A recent thread on moral absolutism/relativism got me thinking about the issue again, and rather than do the usual arguments, I'd like to take a slightly different angle at the issue. It seems to me that athiests are often athiests because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are athiests). But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. Ie, scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe. And yet, when it comes to morality, it seems a great many scientists and athiests are moral relativists. They don't believe that similar to (perhaps even part of) the laws of science, there exists a set of universal laws of morality. So my question is, why? Why do scientists/athiests not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality? Or, better yet, why don't scientists consider absolute laws of morality to be part of the absolute laws of science? We've had many discussions on this board about such issues as 'what is beauty?' and 'does chemistry/biology negate freewill?'. And the answers to these questions lie in the universal laws of science. What I consider beautiful is mostly a matter of chemistry and biology, as are the "forces" governing my actions. It's chemistry and biology that make me like a tight butt and flat stomach, but it is also chemistry and biology that make me feel bad if I hurt someone. And that - your conscience - is a matter of biology dictating morality. In addition, a great deal of morality is straightforwardly logical - mathematical (ie, game theory). Critics tend to point to the more complex situations as evidence that logic alone can't be used, but the failure to pin down a precise answer to some questions - indeed, the nonexistence of a precise answer to some questions - hasn't stopped QM from being consdidered a highly successful scientific theory, and it shouldn't prevent the scientific analysis of morality. It is my perception that the unwillingness to take that jump comes from a fear that it implies a creator - which would make this the one main issue where scientists allow their belief in [the nonexistence of] God to interfere with their logical analysis of morality. But the issue of God does not even need to be in play here. So....opinions?