Tim Dean's guest article on the subject of "Science, Religion and the Quest for Secular Morality" (re-posted from his blog) has gathered a good number of thoughtful comments.

Tim is of the opinion that "finding a secular morality that can replace religion as our moral and values compass in the modern world" is an important task for the current generation. Indeed, he calls it the Great Quest:

The greatest philosophical endeavour of this century will be to find a workable, rational, scientifically-compatible moral and values system that doesn’t evoke the supernatural and can serve as a replacement for religion in our society.

I'm not yet convinced that this is even a useful endeavor, let alone the supreme philosophical challenge of the 21st century. Of course, I'm not a trained philosopher, but on the other hand, I am someone whose job it is to think about the moral, ethical, and social issues raised by emerging technologies.

Several readers who have left comments on Tim's article seem to agree with me that there is no great need to develop a "secular morality" to replace the various religious moral modalities that have governed human civilization for the last seven thousand years or so. Not that we see any particular problem with leaving religion behind -- high time for that, in my opinion -- but to seek for an equally orthodox substitute seems simply like replacing an old car with a new one, instead of looking for an alternative, sustainable means of transportation.

Is a canonical morality necessary? Would humankind, left to their own devices, soon succumb to our basest natural urges, in a global version of Lord of the Flies?

I personally think humans have evolved a built-in sense of morality that gives most of us a feeling of what's "right" and what's "wrong" without the need for external input, whether from religious texts and teachings, or from some new non-supernatural moral construct. Obviously that innate morality gauge can be influenced or overridden by external circumstances such as upbringing, social pressure, etc. It's necessary to protect and preserve that spark of conscience that evolution has given us, which is one of the many reasons I'm so opposed to childhood religious indoctrination: sometimes it is benign, but too often it subverts a child's natural instincts toward curiosity about the world and, in its place, instills a predetermined us vs. them morality and a fear of the other.

I believe we are on safe ground trusting in the general goodness of humanity and allowing secular democratic societies to determine norms without any guidance from supernatural sources nor even from a secular canon. That was, if I am not mistaken, precisely the view of the men (and women, advising them) who founded the first modern democratic republic, here in America.

Before closing, let's give Tim one more chance to make his point:

The kind of secular morality I'm talking about is a fully fledged moral system, covering what's permissible and impermissible, but also serving the role that religion has played in society for millennia.

It would have shared customs and traditions; it would bring people together as a community; it would perform charity work; it would encourage people to give of themselves to their community and those in need; it would educate people in how to live a good life and how to get through difficult times (e.g., divorces and deaths in the family are a major cause for non-religious individuals to turn to religion); it would inspire awe in the natural world, etc.

That's how I envisage it, although I leave open many other interpretations of the specifics. But it must be as psychologically fulfilling as religion -- just without the supernatural bits.

What do you think? Can we get along without a canonical secular morality?