A black scale balanced between a starry galaxy and a cathedral interior, symbolizing the tension between science and religion in defining morality.

Why Does Neither Science Nor Religion Understand Morality?

I’ve been thinking about the question of morality for a long time:

Why does it seem like theologists don’t truly understand it—and are simply repeating phrases from a book that tells them they don’t need to?

And on the other hand—why don’t scientists, who do have the means to understand natural phenomena, ever truly confront the question of morality?

It’s as though people believe it’s blasphemous to attempt to understand it, so they’d rather not believe at all. Why is that?

This disconnect has left us with a strange vacuum: neither side fully understands what morality is, where it came from, or what its purpose is.

And yet, morality is very real. It evolved alongside us as a system of coexistence. It influences our decisions every day. It drives entire civilizations forward—or brings them down.

Why do we reward “goodness”? Why do we feel guilt? Why do certain actions “feel wrong” even when nobody else is watching?

The very idea of a “conscience”—our internal compass—is strongly linked to morality. In many ways, it’s our connection to reality itself.

And yet…

Among scientists, discussing morality is taboo.
Among believers, it’s often treated like a rulebook that mustn’t be questioned.

So who’s actually trying to understand it?

Here’s why understanding morality matters more than ever.

Let’s start with a basic definition.

The Oxford Dictionary defines morality as:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior.

For centuries, major religions have created their own lists of moral “rules,” often without clearly explaining why those rules exist or what pattern links them.

The message was simple: Obey—or face divine punishment.

But here’s the thing: morality isn’t about obedience. It’s about function. It’s a system of productive vs. counterproductive behaviors.

Let’s break a few down logically:

  • Don’t steal.
    → Nobody wants to lose what they’ve earned. A stable society must discourage theft.
  • Don’t kill.
    → Unregulated murder would collapse any community. Basic survival requires boundaries.
  • Don’t lie.
    → Lying distorts reality. Truth allows us to act logically based on reliable information.
  • Don’t cheat.
    → Loyalty builds trust. Trust allows us to collaborate, grow, and share vulnerabilities safely.
  • Honor your father and mother.
    → Respecting generational wisdom helps preserve knowledge and prevent avoidable mistakes.
  • Don’t covet.
    → Obsessive comparison leads to dissatisfaction, division, and destructive behavior.
  • Forgive those who wrong you.
    → Forgiveness reduces chronic stress, preserves community bonds, and allows emotional rest—without falling into unproductive vengeance spirals.
  • Don’t worship other gods.
    → Focus on one Creator. Understand the nature of the Designer to better understand your own.

When you really think about morality, you realize how useful and logical it is—almost like a science of its own.

So, what if ancient humans simply didn’t have the tools to explain these principles logically? What if divine instruction had to be abstract back then, because people lacked the scientific context we now take for granted? 

People were able to blindly accept religion millennia ago because they thought reality wasn’t meant to be entirely understood

What’s the next step?

Today, we have access to far more of what I’d call divine logic—through science. And instead of disproving spiritual truths, our new findings may be revealing them more clearly.

Maybe religion hasn’t become obsolete. Maybe it’s just outdated—written for minds that hadn’t yet developed the tools to decode it. And maybe, it’s time for a version that speaks to our current understanding of reality.

We were built for more than obedience. We were built to align with divine logic.

Next time, we’ll explore what that might mean… for heaven.

3 responses to “Why Does Neither Science Nor Religion Understand Morality?”

  1. Eric Arnow Avatar

    This article is a good start. We live in a very confusing age, when right and wrong are seemingly deliberately confused. I would like to suggest that viewing morality from a strictly Western framework restricts the thought process. Notably, neither Buddhism, Daoism or Confucianism base morality on a Diety. One reason why morality is hard to understand is because Reality itself is fundamentally inconceivable. How to make sense of a Septillion data points? So, coming from training as a Zen monk, I asked the following question of Deepseek, which gives a pretty decent explanation of this complex topic. It is followed by the response. Apologies in advance for some of the technical jargon, but the basic ideas come through, I think.
    “Fear of Shame and dread of blame are two factors in the Buddhist system for guarding morality. How do they fit into the system of Dharmas? And where does the faculty of Wisdom, which seems to be more intuitive than based on mere facts and knowledge fit into the whole concept of morality in Buddhist thinking?”

