The Morality of Science


In my book, Religion Refuted, I critique the moral argument, which tries to defend belief in God on the basis that God is the foundation for establishing what is morally right and what is morally wrong. I won’t rehash that argument in this blog post, but I do want to highlight one example of morality that is in no way dependent on any divine authority. This example illustrates that humans express and foster a whole suite of moral judgments without reference to anything supernatural.

I once heard a TV preacher chastise all scientists with­in broad­cast radius, admonishing them that morality cannot be retrieved from a database. He cautioned that the rockets returning from the moon never brought home any moral mandates and that no chemist in a laboratory ever found the formula for right and wrong. The TV preacher proclaimed that morality requires a Scriptural founda­tion. Adolf Hitler had similarly argued, “Secular schools can never be toler­ated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral in­struction without a religious founda­tion is built on air; con­sequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith…We need believing people.”[i]

The TV preacher’s sermon got me thinking about “scientific” ethics. Moralists have long taught us that science shows us what is as opposed to what ought to be. Science doesn’t pass moral judgment on anything under its survey. It merely provides us with facts. Though facts are useful, they’re just as useful to bad guys as they are to good guys. For this reason, scientifically discovered facts are deemed irrel­e­vant to ethics.

The amoral reputation of science is reinforced by the portrayal of scientists as pallid figures draped in white lab coats, sequestered within a covey of abstruse meditations. They’re often depicted as messy-haired moral innocents, no more culpable than children ab­sorbed in harmless play. They may, however, appear reckless in their oblivi­ous disregard for the conse­quences of their dis­coveries. Worse, they may assume the role of the “mad scientist” intoxicated by the power to manipu­late nature.

The moralist invariably sees his own task as the higher one. The moralist has pene­trated beyond superficial facts and is probing the marrow of norma­tive values. If science is the engine of modern society, ethics is the steering mechanism, and we all know that the poor slob shovel­ing coal into the engine, though useful, is less worthy of admiration than the captain at the helm.

Literary scholar Michael Pettinger dismissively puts science in its place, “The scien­tific method of observa­tion, hypoth­esis and exper­iment only serves to create a body of relia­ble knowledge. It offers no advice on what to do with that knowledge, except to use it to pursue more knowledge.”[ii] Pettinger’s drab view of science as a mere data catalog is horribly wrong-headed.

Science is more than a big encyclopedia where we learn on page 6,843 that a common housefly beats its wings over 200 times per second, that on average a person inhales a molecule from a mete­oroid every four months, that Neptune’s weather (1,600-mile-per-hour winds, tem­peratures as cold as -330 Fahrenheit, and seasons lasting longer than 40 years) is even shittier than Minnesota’s, and that mono­tremes are unique in having a four-headed penis.[iii]

The narrow view of science as a dusty text­book crammed with arcane trivia underrates the ethical rele­vance of what we’ve learned from science. Granted, the breeding rituals of the Patagonian armadillo are not of overriding concern to most of us, but nuclear physics, the exploration of the origin of the cosmos, and the search for extra­terrestrial life have profound ethical repercussions. The image of our Pleistocene ancestors has increas­ingly supplanted the Adam and Eve myth and its associated concept of original sin. It’s ethically relevant that our capacity for moral passions is the product of our evolutionary history.

Science has a practical influence on morality. We ceased burning witches when we learned that the belief in witch­craft is a dangerous and unscientific folly. We’ve begun to amend our moral posture toward mental illness, chemical dependency, epilepsy, homo­sexuality, and other formerly demonized conditions as we’ve acquired a deeper scientific grasp of the underlying causes. We’re now more inclined to attribute disease to germs than to demons, which is why your doctor asks you to describe your symptoms rather than your creed. The study of Earth’s ecology is reforming public attitudes toward our planet and its inhabitants. The blossoming of scientific knowledge over the past few centuries has contributed more to the reformation of society than have all theo­logians and armchair moral­ists com­bined.

