Biology and Morality

There is the greatest need for a larger comprehensive view of reality. It seems that with the rise of scientific thought, perhaps especially when science turned toward history with Darwin and social evolution, has given way to accepting the way things happen in history and the way human beings are apt to behave as the main vehicle for deciding how they ought to behave.

I guess even the scientific method is being used to adduce morality and since we cannot properly observe mete-physical truth (meta being an important descriptor), we are left to simply catelogue all possible behaviors and their apparent health risks. What is more we do all this in relation to the individual, ignoring society, or in relation to the collective, ignoring the individual. But what if the whole idea is bunk ... what if scientists are simply asking questions they have no capacity to answer.

We must return and further the pre-Enlightment thought of the "Dark Ages" which sought to see reality in both its visible and invisible happenings. There really is such a thing as love however difficult it is to physically observe (sex can be an action informed by love, but until we understand the invisible, emotional, theological reality we will not properly act).

We cannot look to biology to find morality or we will find nothing ... or what has only started to breakdown into nothingness, the meaningless drive toward progress. Progress in what sense has always been the question. With heightened analysis of of biological health it has become a drive to produce longevity and pleasure ... but in all honestly both of those words need more definition than science can give.