Religion is more than spirituality. It has other functions as well. For one thing, it defines what a society is. And for another, it dictates what a person’s morality should be. We can argue that, often, religious morality is too strict. But whether we like it or not, it defines how we should act due to a higher principle.
Even if we decide the higher principle is wrong, we nonetheless have to philosophise ourselves out of a moral act. And in doing so, we have to think about what we are doing – whether it is right for ourselves; whether right for society in general.
CAN WE, SHOULD WE?
Some 400 years ago the scientific revolution began to question morality due to higher principles, and knowledge of God in general. Slowly, it ousted the popular God from his primacy.
Today, this revolution is complete, and higher principles are no more. And this is particularly so in science itself. Whereas religion used to ask questions such as ‘why,’ science foregoes such speculation and is interested only in ‘how.’ We are interested in how something works, alone.
The obvious intellectual spin-off from this lack of higher principle goes straight to heart of moral ethics. For when a scientist is contemplating experimentation, his only concern is ‘can we,’ whereas the higher question of ‘should we’ is left far behind.
KNOWLEDGE DEMANDS
We can see here how scientific methodology negates the morality of their work. Indeed, no one can read about genetics in particular without being assaulted by the moral dilemmas it entails – dilemma that, in the main, are ignored by the scientist himself.
The scientist would counter this by arguing the moral question is not for him to decide. And in a specialized world, this may be true. But then again, it may be a simple cop out. My own opinion is that, if science can experiment upon a concept, it should be allowed to do so.
As long as immediate safety issues are addressed, it would be a brake on knowledge to argue any other stance. But the problem comes when we move out of experiment to application. For instance, knowing how to create a clone experimentally is different to applying it universally.
PUPPETS TO SCIENCE
The problem of deciding what can be taken from the experimental to real time application is dealt with by the politician. In defining laws, we invest in them our moral freedom and duty.
But we can only correctly do this if we are satisfied that they are acting in an unbiased way. Yet most of the time, it seems that politicians have become enthralled by the success of scientific experimentation, and rarely legislate against the wishes of science.
The most likely reason for this is that it is the overall intellectual system in place that defines what a society is. This function was previously overseen by religion because, at the time, it was the overall intellectual system.
Today, it is science that has replaced religion, and in defining what a society is, we must ask if a politician can really restrict science morally, if a scientific world is the predominant culture the politician belongs to. In effect, science may be brainwashing our legislators towards bad moral judgement because they know of no other way.
© Anthony North, September 2007
Have you clicked Diary of a Writer on Blogroll? Meet me, up close and personal.
Click Tony On, on Blogroll, for my current affairs blog.
If you like fiction, click Fiction Page on Blogroll for my short stories.
Check out the pages. Find my Links on Eye On the World.
BEYOND THE BLOG 