One morality, not many

[rameumptom]

The "morality" of science had doctors, nurses, and scientists putting Jews in camps, where many were experimented upon. Mengele's experiments on twins was to ensure Aryan women could bear twins, all blue eyed and blond haired, in order to ensure the Third Reich had its millennium of greatness.

Of course, this has occurred elsewhere: the syphilis experimentation on black men at Tuskegee, Professor Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment gone awry, etc.

Of course, this does not mention the non-religious, materialist/scientific minds of Stalin and Chairman Mao, who each slaughtered tens of millions of their own people to promote their scientific methodology of politics. Many things have been done in the name of science over the years that make the atrocities of religion pale by comparison. One of my favorite authors once noted that we cannot allow science to create the next generation of Eichmanns or Mengeles.

Top 10 Evil Human Experiments

[Traveler]

The "morality" of science had doctors, nurses, and scientists putting Jews in camps, where many were experimented upon. Mengele's experiments on twins was to ensure Aryan women could bear twins, all blue eyed and blond haired, in order to ensure the Third Reich had its millennium of greatness.

Of course, this has occurred elsewhere: the syphilis experimentation on black men at Tuskegee, Professor Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment gone awry, etc.

Of course, this does not mention the non-religious, materialist/scientific minds of Stalin and Chairman Mao, who each slaughtered tens of millions of their own people to promote their scientific methodology of politics. Many things have been done in the name of science over the years that make the atrocities of religion pale by comparison. One of my favorite authors once noted that we cannot allow science to create the next generation of Eichmanns or Mengeles.

Top 10 Evil Human Experiments

While conducting experiments on various pieces of equipment according to specific documentation I dealt with one very interesting piece of information provided by the government. It warned about vibrations of a very specific frequency - accurate to fractions of hertz to over 5 decimal points. The warning was that this was the residence frequency of human tissue that will literally explode if subjected to the frequency if only for seconds. As I pondered this very precise information, I wondered -- How do they know that?

The Traveler

[volgadon]

Of course, this does not mention the non-religious, materialist/scientific minds of Stalin

Stalin was less of an atheist than you might suppose and certainly no scientist.

[Traveler]

What's a Moffia?

sorry - spelling - mafia.

The Traveler

[CarstenNorgaard]

Sorry to come in late. Just wanted to say that I personally think Steven E. Robinson is right in his book Believing Christ, in which he says that even the intelligence of man is fallen, that is, is made imperfect because of the effects of the fall, which are temporary to mortality. I mention this because this is really the only big problem with science.

Just like it is theoretically possible (far out there) for someone to keep all the commandments all the time, as Christ did it, it does not mean anyone else will do it. The plan doesn't work that way. The reason is that we are fallen. In the same way it is theoretically possible for science to eventually discover all truth, but that does not mean it will happen before the Plan of Salvation has been followed through to its last step. We are also fallen in intelligence.

In this precious life when we do not have more than just a limited amount of years, two things become incredibly much more value than sitting in a room and experiencing the whole world a priori: Conclusions based on a posteriori experience, and personal revelation.

The OP points out that humans have not been able to agree about ethics and morals through religion. Science is then introduced as a phenomenon that is in total agreement. But how can something that is developing and changing all the time ever be in total agreement?

The "truth of science" may be, as far as it is discovered, but certainly the scientific community is not exactly unified like the idea of the United Order. That's no different than the religious world. The "truth of God" is TOTALLY unified, as far as is discovered, but certainly the religious communities are not exactly unified.

Don't tell me that no theories ever came out of differing interpretations of this and this scientific fact, which is exactly the same as differing interpretations of this and this theological fact. (Of course, even what counts as "fact" is up for debate much more in religion, though also in science.)

Everything crashes as soon as we get into the interpretation of facts, including scientific facts. This is exactly the same as what the OP is describing is the problem with religion.

Here is science. It is in "total agreement" because it has the truth. It is NOT in total agreement because people perceive that truth differently. (For example, the Big Bang totally makes God impossible, right? And so does evolution, right?)

Here is religion. It is also in "total agreement" because it has the truth. It is NOT in total agreement because people perceive that truth differently.

There's no contradiction here. Science and religion are still two halves of the same coin, but the OP is comparing two different and incompatible sets of criteria to determine that religion has a problem, which it does not.

As Henry Eyring remarked, the only confusion between science and religion occurs in the minds of men, not in the mind of God.

Yes, there is one morality. We are still discovering it, just like science is still discovering the universe -- but heck, there are many many different images of that one too. Just like one poster in this thread who said that we NOW know that earth is round. They knew that thousands of years ago, too. We could then argue "one science versus multiple sciences?" just because philosophically, everyone walks in their own image of science. This is a result of fallen intelligence, and of limited time of being alive.

We can't know every fact and every detail at all times. So in theory, all of us have an incomplete view of science, and that really debunks any idea of "total agreement" in science, or any idea that it is a better alternative, if such is a thought to be had.

So let's not feel bad about seeking God and worshiping Him as He approaches us step by step, even if others disagree. That is a natural result of agency and intelligence and faith. There is still one morality, and it is still available to anyone who will seek God, though under his terms and in his timing.

Ultimately, not multiple moralities. Just one.