What Science Needs (To Replace Religion): A Moral Compass

I said yesterday,

we really shouldn’t want science to keep trying – not in its current form – because the scientific method has no moral or ethical mechanism

Science is not an all-encompassing worldview. It is not capable of being that. There are at least three problems that I can see, that interfere with its ability to be used “out of the box” as a human:world interface. The most crucial of these: a moral compass.

Science-the-method is complete, but cannot be used for anything except physical problems (which automatically excludes metaphysical problems – including even the question of whether a given question of whether a problem is metaphysical or not). Science-as-faith based belief system needs a set of moral assumptions, to be taken as a given. The ones it has are not adequate and will inevitably lead its followers off a cliff.

The conditional assumptions that are appropriate for doing lab work are not appropriate for governing the human race.

Those of us who aren’t scientists (and aren’t rich enough to be in a position to hire or control them) do not really want to be experimental subjects.

Not as individuals – and not as populations.

The American Constitution provided my security up until now. But the “living Constitution” people – like Supreme Court justice Ginsburg, who dissed the Constitution as being out of date (!) – and, in general, people who “believe in science” are now trying to override the Constitution with their version of “progress”. This basically boils down to rule by experts, for experts.

It’s ironic that the people who yelp most about fearing “theocracy” are in fact the ones who are out to install their beliefs as the official form of government – but of course the reason they want to get rival beliefs out of the public square is precisely because genuine theocracy can brook neither rivalry nor dissent.

I believe this is why the philosophers named their ideology “the Enlightenment”: they weren’t going for equality per se – they were going for the idea that aristocracy and religion should be replaced by a “new form” of Enlightenment: one with themselves at the center, and those who do not share their values at the periphery.


2 thoughts on “What Science Needs (To Replace Religion): A Moral Compass

  1. Pingback: What Science Needs: Interpretation Issues | Intellectual Imperialism

  2. Pingback: “Conflict in ethics of baby-making” | Intellectual Imperialism

Comments are closed.