-
ORIGINAL: OculusPyramidis
One other small point: Although science in general tries to be value-neutral, some morals are scientific. Furthermore, the fact that a given moral is unscientific does not necessarily make it religious. There are some morals that are neither scientific or religious. Other morals are both scientific and religious.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, but I disagree with the idea that morals can be unscientific AND nonreligious. They may not be derived from a commitment to an organized religion, but I consider them religious nonetheless.
It doesn’t mean that one must choose between morals and science, however. I just find it ridiculous when people demand that religion/morals be kept out of government, when it seems to me that the only other option is to base the laws solely on that which can be proven scientifically. The very notion that life has value at all seems unscientific to me. Would the universe cease to exist if DNA stopped replicating? And even if the universe did cease to exist, why does that even matter from a scientific standpoint? It seems to me that religion/morals and government are inseparable.
