So, I’m taking this online course with Richard Carrier, which is mostly reading things that are available anyway, but you get to interact with him too. We’re working through his book, “Sense and Goodness”, where he develops a philosophy for life, including morals. I now see something that’s so obvious, usually that means I’ve just been missing it, but I really don’t remember ever hearing this.
That is, when people say, “science doesn’t provide any answers for moral questions”, what they really mean is, science has searched the universe, and the universe doesn’t provide any moral answers. But what that misses is, our minds naturally provide those answers, and we can use them to further investigate anything that is not intuitively obvious or when there is disagreement. Sociology and psychology have no problem commenting on what is normative. Most science has something to say about what is healthy, on micro and macro levels. And evolution tells us where these ideas came from.
I can see some value to myth and story telling as way to teach the ideas, but no value to belief. I think it would be a stretch to say that suspending your reasoning faculties solely for the purpose of enjoying a story is being “non-scientific”.