Similarly, we can all agree that science's entitlement to…
““Similarly, we can all agree that science's entitlement to advise us on moral values is problematic, to say the least. but does Gould really want to cede to religion the right to tell us what is good and what is bad? The fact that is has nothing else to contribute to human wisdom is no reason to hand religion a free license to tell us what to do. Which religion, anyway? The one in which we happen to have been brought up? To which chapter, then, of which book of the Bible should we turn - for they are far from unanimous and some of them are odious by any reasonable standards. How many literalists have read enough of the Bible to know that the death penalty is prescribed for adultery, for gathering sticks on the sabbath and for cheeking your parents? If we reject Deuteronomy and Leviticus (as all enlightened moderns do), by what criteria do we then decide which of religion's moral values to accept? Or should we pick and choose among all the world's religions until we find one whose moral teaching suits us? If so, again we must ask, by what criterion do we choose? And if we have independent criteria for choosing among religious moralities, why not cut out the religion?””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
Science can inform moral decisions but cannot claim exclusive authority; religious moral claims must be evaluated by independent criteria.
In simple terms: Science helps but doesn’t decide morality.
Use reason, not religion, to judge ethics.
Themes
Mood
Type
When to use this quote
- public policy debates
- education curricula
- personal ethical choices
Key Concepts
Questions to Reflect On
- What standards should guide moral judgments?
- How can we respect belief while upholding rational ethics?
Religious traditions are diverse, making universal criteria hard to apply.