Professional moralists understand that their profession is itself a prod­uct of the rise of science and secular modes of thought. Morality is no longer the hand­maid of theology. Theologians have through this process lost consider­able prestige and are now viewed by educat­ed people as antiquated buffoons. As H. L. Mencken remarked, “Skin a chimpan­zee, and it would take an autopsy to prove he was not a theologian.”[iv]

Before the rise of science there were no philosophi­cal revolutions. There was only clan warfare, which is distinctly unphi­losophical. Primitive humans lived essentially the same brutish lifestyle for tens of thousands of years. Steven Pinker, in his 800-page tome, The Better Angels of Our Nature, dispels the myth that our primitive, pre-scientific ances­tors lived peaceful, idyllic lifestyles.

Throughout recorded history, the biggest changes in lifestyles, phi­losophies, and morality have occurred directly or indirectly as the result of science and technology. If you’re not hovelling naked and dirty in a cave, tormented by parasites and invisible goblins while desperately chewing an antelope carcass, be grateful to science.

Christian apologists boast that Christianity gave rise to mod­ern science. That’s at best a half truth. Apologists conveniently ignore the dimly lit millennium of Christian influ­ence preceding the Renais­sance. If Christianity alone sparked the scientific enlightenment, how shall we explain such a protracted prelude of twilight?

It’s true that early modern universities had religious spon­sor­ship. It would be surprising if that weren’t the case, since merely voicing nonbelief was a cap­ital offense. Harvard University had Puritan roots. Yale Univer­sity was later founded by Congregationalist minis­ters disgruntled by Harvard’s growing liberalism.[v]

Many religious sponsors of early universities sincere­ly be­lieved that sci­ence and religion were complementary.[vi] Chris­tian in­terest in the study of nature was heightened by the desire to build apologetic arguments against a rising tide of skepticism.[vii] The stifling influence of religious ortho­doxy in the universities was the catalyst for the founding of inde­pendent scientific societies, such as the Royal Society in London and the Académie des Sciences in Paris, which typically elected their leader­ship from among their peers with no ecclesiastical oversight.

Thomas Jefferson, advo­cating for the construction of secular uni­versi­ties, com­plained that the Presbyterians’ “ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had the power. Systematical in grasp­ing at an ascendancy over all other sects, they aim…at engrossing the education of the coun­try, are hostile to every institution that they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others begin to attend at all to that object.”[viii] These Presbyteri­ans, like Adolf Hitler, believed that “secu­lar schools can never be toler­ated.” Education and science have al­ways been regarded by religious authorities as dangerous tools to be kept under tight regulation.

Modern religionists would like to repair their blinkered reputation by claiming credit for science, touting it as an outgrowth of spir­itual devotion. In ancient Greece, Ptolemy and Cicero had similarly held that their intellectual endeavors were born out of piety for their pagan gods. Atheists, too, often see themselves as the most vocal cheer­leaders for scien­tific progress.

But we must bear in mind the direc­tion in which the tide flows. The recent rise of mod­ern atheistic phi­losophy, like Prot­es­tantism before it, was the product of escalat­ing literacy and secular knowledge. It has pros­pered and spread accord­ing to how thor­oughly it has embraced science.

Given that modern science fuels all successful philosophical and social revo­lutions, it is hardly surprising when some religions and cults tap into science’s awe factor, hitching their stars to science or pseudo­science. Think of Deepak Chopra’s quantum bab­blings. Ponder the Raëlian Church and its obsession with UFOs, mind trans­fers, and human cloning. Scientology, concocted by the science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, is comically saturated with science fiction, includ­ing Xenu, the galactic overlord, delivering aliens to primitive Earth, E-meters, and implanted extra-terrestrial thetans.[ix] Then there’s the Heaven’s Gate cult that planned to flee this corrupt Earth on comet Hale-Bopp in March 1997, all dressed up in their Star Trek costumes.[x] Members of the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult wore electric headsets that supposedly synchronized their brain waves with those of the cult’s leader. Let’s not forget the convicted conman[xi] (and presidential candidate[xii]) Joseph Smith’s revela­tion that Mormon gods live on the planet Kolob, inspiration for the planet Kobol in the television series Battlestar Galactica.[xiii] Last but not least, we witness mainstream apologists’ empty boasts that the Quran or Old Testa­ment is compatible with (or even predicted) the Big Bang. All these religious groups appropriate the trappings of science and try to steal its prestige, while they brusquely winnow out all science’s inconvenient findings, its estab­lished theories, its meth­ods, and especially the morali­ty implicit in the prac­tice of science.

