Moral integrity is not something scientist can fool around with, no matter how much it probes our brain for secrets. They may find out how it functions by snooping around and peering into its filing system but they will never learn why it does what it does and when it is going to do it.

Rid a human being of a reason for living, that of loving and serving God, and you have a pitiful creature indeed. Not that science is trying to do that, but just the opposite; it hopes to help humans conquer themselves so that their lives will be more meaningful, not only to themselves, but to everyone.

But should this be their concern is what some scientific advancement experts are asking. They call this new field of study neuroethics. Precisely because they have made measurable strides into this study of the nature of man and his ability to react morally as well as physically with his environment, a need for guidelines need to be set up and adhered to, the moralist among the group believe.

That brings up the question, should scientific advancements attempt to override the moral guidelines each reasonable and God loving creature has as an inheritance? I doubt if this is their intention but with each advancement, often good intentions go awry. If these can be reckoned with before, it will save a lot of problems further into research if they know where to draw the line.

Up to this point it is reasonable to expect that the scientific advancements are only those that can tell us something about those critical areas that need studied. In other words, what can it tell about the mentality that allows for hideous behaviors such as crime, racial hatreds, and murderous intentions. Society will welcome any help along these lines.

Other questions being asked are: How sacred is our privacy. When should it be sacrificed and for what causes? How far should it be allowed to go before we call a halt? Should we become so altruistic that we no longer care how much of ourselves, mentally, physically, and morally is out there for the scientific community to lick their chops over?

Most of us probably would sacrifice most of our precious privacy for the welfare of others, but when the market place comes calling we will shut the door in their faces. To eradicate cancer, to prevent and to cure mental illness yes, and on and on and before we know it we are playing God. Just when is enough, is that an answer a mere fallible human being can answer?

Science and religion are two distinct subject and are taught in most schools as such, but while researching online I found that indeed there have been difficulties. These mainly have surfaced since Darwin published “The Origin of the Species” in 1859. Some students with a strict religious background who was lacking in necessary biology subjects had to double up on courses if they were to major in science.

Most religions today teach science as science and if they teach religion at all, they teach it as a separate subject. These two fields are seen as distinct. Distinct, yes, but very much aware of what the other one is up to, would be more truthful.

Source:
http://www.allacademic.com/index.php