One of the most celebrated atheists in all of history was Ber­trand Russell. He was highly regarded and outspoken. However, when it came to morality and value judgments, he confessed, “I don’t know the solution.” He placed so much confidence in science and human reason but acknowledged human impotence when it came to the issue of morality.

Albert Einstein, in a discussion on science and religion back in 1930, said, “You are right in speaking of the moral foun­dations of science, but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.” Einstein clearly believed science cannot have a basis for morality. As he put it, “Every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formula must fail.”

As significant as science is to our world, it does not hold all of life’s answers. It cannot determine right from wrong, because moral values lie outside of the realm of science.

I recently read a very interesting book titled Science and the Good. It was written by James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedel­isky, both of whom are professors at the University of Virginia. It is a well-researched book examining the quest by science to find a foundation for morality. The authors were trying to de­termine if science could solve the enduring moral problems and fashion for modern people a good and peaceful society.

The authors examined various ways the sciences have sought to discover a universal moral code. They said: “Surely science can do for morality what it does for chemistry and physics—resolve differences with empirical evidence. In short, can science demonstrate what morality is and how we should live?”

The answer seems to be—no. As wonderful as science is, it is not a teacher of morals. Science cannot tell us why, scientifically, we should or should not value the enslavement of Africans. It cannot tell us scientifically why we should or should not value the purging of Jews and the mentally disabled. Science cannot tell us why, scientifically, we should permit or not permit gay marriage.

What Hunter and Nedelisky have concluded is this:

“The story of the quest for a scientific foundation for morality persuades us that the answer is no. At least, science has not gotten us there yet, there are no promising signs that it might, and no plausible solutions to the challenges this project faces.

Science has taught us many things. Applied to the prob­lems of human existence, it has brought about immeasurable benefits in health, longevity, comfort, ease of living, and se­curity. A central part of its achievement is the immense prac­ticality of its method and findings. It urges us to credit, and to build upon, only what can be demonstrated for all to see. Yet for all that science has taught us and for all the good that it has brought about, it has clearly not provided anything like a solution to the problem of morality—no way of resolving moral disagreement with empirical methods.”

So, where does that leave us? Who determines what is right and wrong, good or evil? Who has the authority and the wisdom to help us create a “good society”? The question is not whether we will have a moral standard, but where it will come from. Science can tell us what is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be. Human reason can debate morality, but it cannot provide an ultimate authority for right and wrong.

Historically, the Judeo-Christian tradition has looked to the God of the Bible as that authority. Perhaps our growing moral confusion is not because we have learned too much from science, but because we have forgotten that science was never meant to answer our deepest moral questions. If we want to know how we should live, we must look beyond ourselves to the One who made us.

This blog comes from Richard’s book, Reflections on the Existence of God. Richard E Simmons III is the founder and Executive Director of The Center for Executive Leadership and a best-selling author.