    Response:
    In Buddhist thought, the factors of hiri (moral shame) and ottappa (moral dread) play a crucial role in maintaining ethical conduct (sīla), while paññā (wisdom) provides the deeper understanding that transforms morality from mere restraint into part of the path to liberation. Let’s examine how they fit into the system of dharmas (phenomena) and the broader framework of Buddhist morality.

    1. Hiri (Moral Shame) & Ottappa (Moral Dread) in the Dharma System
    Hiri (Moral Shame): This is an internal sense of conscience—a reluctance to do wrong because of self-respect. It arises from an innate understanding of one’s own dignity (attādhipateyya—being governed by oneself).

    Ottappa (Moral Dread): This is fear of the consequences of unwholesome actions, such as blame, punishment, or bad rebirth. It is more externally oriented (lokādhipateyya—being governed by the world).

    These two are called the “guardians of the world” (lokapāla) because they prevent moral decline. In the Abhidhamma, they are classified among the beautiful mental factors (sobhana cetasikas) and are part of the virtuous roots (kusala-mūla). They support right action (sammā kammanta) and right livelihood (sammā ājīva) in the Noble Eightfold Path.

    2. Their Role in Buddhist Morality
    Preventative Function: They act as deterrents against unwholesome actions (akusala kamma).

    Basis for Sīla (Moral Discipline): They sustain ethical behavior even when external rules or societal pressures are absent.

    Connection to Karma: They reinforce the understanding that unskillful actions lead to suffering, thus supporting the law of kamma-vipāka (cause and effect).

    3. Paññā (Wisdom) and Its Role in Buddhist Morality
    Wisdom (paññā) is not merely intellectual knowledge but direct insight into the true nature of reality (yathābhūta-ñāṇa-dassana). It operates at three levels:

    Sutamayā Paññā (Wisdom from Learning): Intellectual understanding of teachings.

    Cintāmayā Paññā (Wisdom from Reflection): Analytical contemplation of Dharma.

    Bhāvanāmayā Paññā (Wisdom from Meditation): Direct experiential insight, such as realizing impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā).

    How Wisdom Elevates Morality:

    Transforms Sīla from Convention to Liberation: Ordinary morality can be rule-based, but wisdom sees the intrinsic harm in unwholesome actions and the liberating power of ethical purity.

    Sees Beyond Fear & Shame: While hiri and ottappa are necessary for basic morality, wisdom transcends them by understanding the ultimate futility of unwholesome actions (avijjā paccaya sankhārā—ignorance conditions volitional formations).

    Integrates with the Noble Eightfold Path: Right View (sammā diṭṭhi) and Right Intention (sammā sankappa) are wisdom factors that guide ethical conduct (sīla) toward liberation.

    4. The Interplay of These Factors in Buddhist Practice
    For a Worldling (Puthujjana): Fear of blame (ottappa) and shame (hiri) are primary motivators for morality.

    For a Noble Disciple (Ariya): Wisdom (paññā) takes precedence, seeing morality as part of the path to the cessation of suffering.

    In the higher stages of the path, wisdom purifies morality, making it effortless and spontaneous (asankhārika kusala). The Arahant, for example, does not need fear or shame to act ethically—their actions naturally align with Dharma due to perfected wisdom.

    Conclusion
    Hiri & Ottappa are foundational for maintaining basic morality, classified under sīla and supported by wholesome mental factors.

    Paññā elevates morality from a conventional practice to a transcendental one, integrating it with the path to liberation (vimutti).

    Thus, while shame and dread guard against moral decline, wisdom transforms ethical conduct into a path leading beyond suffering entirely.

    1. Luisa Avatar
      Luisa

      Thanks so much for this thoughtful contribution! 🙂 This is exactly the kind of valuable, cross-framework dialogue I hope to encourage here.

      The contrast you drew between internal vs external motivators (hiri/ottappa), and how wisdom eventually transcends them, really resonates with my argument: morality isn’t just imposed, it’s cultivated. And it’s worth studying on a deeper level.

      It’s interesting how many cultures express the same core ideas in such different language—so much so, we start to believe we’re too different to understand one another. But most of the time, it just takes a little more listening.

      With metta,
      Luisa

  2. […] doesn’t. It simply proves that strange doesn’t mean illogical. And that the scientific method, a construct of our unreliable minds, may not be the answer to all of the questions we have about our perceived […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *