(September 11, 2019 at 9:48 pm)Acrobat Wrote:(September 11, 2019 at 9:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote: A question that is answerable by science is best answered by science not by religious writings.
If it’s regarding what it essence is a non-natural reality that it can’t be answered by science, since
Science operates on conclusions formed on the basis of methodological naturalism.
Science can operate on the natural peripheral elements, but can’t take a position on this reality itself.
Scientist who are of the view that only a natural reality exists, would likely suggest it’s just an illusion, the position many of them like EO Wilson, Michael Ruse, Alex Rosenberg take on the objectiveness of morality.
You should go back to the OP and reread. You posed a question that is clearly answerable by science.
And based on my understanding of the sciences, how we've evolved morally has a lot to do with wellbeing and flourishing and such. It's just not definitive yet and is far more complex than just one stock answer to the question of human morality.
