Could science determine good and bad/evil without the religion morals?
If yes, then how should science measure that? or which scientific rules would be used to determine good from bad/evil? Or how could the science world proof what is good and what is bad/evil without using religion morals? Or how could religion proof without using scientific evidence about what is good and what is bad? Or is this the evidence that science can't be without religion and religion can't be without science? What do you think? *i edited the question to change right and wrong into good and bad, sorry sometimes my English is just as good as my Chinese!
4 Discussions

No, science deals with the problem of is vs. is not. Religion and other sources of morality deal with the problem of ought vs. ought not. 

Science and religion should stay out of each other's way. Religion is obviously not a reliable source of knowledge about the world. And science cannot tell us what to do. It is never a good idea to try and infer facts from what you think ought to be or ought not to be. And anyone who claims that science can tell us what to do is trying to pass off an agenda as fact, which will be evident on closer examination every time.

Yes, science can identify right and wrong. And I will give you examples. It's wrong to connect a negative pole to a positive pole, and it's right to connect positive pole to a positive one. It's wrong to pour water in a car fuel tank and it's right to pour fuel instead. I can go on and on listing right and wrong in the science world.

Religion guides moral , science guides technology, the two have their area of speciality so they have their value in their field. Before a scientist confirm an hypothesis to be a theory , they actually go through experiment and observation. All this is done to check if it's actually wrong or right .

Replied to comment 3 years ago

Thank you for your answer, and i apologize for not saying it correctly. What i men was good and evil/bad.

Hide replies

Man has always wondered about nature, about life, about himself ... His need for knowledge is immense and growing. As soon as one question is resolved, another, ten more arise.

Religion, the first, has attempted to provide answers to these questions, most often in the form of certainties drawn from a divine Revelation (case of great monotheisms).

The use of rationality and the gradual liberation of thought from the hold of religions have enabled metaphysics to construct explanatory theories, certainly based on logical reasoning but purely speculative because inaccessible to experimentation.

In the age of "Enlightenment", the sciences that entered their modern era, became aware of the impossibility, because of the very limits of the human condition, to acquire knowledge beyond experience and therefore the vanity of the quest for the absolute.

Science, by its methods, its rigor, its humility (it does not claim to give immutable answers or certainties), its concrete results and experimentally verifiable, gives answers that are almost universally accepted (almost, because there are still creationists !). The areas covered by science are becoming wider, forcing religions and metaphysics to reposition themselves regularly in relation to it.

The curiosity and interest of man for his surroundings are such that questions which are not yet solved by science are not ready to be exhausted. Religion and metaphysics, which feed on the ignorance of men, still have some grist to grind. Stubborn criticism of truths "revealed" by religions or reified abstractions, then deified by metaphysics, is an indispensable struggle so that man can really take in his hands his destiny and make the world more human.

Replied to comment 3 years ago

Thank you for your well explained answer, i see that you got my point, what i did not explained correctly. I apologize for that. With right and wrong, i men good and bad or evil. But from your comment i see you already noticed that!

My point was, if science can't proof what is good and evil, does that mean we can't use good and evil in our society or justice system, were scientific facts are our guidelines?

Hide replies

Science and religion have always shared a common denomination in the sense that mostly science is to seek and provide answers for the reason why some things are in existence and how they came into existence however religion is also dare to lead people to the truth about the existence of mankind especially religions like christianity and islam so u must say that sometimes what science cannot explain religions comes into the mix in order to verify or to simplify what science cannot prove.

Yes definitely science can determine what is right or wrong for example science student amend that the earth was not flat actually they did discover that the earth was spherical in shape there's no guideline for science in determining what is right or wrong the only guideline here is making scientific research and this research would end up being a defining solution to questions that may never be answered science do not go to religion to prove what is right, like the prove that the earth was not flat which was a wrong notion held by some people. In essence science only work on the principle of right and wrong and does not depend on morality or religious morality to determine this, they only work on the ethics of discoveries which can be proven in providing answers to people what is truly right or what is correct and differentiating it from what is wrong and religion is based on belief by faith

You are however right in one thing and that is the fact that religion and science coexist together sometimes scientists turns to religion 1 some of the things they are trying to discover or work on can never actually be scientifically explain, for example Albert Einstein once said that he believe in God because there are some things that cannot be proven scientifically not now not ever religion is however not science it is a belief and a philosophy about the existence of the supernatural God who made the universe so science does not work with mother believe just like religion does science only provides answers using proof and evidence why religion basically work on theories and philosophies even if they are codependent of themselves they definitely serve difference purposes.

Replied to comment 3 years ago

Thank you for your answer.

With right and wrong i exactly men good and bad, but that was my fault for not explaining that in the "right" way, only after i saw the comments i realized, damn i men good and bad, and not if science can't figure out mathematics!!

So my point is, a lion could kill a animal and would not consider to bad, but on the moment a human kill then he would consider to be evil. While both are doing something to satisfied their needs, what ever the reason a murder is.

Now im not saying that it's good to kill, but i do say what ever morals we use, they seem to be measured by the morals of religion. Or how else could science determine if a action is good or bad?

That saying if religion can't proof if good and bad exist, then how could science use good and bad in our justice system? People would say, that man is evil because he done this or that. But how can you proof scientifically what evil is?

Yeah because people lost someone and they have pain and this or that, that's true. But with animals is the same thing, they also feel the pain of lost. What makes us different from animals?

What can be good for the spider, can be bad for the fly! Does that make the fly evil, or is our universe created in a way that good and evil do not exist?

So my first question should have be, how could science proof what is good and what is evil without using the morals of religion?

And if science can't proof what is good and what is evil, does that make that good and bad is a illusion or just a belief? And if that's a belief then we can't talk about good and evil in the world, without evidence. Correct me if am wrong...

Hide replies