I must say more about the morality implicit in the practice of science. The misconception that science is just a catalog of facts arises from our tendency to focus on the content of science, ignoring its context.

The practice of science presumes a suite of ethical values, fore­most among which is the love of truth. This powerful, childlike virtue is the root of science.

But science does more than exemplify and promote the love of truth. Science also makes predictions. Making predictions is a for­ward-looking enterprise, which implies a desire to be present in the future. The practice of science therefore reflects devotion to life.

Beyond the love of truth and life, science fosters an appreciation of widespread education, a spirit of community, respect for the free ex­change of ideas, integrity, an ability to trust others, a willingness to admit mis­takes, intellectual independence, tolerance, creativity, dili­gence, and a deep appreciation of well-developed com­munication skills.

Science is both an intellectual and social force, drawing diverse people together for the common purpose of discovery. Scientific knowledge becomes community property, uniting us in a shared vision of the cosmos and ourselves.

Science is a proud heritage. Each generation passes its accumu­lated information base and theoretical constructions to the next gen­eration, like Olympiads who pass the torch, except that the advance of science more closely resembles a chaotic marathon of runners, collectively passing along a starry field of lighted matches.

Science could never have arisen if man were a solitary animal who did not communicate with his fellows. Nor could science survive if its participants were habitually dishonest concerning their discoveries and clinical studies. It thus promotes and incentivizes our pro-social tendencies.

Ambition, greed, and zeal afflict all people, of course, including scientists.[xiv] In response, scientific associations have devised internal methods to filter out bias and detect errors or fraud. These methods include dou­ble-blind tests, control versus treatment groups, large random­ized samples, and peer review.

The scien­tific spirit provides a useful model for culture at large. It holds up a clear ethical ideal, accessible to the scientist and the non­scientist alike, so that when we fall short of that ideal, it stands above us to help us rise again. The model scientist pushes his theories as far as the facts justify and then no further. He attempts to convince with evidence, not through stupefying indoctrination and certainly not with the heretic’s whip. He makes no appeal to personal interest, political advantage, race, gender, or prestige. The only form of per­suasion respected in a scientific forum is an observable, testable fact.

In the arena of jurisprudence, this spirit of disinterested judgment forms the basis of our concept of justice. Procedural due process is at heart the application of the scientific attitude to the law.

Democracy is the political corollary to the scientific method. The moral principles requisite to the advance of science, such as personal equality, universal education, and free communication, correspond pre­cisely with those social characteristics most essential for the oper­ation of a democracy. It’s no accident that scientifically advanced nations are among the most democratic. Freedom of thought and freedom of action arise from the same cultural climate. Within a well-run research lab, just as within a democratic society, all people may participate on an equal footing, limited only by their own abili­ties and application.

The practice of science entails a wealth of ethical, social, and political principles. Science springs from specific moral values and, in turn, fosters those moral values. It’s impossible to have an amoral science.

Anti-intellectualists struggle constantly to isolate practical science from its philosophical and moral implications. They strive to domes­ti­cate science, defang it, and render it culturally impotent.

The TV preacher boasted of the indispensability of religion, snidely commenting that no chem­ist in a laboratory ever discovered the formula for right and wrong. Such a complaint is, at best, misdi­rected or, at worst, misdirection. After all, no scientist asserts that our values are reducible to mole­cules or that if we did the right chem­i­cal analysis we would be able to align our be­havior with some trans­cendent moral absolutes. Hume’s prohibition against deriving an ought from an is takes that option off the table.

Nonetheless, right and wrong aren’t beyond scientific investiga­tion. Some chemi­cals—hormones, for instance—have deep rele­vance to ethics, a fact we wouldn’t know without science. Without the pervasive ethi­cal underpinnings of the scientific temper, it’s doubt­ful whether the chemist would even exist.

The TV preacher’s antipathy toward science is depraved. Anti-intellectualism never has been and never will be the ethical high ground. We must promote universal education and support the advance of reason, not only because they yield practical advantages, but also because they tap our deepest moral wellsprings: integrity, equality, social cohesion, and our passion for understanding.

