And science can provide a basis for morality...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=picture+ ... =128&ty=88

The people who ordered it done were Christians, and so were many of the scientists. Is that a relevant or significant fact?

First, your "fact" is questionable.

Second, the men responsible for the project were largely atheists.

In any case, it certainly does not help the idea that science can be used as a basis for determing morality.

The US government, in conjunction with the military, ordered the project done, paid for it, and deployed the bomb. I can assure you that the vast majority of those people were theists.

Also, consider the situation for yourself: Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, Germany and it's allies were devastating Europe, and Germany was rumored to have the knowledge to build an atomic bomb. If you would have had the skills to have been offered a job to work on the Manhattan project, do you think you would have turned it down on moral grounds?

Now you say that the majority of the people involved in the project were theists, when previously you referred to Christians. But you need to remember that the majority of the people working on the project did not know what the project was utlimately about.

But those who did know what it was ultimately about were atheists, such as Oppenheimer. (Although he did express an interest in Hindu philosophy.)

And, to be technical, many of the Scientists were Secular Jews.

The rumors as to Germany were exactly that, since the Germans never did come close to developing a Nuclear Weapon. Our top leadership almost certainly knew they were not going to during that war, since the Germans never even developed a functioning Nuclear Pile.

All of this does not do much to help the claim that science can be used to provide a basis for morality, although I will admit that Oppenheimer (unfortunately well after the fact) famously said to President Truman, "Mr. President, the scientists have blood on their hands."

But those days are passed, and Scientists today (whom Dawkins assures us are largely atheists) are continuing to provide all kinds of WMDS to the powers of the world. Obviously, their Science does not affect their moral sense of any kind of duty to humanity.

So do you think you would have refused to work on the project, on moral grounds?

Jack, you are ignoring most of my argument.

The point is that even given what we know today (and I pointed out that most of the people working on the project did not know what the project was ultimately about), Scientists are STILL providing WMDs to the world.

And our government, populated by theists (with only one of two exceptions) is legislating both the research and the wars to use them on.

If you were somehow a member of Congress, would you advocate and vote for the cessation of all military weapons research and against all military action?

Jack, the fact remains that it is the scientists, (and the anti theists like Dawkins and others assure us that most of the best ones are atheists) who are continuing the provide the WMDS

It would not matter what was legislated if the scientists did not provide the research. Moreover, the claim that theists are largely legislating wars is not even accurate...in the past century Officially Anti Theistic Governments have committed the most violence against both their own and foreign populaions.

As to your last question, I am Pro Life, Anti War, and opposed to the Death Penalty...which includes the Death Penalty for the unborn. And I would certainly advocate and vote for the cessation of all work on WMD's.

All of this supports my contention that Science provides no basis for morality.

Mike writes, "It would not matter what was legislated if the scientists did not provide the research."

And the scientists would not do the research if the means and goals were not provided by the government. The whole complex of government (including the military) and industry (including scientist, engineers, technicians, etc.) are responsible for the weapons of modern warfare, and the vast majority of people involved, from top to bottom, are theists.

Mike writes, "It would not matter what was legislated if the scientists did not provide the research. Moreover, the claim that theists are largely legislating wars is not even accurate...in the past century Officially Anti Theistic Governments have committed the most violence against both their own and foreign populaions."

Right now, that is not the case. Obviously, both the United States and the countries we've been at war with over the last 20 or so years have been theistic countries.

And, FWIW, as you know, I agree with you that science provides no basis for morality. You can't derive an ought from an is - we've discussed this before. Morality comes from other aspects of our humanity.

First I disagree that scientists would not do the research if the means and goals were not provided by the government. Einstein did his best work in a Patent Office. Private individuals and companies would certainly have an interest in this work...in fact, it is companies that produce the material; they just get a lot of money from the government. If the government did not provide, they would find other means. (Also your claim that the whole complex of government is made up of theists is highly questionable...Dawkins has pointed out that the leadership is proabably full of atheists who are just, for now, quiet about it.)

And it is not true that violence is not being perpetrated by Anti Theistic countries; its still going on in places like Red China, North Korea, and Southeast Asis. Most notoriously, Amnesty International has reported that Red China has been forcing Atheism on the Tibetans as a means of destroying their cultural identity. Moreover, the wars that our own country has been engaged in are not over religion but primarily economic and political goals...ESPECIALLY OIL PROFITS. In addition, I have been talking about WMDs, not just "modern warfare". WMDs, especially of the biological kind, could be assembled in a basement or garage and used for private goals. No doubt about it. But it would take SCIENTISTS to pull it off.

So, the indispensible factor is SCIENCE, not GOVERNMENT per se.

And of course Science provides no basis for morality, despite the claims of Sam Harris and gang. But no morality comes from the sources you claim...only Morally Relativistic Pronouncements enforced by the ones with the power to do so.