Science and Morality

Now that Stephen Hawkins has explained how God does not exist we can move on to the next issue. A scientist claims that science has a universal moral code and there is no need for religion. You have to love the arrogance. The author is a very well educated imbecile.

His first problem is that he does not understand the difference between right and wrong. He begins his logic with the statement that, "questions about values - about meaning, morality and life's larger purpose - are really questions about the well being of conscious creatures." Right and wrong are not concepts about what is the most pleasurable, it goes deeper than that. If we follow his logic, the purpose of life is to be happy and then die.

As with all fascists, he makes the following statement, "Some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others; some political persuasions will be more enlightened than others; and some worldviews will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery." He has a "rate the value of life" mentality, by definition he has already failed the morality test.

We can the morality of scientists and doctors, the educated and scientific. These are the same people who conducted the Tuskegee Experiment. The government's doctors took 399 black sharecroppers with Syphilis and studied the diseases effect on them over 40 years without making any attempt to cure them when they could have. Oh yeah, scientists and doctors also did the same thing in Guatemala, except they gave the people the syphilis.

Morality cannot be found on a spreadsheet and everybody matters. Sacrifice for others is a moral decision, it becomes a moral/good act when nothing is expected in return. One must ask themselves why science cares about right and wrong. The answer is because they don't like God, they cannot control him. Worse yet, he regularly makes them eat their words.

The "morality" of science is the morality of cookie chasers. How would they have rated the life of Helen Keller, they probably would have killed her, for her own good. Love is not a feeling, it is a heartfelt concern for the well being of others that leads us to sacrifice for them. Love is not rational from a scientific standpoint, to them it is just chemicals in your brain.

A "scientific" morality would enslave us all. No compassion, just numbers.