The preacher complained that the rockets returning from the moon brought home no morality. But when we view the Apollo 8 astronauts’ photographs of Earthrise, do we not feel the unity of all earthly life, and isn’t this a potent moral message?

At the very least we brought home from the moon the morality we took with us, the same morality that took us there. The moon rockets were ultimately pro­pelled, not by liquid hydrogen, oxygen, or RP-1, but by moral values, including our love of knowledge, adven­ture, truth, life, and civil society. Science is permeat­ed, begin­ning to end, with morality. Victor Stenger highlighted an­other comparative moral ad­vantage of science over reli­gion: “Science flies us to the moon. Reli­gion flies us into buildings.”[xv]


[i] Hitler’s April 26, 1933 speech during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933

[ii] Michael Pettinger, assistant professor of literature at the New School, a liberal arts college in Greenwich Village, New York City, published this statement on 8/20/12 in a Huffington Post online article titled “New Atheism and the Same Old Story”.

[iii] Other science trivia: Possums are unique among animals in having thirteen nipples. Some comets have moons. Pheromones cause young women in college dormitories to synchronize their ovulation (the Wellesley Effect). Female southern pine beetles (Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann) fart a pheromone to attract males. Half the humans who have ever lived died of malaria or other mosquito-borne diseases. About ninety percent of surface water in India is contaminated by feces. Lightning strikes Earth 44 times per second. The combined weight of all humans is half that of krill. Tropical Hawk moths defend themselves from echolocating bats with blasts of ultrasound from their genitals. Armadillos sleep eighty percent of their lives. If you removed all the empty space within the atoms of your body, you would be microscopic. Changes in the direction and speed of the jet stream can alter the length of a day by as much as 120 microseconds (millionths of a second). During a normal lifespan, a person generates enough saliva to fill two Olympic-sized swimming pools. Neurologists think approximately one third of people feel an impulse to sneeze when looking at a light because the optic nerve signal that gets sent to the brain to constrict the pupils leaks electrical current into the nearby trigeminal nerve and causes the brain to falsely perceive an irritant in the nose. Male hippos “tail flick” their feces as a territorial display. Pigeons are better at recognizing themselves in a mirror than are three-year-old humans. Babies under one month have very little color vision.

[iv] H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun (4/4/1927)

[v] Dan Graves, “Yale Founded to Fight Liberalism”, (, April 2007),

[vi] One might wonder, on the Christian worldview, why universities are needed. Can’t Christians just ask their omniscient god whatever questions they have?

[vii] David C. Lindberg, “The Role of Christianity”, Chapter 7 (Roman and Earlier Medieval Science), The Beginnings of Western Science, Second Edition (University of Chicago, 2007)

[viii] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper dated November 2, 1822

[ix] Janet Reitman, Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion, (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston) p. 29, (“denyer” engram that causes rejection of dianetics), p. 40. (e-meter based on lie-detector used by Carl Jung and other psychologists)

[x] Although the founder of the Heaven’s Gate cult wore a spiffy uniform, reminiscent of the Star Trek uniforms, when the 39 members of the cult committed mass suicide (by downing applesauce laced with phenobarbital chased by vodka), ordinary cult members were caught dead wearing cheap uniforms consisting of sweat pants, plain black T-shirts, matching running shoes, and armbands. They also put plastic bags over their heads so they would suffocate if the poison failed to do its job. Thomas Nichols was among the dead. His sister was the actress Nichelle Nichols, who played the role of the communications officer Lieutenant Uhura in the original Star Trek TV series.

[xi] The court, in issuing its conviction in 1826 in the case People of the State of New York versus Joseph Smith, denounced Smith as “a disorderly person and imposter.” Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven, (Anchor Books, New York, 2004), p. 59.


[xiii] There’s some dispute over whether Kolob is a star or planet. Joseph Smith referred to it as a heavenly body. His Book of Abraham sometimes referred to planets as stars.

[xiv] See relevant articles in The Economist magazine (September 10, 2011) and Discover magazine (April 2012)

[xv] Victor Stenger, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason (Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2009), p. 59.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *