Is it possible that science can be our moral arbiter? Certainly there is a current movement that believes it can. Many outside this push, and quite possibly many within, see this belief birthing out of desire to avoid, if not refute, the necessity of a god; however, there is more of a replacement than an avoidance or refutation happening here.
How does science inform us on moral issues? Does science deliver morality by reference or by inference; that is, objectively or subjectively? The difference isn’t in choosing or not choosing a god, but in which god you will choose, and the sides that are duking it out are Scientism vs. Humanism.
Thou shalt not cross the street. Crossing the street becomes belief by reference. This is science as god, or scientism.
Thou shalt not impede traffic. Crossing the street becomes belief by inference. This is me as god, or humanism.
How would science serve up an objective moral imperative; who is it delivering the commandment? Though many seemingly espouse it, very few people actually accept scientism. As we have previously discussed, the hinge is almost always the me; belief by inference allows us to mould a moral code that suits our subjective experiences. Humanism builds a moral order, not of the we or the you, but of the me.
This isn’t only an affliction of the unchurched. Religious orders and denominations also build subjective moral codes. Be the issue alcohol, political participation or speaking in tongues, a Jiminy Cricket conscience of the me grows up to compass the system of beliefs.
Paul tells us that those ignorant of the righteousness of God will establish their own righteousness and remain without submission to God. You are one of these if you place the me at the centre, if you’re filled with a personal moral order, if you have named yourself with that which makes you a subject of the subjective. And, like Isaiah, this will only come to your attention when the Seraphim, those that guard that which fills, bring the purification of God upon that which names.