Science and Ethical Neutrality: A Nineteenth-Century American Alternative

In an era marked by global challenges such as climate change, public health crises, and social inequalities, science is increasingly invoked as an indispensable guide for developing solutions and shaping collective decision-making. However, despite its undisputed centrality, the scientific community largely maintains a predominantly descriptive and neutral stance, delegating to other spheres—such as politics, civil society, and cultural institutions—the responsibility of addressing the normative, ethical, and religious dimensions of what is right, desirable, or meaningful.The tension between the descriptive nature of science and its potential normative role is not a new problem. It is rooted in long-standing philosophical debates and has gained renewed urgency today, as decisions based on scientific findings increasingly shape the future of global society. This is particularly evident in the case of climate change: while science provides detailed projections of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, it leaves to policymakers, economists, and collective sensibilities the determination of whether, for instance, a 2°C increase in global temperature is acceptable—despite the anticipated dramatic consequences.1This passive approach is endorsed by a significant portion of the scientific community. A striking example is that of the renowned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that: The magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap. To cite the old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven.2This concept of “non-overlapping magisteria” denotes a strict separation between the descriptive domain of science and the moral sphere of other fields, such as religion. This sectoral division is grounded in solid reasoning: assigning a normative role to science could amplify the impact of its errors, with potentially devastating consequences. In The Mismeasure of Man (1981), Gould documents how the excesses of biological determinism not only led to scientific distortions but also had severe ethical and social repercussions, ultimately undermining trust in science itself.3Science, by its very nature, is subject to continuous revision; the process of addressing its own errors—far from being final—constitutes the driving force of epistemic progress. However, when such errors become entangled with moral issues, reductionism, ideological biases, and naturalistic fallacies, their consequences can be long-lasting and harmful. This inherent fragility of scientific judgment, when brought into relation with the realm of values, is in itself a strong reason to maintain that science should remain descriptive, without prescriptive ambitions—without even delving into the intricate debate on whether ethics can be explored or rationally grounded.Nevertheless, this demand for ethical neutrality, which became particularly entrenched in the postwar period, has not always enjoyed a firmly shared consensus. At various stages of modernity, philosophers and scientists have envisioned a different role for science. Within European positivism and, more specifically, American naturalism—a philosophical movement that emerged in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, influenced by the reception of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859)—many saw science not only as an instrument of knowledge but also as a privileged reference point for social and moral organization.4Even today, despite the long-standing tradition that separates the descriptive domain of science from the normative sphere, there is growing public pressure for science to assume a more active and responsible role. A large-scale study conducted by the European Commission in 2021 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public perception revealed a strong demand for scientists not only to communicate their research findings more effectively but also to contribute more directly to shaping the actions to be taken.5Contrary to expectations of a possible decline in trust in science—leading to increased support for pseudoscience or conspiracy theories—the study highlighted a different phenomenon: a sense of frustration over the gap between scientific knowledge and its public dissemination. Scientists are often perceived as isolated figures, confined to their laboratories, detached from social dynamics, and frequently unable—or reluctant—to effectively convey what their work implies for understanding and managing the world.6 This perception of “absence” fosters a communicative void, which is subsequently filled by politicians, unqualified popularizers, and promoters of pseudoscientific narratives.Such an attitude generates a critical challenge: by relinquishing structured public engagement and active social involvement, science risks losing control over the narrative of its own knowledge, leaving room for voices lacking either expertise or the intent to accurately represent scientific reality. This not only facilitates distortions and manipulations but also abandons the public to a vortex of arbitrary opinions, often devoid of any factual basis.A parallel phenomenon highlights another facet of the evolving public sensibility. The resurgence of New Age movements in recent years points to a recurring critique of science, which is often perceived as cold, dehumanizing, and incapable of addressing the spiritual and symbolic needs of individuals. However, this critique does not necessarily entail a rejection of the scientific method, nor does it call for a return to traditional religions.7 Rather, it is based on the idea that scientific thought can and should include the empirical and unbiased observation of unconventional realities.As Stephen Weldon notes in The Scientific Spirit of American Humanism (2020),8 James Randi, the renowned magician and debunker of pseudoscientific frauds, remarked that “scientists are known for thinking in a logical and linear way, so they are easily fooled.”9 The empirical method, often perceived as mechanistic and reductionist, seems unable to grasp a broad spectrum of human experience, leaving too many areas vulnerable to mystification. In response to this perceived limitation, the New Age movement advocates for the revival of spiritual and esoteric practices to restore a balance that values and a sense of a science that is and of meaning and to human this to the of ethical increasingly to and spiritual or religious the between and philosophical that emerged in renewed This tradition various to science, and a for debates on the role of science in shaping moral and striking example is by the of in the of the century, the idea of a scientific as a response to the and moral of an point into this as this of thought to its consequences. not science as the of the so as to its This and to science not only as a for the but also as a of meaning and a force for a global addressing the for and of the and cultural of and American philosophical in relation to the work of on a with The of the philosophical consequences of with the study of the it in the highlights a of science in as a of the In a there is a renewed to science, and this seems to with new significant to philosophical and from the idea of religious with the of science, an that had to in the American of the that a of from as the traditional of a and active in the and of the in of This of with a as the of the and its but