To think on:

1. Exactly how physical science can ever come up with a value, as if a value were like a mechanism for cellular reproduction

Look, evolutionary psychology can come up with interesting explanations about the development of our instincts/emotions but nothing about which emotion/instinct to follow – only moral reasoning can. When two instincts compete which one should we follow? Only religion and philosophy can answer.

2. The Catholic Church to take one example has very detailed and highly nuanced responses to all of these topical moral issues, with basically all of the wealth of our religious and philosophical tradition to draw from. What ought you do about that? Have a think.

3. Yeah try actually defining your terms. That would be nice. I’m inclined after reading this essay to think that I need no morals and that stealing your car doesn’t matter.
4. How it is that hypocritical political and religious leaders find moral crusades effective at all if duties to each other and to God didn’t actually exist, at least for their constituency. Because the love of God and neighbour holds no meaning for a person in power says nothing about their truth. Read about effective moral crusades that John Ralston Saul conveniently overlooks, how about the latest one in Uganda.

5. Provide one example of a school classroom in the developed world that for science lessons, reads the Bible. Just one that’s all.

6. Read anything from even the most minor of New Testament scholars about that statement of Jesus. Have you read the Gospels? A simple google search would have helped here.

7. Lastly, secular humanists like to think they hold a neutral default world view. But have a think about the unprovable (in the scientific sense) doctrines it rests on. So you would simply exchange one indoctrination, the right and healthy one, for a silly secularist experiment.

8.The suggestion that philosophy is taught to primary schoolers is a great idea, the quality of this article is the best argument for it I’ve read.

9. What are OLO editors doing??

I'll have a shot at answering some questions Martin, & a couple of comments along the way.

1. I'm unconvinced science can lead humanity towards a charter for moral behaviour. Perhaps the author was thinking science helps lead us away from immoral behaviour encouraged by some faiths (female genital mutilation, opposition to birth control in overpopulated nations, opposition to certain medical procedures). Which is wishful
thinking. The enlightenment was several hundred years ago yet over half of Americans believe in creationism.

2. the Catholic church often comes across as reactionary & fearul of losing influence. Where in the scriptures does it say stem cell research is sinful? 'Higly nuanced' ? More 'on the fly'.

4. Leaders of all stripes need a cause. Love of god doesn't come into it. The most effective leaders are those who lead by example rather than by sermonising.

5. There are none, though I didn't gather the author claimed there were. Some secondary education authorities in the states find they have to fight (still!) to have creationism kept out of the science curriculum.

7.What can faith prove using first principles? If you believe a first principle is merely a "position" or a "policy" then I'm afraid science is not for you. Incidentally can you give an example of an unprovable scientific doctrine? And do you know what constitutes scientific proof?

One can write ether a plot and commentary on Romeo and Juliet in 1200 words or a thesis on the same subject. I commend John for such a credible effort given the space available to him. Especially since eminent thinkers since before Plato have written tomes on the subject.

GP’s response is time based and centred on current circumstances (levels of science and self awareness i.e. Would he be so inclined to poison his unfortunate Granny if he knew that due to science that he COULDN’T get away with it? His choice to proceed would then have nothing to do with ethics rather his capricious denial of consequential reality. John didn’t say it would lay down concrete laws but that it would eventually indicate correct behaviour. The very thing that makes us human is at our current level of understanding what we call our freedom of choice. And the emotions that force our actions are neither corralled by morals or ethics.
Before we reach that level of understanding/control we will by all statistics be either extinct or have evolved into some thing different. Remember evolution only guarantees change not direction.

JPW2040’s loading the muskets is likewise myopically phrased” in that among other reasons Christian ‘morals’ Have loaded the muskets given cause/justification for many disasters ranging from the conversion of indigenous cultures to Christianity to genocide.

Morals are human invented grease for intra-culturally specific interchange. And the down side is they are used as both a binding but also grounds for discrimination. In terms of instructions they are learned.

Ethics however can be seen as being independent to cultural idiosyncrasies. i.e. Protect children, treat your neighbour as you wish to be treated. Both survival necessities that are practised by the 1st world citizens as do the ‘primitives’. A universal ‘hard wired’ instruction (truth, fundamental building block).

Following this vein it stands to reason that it is morals that are indoctrinated not ethics. It also makes sense that non doctrinal education is defined as being without (cultural) morals.

Hi John,

Re your circumcision 'authorities' -- one is a professor of molecular medicine and the other, as you point out, is with an Electron Micrososcopy Unit: neither appear to have any special qualifications in urinogenital medicine or social epidemiology that would stand up against the entire Royal Australasian College of Physicians. But in response to your two let me meet your two and raise you two more:

Dr Peter Ball MB,B Chir
John Dalton Bsc,Msc
Prof Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer for England
Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, former assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California Medical Center.

Merely quoting authorities, however, is useless; your problem is to show why, if circumcision is so beneficial, the rate is dropping rapidly all over the educated and developed world. If this continues then soon cultural circumcision will be confined to small groups of religious fanatics and undeveloped tribespeople. This hardly supports the idea that it has clear health benefits.

Congratulations to John Turner for his comment on morals and ethics. Robert Ardrey wrote vividly on human origins, especially in his book African Genesis, which draws on the work of Australian anthropologist Raymond Dart. As I recall, Ardrey quotes Dart commenting on explanations of human nature: “we have tried everything else—-we may as well try the truth. So Ardrey introduces an account of the human being as the risen ape.
Philosophy for children has demonstrated value and should be widely taught.

Jon J
In an earlier reply I mentioned a contribution by Prof. B J Morris to the winter 2008 edition of The Skeptic. Defending his position against earlier criticism of his views in the magazine Professor Morris wrote, “I maintain an up-to-date internet review on this topic (www.circinfo.net), a website that has grown enormously over the past 15 years, currently citing 660 publications of the extensive research, which on balance points to the considerable benefits of circumcision. It represents the most extensive review on circumcision in the world. As well, I give invited seminars on circumcision to medical audiences, and was invited to chair the circumcision session at the 4th International AIDS Society Conference in 2007.
I have provided invited input to medical bodies, including the World Health Organization and UNAIDS pertaining to the writing of documentation to assist the roll-out of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS that is now endorsed by these bodies”.
I suggest you have a look at the information at the website www.circinfo.net
Every prospective parent could benefit any male offspring and their future partners by this simple childhood operation which also reduces the lifetime risk of urinary tract infections in the male by a factor of about six for example and virtually eliminates penile cancer.