think this is very selfish and thus immoral.
You have to be moral because you want to be and not because you're told to be so because that in it self is immoral.
To act moral means to be ourselves, to be human and to be responsible for our actions.
Now the latter argument can be discussed or argued against since science has shown that there actually might not be a free will, thus it is questionable wether we can be held responsible for our actions.
What do you think? What can Religion say about morality?
Many ethical frameworks rely very heavily on the concept of harm. The biggest challenge for these frameworks is the definition of harm. I do believe that science can tell us a great deal about what is and is not a harm and through that could give us some very important insight into many ethical claims.
I agree, that can be a somewhat tricky problem. In everyday life, we just do our best to decide, and we're usually right. A list of nine axiomatic values will not always lead us to pinpoint a final answer - and if not, it will at least take us safely most of the way; and can act as a solid bed for other values.
In this video, Steven J. Gould explains Darwin's take on how nature (or natural science) cannot be a source of wisdom wrt morality.
Hi Pope Paul,
thanks for the link. I'm saying the opposite: