Really, Nico? You reject science? I am terrified for a world where people are able to say that proudly, as you do here.

You commit a common fallacy in arguing that science and/or a lack of religious belief leads to amorality. Science and morality address two different issues, it is true. However, they are in absolutely no way mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I think science gives one analytical skills to arrive at a correct personal morality, in addition to evincing what social systems, personal acts, etc. will be most conducive to conducting such a morality. While atheists are clearly not all moral by any stretch of the word, the same can be said of theists. Theocracy has absolutely no monopoly, nor even hegemony, over moral belief or standards.

I shudder when you claim the Enlightenment was anti-normative. Please also remember that foundational theories about normative politics, from (the classic examples) Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, all were pillars of the Enlightenment movement. There was scientific innovation, of course, but it paralleled leaps and bounds in belief regarding democracy, fair treatment of workers, equal opportunities, gender rights, etc.

For a modern example of a humanist and extraordinarily convincing conservationist, look no further than Harvard to find E.O. Wilson. I urge you to read some of his writings if you are unsure how science can inform morality.

To answer that question on a personal level, my scientific background informs me greatly. Studying the ecology of nature, I’ve come to appreciate the incredible interconnected web of dependence that exists, a web that we too, are a member of. If we harm that web, we will surely suffer massive repercussions, be it decreasing oxygen in the air if we destroy massive amounts of foilage, decreased soil productivity due to radically different climate patterns, the list continues, but I am unable to do so because of just how little we know. Science also informs me on this matter – it forces the realization of just how little we know, and how unaware we are of the consequences of our actions. It forces humility and deferential awe of the unknown, while at the same time, a fierce desire to understand that very same unknown, so that we can make better informed decisions in the future.

However, I must also add that all those reasons – destruction, interdependence – don’t fully address the issue. Even with my humanistic views, I still have a deep appreciation for the beauty of the world and a care for other living things (not to mention a virtuous life). Scientific understanding actually furthers my appreciation of beauty, as it has shown me the beautiful patterns in the intricacies of the DNA molecule to the wonderous mathematical equations that govern population dynamics or weather patterns or even human behavior.

We do not give anything with the scientific tradition. Not even religion, as the many religious scientists can attest to (Brown’s Ken Miller is a fine example). We do not give up morality, we do not give up normative ideas, we do not give up wonder or understanding or beauty. We gain. We gain understanding of a vast world unseen by the naked eye, hidden by noise, undescribed by the perfection of mathematical equations. We gain creativity, and we gain ideas about how to better society, better our world, and better ourselves.