We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In my view, of course not. Science cannot even answer science questions but can only offer up their best theories du jour. Just ask Feynman. That's what he always said. Science is a method of pursuit, rarely gives us permanent facts.
Morality is simple. Getting people to agree on it is difficult.
I think the real problem with morality happens after you pick all the low hanging fruit. We all agree murder or stealing is immoral but after the easy choices it all gets quite grey.
Time was, what the King said, was law, until there was a new King. Individual freewill and liberty is a good thing, but without a moral compass, its no better than fertilizer - stuff grows with it, but you gotta know how\when to use it.
Add to the fact, the 'do whatever feels good' crowd, along with the 'understand the criminal, not the crime', 'make love, not war', and all the other clap-trap, you got a soup that tastes confusing and isn't very nourishing.
Take out the sense of community, the family, norms and morals, good old fashioned Right\Wrong, and the mountainous laws\regs we strive under, and morals have a tough time surviving.
Sometimes, I think we're regressing, instead of progressing.
This talk perplexed and saddened me, although I agree with the premise that perhaps a culture that practices human sacrifice is perhaps less moral than the US today. But his examples and disdain for anyone religious were so blatant that, while he likely played to his audience, I was distracted by his overt bias. He was so interested in showing ill effects of "bad culture" and "religion" and how science could correct moral relativism, he seemed to me to miss the fact that science and rational/atheistic thought have driven morality so far into the underground that businesses and many individuals see nothing wrong with crushing others to fill their own nest eggs. Science isn't the answer. Morals based on a loving, judgmental God are.
Atheists seem more anti-religion than anything else. They take the worst of religion to make their arguments against. Mostly strawman arguments.
As you said, Science is a "method of pursuit"a process of understand the HOW of things; but not the Why of things.
Atheists' thinking and post modern philosophies do not account for the fact that there are no atheistic or amoral human societies. All human societies have a spiritual sense and a moral sense. If it was just a cultural choice there would be a range of societies from absolutely atheistic to super religious and amoral to rigidly moral. No, It is a human fact, characteristic to have a spiritual sense and morals.
Atheists are exercising their spiritual sense and moral sense in arguing against religion. Their evangelistic fervor and proselytizing prove this point.