Why Science Can’t Replace Religion

[intaglio]

56. You've just moved the goal posts by using a weak dictionary definition

The dictionary does not identify "right and wrong" making the definition meaningless. The sense you seem to take from morality is the idea that it is a code of behaviour, either of individuals or of groups, specifically religious groups. Here is the problem of that overly simplistic view; using your definition makes morality relative to faith and what is worse relative to a particular brand of faith.

Examples:
Consider the Thugee, worshipers of Kali Durga, were they moral in their behaviour? Remember, they believed that what they were doing was "right" and that not to sacrifice travelers was wrong. Similarly the reported actions of the maenads, followers of Bacchus/Dionysus? What of the morality of the early Mormons? What the early European settlers in the USA who branded women with the scarlet letter and went into anti-witch rampages? All of these people considered their actions to be both "right" and "moral".

Now there is an alternative and that is to consider morality "normative", a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it, applying equally to all affected by this "code". What is more all who interact with this code recognise these qualities in that morality. In this definition the actions of those faiths mentioned above become "immoral" and the definition opens the door to asking, "what do all people regard as moral?"

The opening of that question allows reasoned study. For example the principle of equal reward for equal input is regarded as being moral and people breaking that rule (either the donors or the actors) cause upset and anger. Guess what, that moral principle is found to apply not just in humans but also to other social primates. It seems that for monogamous species cheating on your partner seems to cause distress. The death of a member of your species causes retaliatory action; I have seen seagulls react to such deaths with violence toward the perpetrator.

Because, with the normative view, morality can be seen in many creatures some simple rules of a universal human morality can begin to be ascertained. These seem to have their origins in the the social organisation of humans and that organisation is founded in the biology of our species. Here is where the physical foundations of morality can begin to be seen, examined and made reasoned.

You can, of course, stick with your "right and wrong" definition but you will forever be at the mercy of those who define right and wrong - like priests and politicians.