The New Science of Morality - Concensus Statement
The New Science of Morality - Part 1
The New Science of Morality - Part 2
The late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould concluded that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). The gist being science has its sphere - the evidence of matter, space, time, biology and religion has it's - meaning and morals. Science concerns itself with the empirical or observable realm, religion with the world of ultimate meaning and moral value, says Gould. But there are many who believe that ultimate meaning and moral values that are not grounded in observation, evidence and testing should not be used as a basis for human behavior, to include national governance and international relations. These links explore the possibility of a belief system where values and morals are based on scientific evidence, not faith-based revelation.
Archive for "Being Human"
-
▼
2010
(69)
-
▼
September
(27)
- Learning from Experience
- Belief, Science, Survival
- US Policy: A New, Much Improved US Approach to In...
- Got the Kavorka? Mesmerized by someone's animal m...
- But what exactly is a "bit" of integrated consciou...
- Superstition, Religion and Science
- Why So Many Americans Hate Liberals, Science and R...
- Dancing for Darwinian "Fitness"
- The Case for God by Karen Armstrong- A Book Review
- Timbuktu
- Africa's Forever Wars
- Africa Day
- China and Africa
- Diamonds are forever?
- Americans, Britons and Canadians - Common Language...
- US Policy: US Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Pres...
- Is there really a "God gene"?
- Was Darwin wrong?
- Journalist and Political Scientist: Environmental...
- Does creationist film discredit Darwin and his work?
- Is scientific knowledge as good or better than rel...
- US Policy: The Overseas Plans of Our Diplomats an...
- Show Them the Money!
- Half of Americans Believe Humans Originated on Ear...
- US Policy: Re-Writing the "Four Bs" of US Foreign...
- Bad Approach to Science Education in the US?
- Jim's Blog Site
-
▼
September
(27)