Consider for example homosexuality which is in general considered a sin by religions. Well science can tell us that in reality it does no 'harm' to society or t

Consider for example homosexuality which is in general considered a sin by religions. Well science can tell us that in reality it does no 'harm' to society or the individuals concerned. Science can't tell us that, really. Even if we had an objective measure of "societal harm", we'd have to normalize somehow for the content of the cultures themselves. In other words, being gay may cause no social harm in a society that permits homosexuality, but may cause significant social harm in a society that does not. Science can be a contributing factor to discussions of morality, but it is not probative. At the moment as a species we struggle with: - the false notion that morality is absolute: it never changes and can never change. - lack of data about how past absurd moral decisions were made (for example no gays, but slaves are a go) In light of your first point: are you suggesting that morality is completely relative? Or merely that it is culturally contingent? If the latter, which portions are to be considered quasi-absolute so that we don't slip into the former? As to your second point: "absurd" by what definition? You are presupposing (by your notion of "absurdity") some sort of measure of "reasonability" that I think you will have trouble defining, especially if you think that absolute morality is a false notion.