as an of in human such as as of and not of On the they that the way to grasp observation of nature science, or as it often to the This approach not only nature to the of a but also science a role in the of the meaning of the way for a of the in and American James Charles and so as to of the their this for more in critique of religious of whether or to other human to and and and and stance, not to in a but this to be in nature, not in the The of is the and it is in this which human can or that to reason and traditional religious the active and role of on the of social the of the century, had the in the of and that religious in and to of in by an trust in science, as by the of in of In on human to the of are or to the of The of the of science has to the that the of has not with on their nor a and to by the of scientific of years had not an from traditional a separation that only be in the of the with the debate on However, its impact the with ethical, and social that in this without necessarily to also religious In the of which had the of community in of and as as the separation of and a particularly A the of of its to the of this movement and by from the to the which by the and of from the the became of the American religious even the which shared of its and of the by its on reason and social progress. a it became a significant in American despite other religious the of this new religious the rejection of the This not a it the with to the concept of the with its to with the idea of a and a that could be The of is evident in this the spiritual of the should be grounded in has a nature and call to for and but had to a by the between its and This tension in the in the of the which became the for a between and with of the of a more and to with who a in the but they the for other religious The on the other to a more of firmly this The of the that of the the of of rejection of led to an in the and the their work and religious thought based on reason and This new to the from the as as and only in the the ultimately that in this should be as an This marked the of and the of a more and from and a it that traditional a for the from the of tradition not an isolated phenomenon the but the of the the New the and many other of the Age of there an climate by a strong and the of a religious which itself from the to scientific to a the of a and of to be a for there is that its The philosophers who have to the of thought are and often in their a and of often itself as an attitude or a philosophical a of religion American in shared by the various of particularly These that only the of nature is that nature is in the sense of reason itself to either for its or that nature as a be without to any of or and, that are so that is itself a of other this not only with nature but also any of the of or and a this two The the privileged role of science as the of and knowledge of the The the critical with traditional which on to provides an which to the that in to the American and religious However, this risks the and of the American in a philosophical and an with by tension and the impact of European and positivism is in a that room for religious shared is the idea that nature is that not with an to the empirical scientific as the privileged of However, this from being what is by nature and what the to it should The even more when the that any to nature in into a new to the an the of particularly evident in the between two of American and who on the of a solid philosophical argued that as an of the of science to it a philosophical In for an to an naturalism—a new that its to its own To a which gained a in the of politics, are even this is of a very and of an of It is an of a more a It is a philosophical a of the of the and the biological is in so a way that it a of easily to a philosophical a which in critical to the and of the which in evolutionary as a The for this of the nature and of knowledge is critical It is it maintains that the human can knowledge and it is critical it that be to an as to demand for an from the to a strong of that can philosophical and religious of reality. However, this a with it the of into a its and its to to the of human a philosophical that and into an of from the is is not a but an process from the of the and the that the of the universe can be to that human and its values be as of this into a of of with meaning without to the the instrument which is and the is a that the and of ultimate is a that not only scientific and philosophical challenges but also with traditional in a of addressing The new itself the new It be which in the that and are not to but from it and their meaning from their a be and from such a is be to with the of which the which with and of in a debate with in a of and of a lacking solid response is particularly significant while that an empirical not rooted in argued that this should not be as a as an empirical approach to of science. However, it is not a of is a of grounded in observation and the of a an between and from the the idea that there is to a of and an attitude of rejection the and any of into into the that itself to new philosophical such as critical by the of science, in to a to the new that to is not a new of thought but a in the way human is The between and the is the between human and this into an At the of the human being and their in relation to To human and are of the nature which in the and are not of they are active who with In this they their and the meaning of their The of American is evident in this of as a of as an an active engagement with the is not an to be but the of human very which the that the debate the in of On the Origin of by Charles a work that a cultural the of which particularly the of in the very This work the American the debate on the role of science in society. To its have on the of who on the by this highlights a in Darwin's the of and for In in in with that have it not for being that the by which for seems to knowledge of so of of in The old of in nature, as by which to so that the of has can for instance, the of have made by an the of a by seems to be more in the of and in the of in the which the this that needs to on a to support religious are to the scientific method, itself of and detached from The of On the Origin of Species human and its in the The work a that science not to the of knowledge, but could be as a for a new potentially of a for ethical philosophical by a rooted in an and by their to to the such as and the of traditional with their and to the and cultural of a with the of the and the could not remain to and to emerged as the of this it the American to the into its the for debates on and ultimately a of the of Charles the to from or to or and that can the of to the to and individuals. as of from to became of the of American grounded in and to scientific the an trust in science its as by the two The scientific is the only way to is the force of the this science not a for knowledge but the of of not only the but as a and cultural to which and a role to the of such as and At the the religious to increasingly and science, and itself from traditional This in civil movements such as A particularly significant example is and the New for in with the of collective social This movement the of religion and such as the of and of American and idea that it possible to an ethics of traditional grounded in science, not only but and It is this cultural that the work of as this of thought to its ultimate on in to and from in the Darwin's On the Origin of Species and subsequently the in the of and developing a grounded in science, to the and of and the of an and in in New and It in a by the New which that the by the of in not to effectively of the the include in this it of include and by the also of New that of are has so in own by the thought of the as to the of in the of whether or or or or has to be a of the and religion from a by the another the the had is as as is as to and to as to to or to a human is into the of and there is the a human has its and in the and to the of there is the years leaving the for the a in which for a new a meaning to on the it a or the to support and guide the human on the it a or which to their and this the the of it a to many of the such as or a that to with human by itself from by with in the of and by the way for the of religion that and of thought is the idea that does not on a traditional religious but on the of and its this the of this new religion is not a but the of the or of the reason and of which its and to the of the rooted in by to their In this new itself from the moral that had it in the its ultimate the of a of the revealed by science. and become the new to be the of Scientific this to the scientific method, and there The of a in the of in to it into with the scientific particularly it not as the of but as a of in advocates for or that should an knowledge to the be confined the for such a to and detached from is the of a idea that the human and the the is a rationally it have and made by an the universe an and to the human but of and as an and to this the of scientific thought as the of a is for science in the and into of scientific an of science, it not only as a for the but also as a of for an and a solid for human progress. that become to New Age that science can the of a mechanistic approach to the of human to evolutionary is a and by understanding itself science, can and work a to traditional in and as to the of the of the they become of and In science as a of values and global a shared for addressing the challenges of and a future of and such as James and critical of points that the between the of the as by science, and its to to the of to in relation to the of scientific experience, the of a solid philosophical to be a return to the old even while the and in of the between science and shared that to grasp the the with or empirical to does not the meaning of the a and a scientific that to its inherent to such as and work of to and an it is to on the scientific method, which and in work Scientific what the of a scientific in to the and to the indispensable of this new is that the of their the only to knowledge is which on and on can only be the of and also a from while as a and of the that the American of and is of by that is for to a philosophical work an to and, with from The debate to the of The in the renowned Charles in of with and their support to a own in by in the of on the of In the to philosophical and that in the to Scientific the of an in shared the that not a of isolated but an by This a critique of which that and by that: is in the being of which to the process of that the and and has its in a of to the of which with of itself to and science does not but the of the that between are as as the an for science, which of to this science not only it but also it and that the of for science as a to a the of the it can also a for the meaning and of human to a new of religion from the of in critical and itself a of and ethical is not a of but a that the of a collective by an of and a continuous of the between science as a of and science, is not by but by a method, which itself is the of a and collective which science, is not so as it is a the of science is itself a scientific science is by to has often the over it into which are and by the of This has led to a between science and in which the is by a while the to to not this as a between two but as a that an and religion should the scientific scientific not as but as This which as a religion of science and which in from scientific is not a religion from science but a religion that scientific as an in the of a of be a religion of science. It is a so to that it by the scientific that the of science be of its for its without being by religious or leaving to religion the domain of and ultimate in its to without a and method, with the that the for is an and of as by and and a the of thought can be in American philosophers who a role in the of such as and who explored the idea of a renewed religion grounded in the of science and and of of and of as the of a of science as a guide for social and while also the of a religion without in a in which science its the with and a of the At the science a different role it does today, itself as a social and a such as philosophical and and shape a in which scientific thought its as a neutral descriptive to assume a normative and cultural a in the of the in to be what led science to its of ethical this is and its points can be to the by the of and the of These public a return to cultural and between science and religion. the of and the which the approach of the scientific community a role in the of the of this The of the in and and the in that science had unable to The new on science and to with the perception of a this a strong critique of science it of with as and traditional perceived as responsible for the of ethical and the of religious by as with the of a This whether or by religious on and public and in New for over of the American in public debate for of the century, a with the of in a on the of religion and public the social of Man and A in and the in of the too of the of reason in The of particularly in collective be by reason and is itself by which are not as in the that ethics is to the that by the to guide or in the ethical marked by the on and in to the of in by of the of These to from and ideological from religious to the moral and cultural by the global to a of shared values of an era of of the a The on the very by an and the of in a and the with a is not from but from the that ultimately be what saw as the of the American which to as a of it with the logical positivism of the a point the between science and that to the understanding of of the notes that as as However, the very of the a between and religious a in which of and the gained This growing tension its in in in which science to the role of a devoid of any ethical or social the of its ethical the by a of science, and as as a of as of critical the nature of the scientific it of a of that scientists to their laboratories, engagement with civil society. to this undermining the social of science and its impact on the it from addressing the social and ethical challenges of the separation between the descriptive nature of science and its possible ethical which became firmly over the of the century, in However, the growing social for a more responsible and science, its role in addressing global such as and climate change, and the resurgence of movements for a of knowledge more to human and spiritual needs call for a critical of this of American that it possible to a that for science with and while to a spiritual The of such as and with the movement of and religious and an to the of science as a and descriptive the marked the decline of religious and the its value. This is not a of the but of a in which scientific to the of a shared ethical to the human for and in the of a more and