I've always taken umbrage with the notion that science is somehow lacking in moral structure. I have heard it said many times that we must put our faith in a deity rather than trust only our observations simply because science is presumed to be unable to provide moral structure or compassion in our lives. True, I will admit that the practice of science is cool and standoffish and that many of the people doing the work are ardently secular. However, much like Oscar the Grouch, that rough exterior is not so bad underneath it's outward veneer. Science is warmed by the observations and aspirations of many secular scientists who genuinely want to help humanity.

I don't doubt that many, if not most, religious teachings have great moral values. The problem is that the precepts upon which they are built are based on the knowledge of the world as it was thousands of years ago, when sickness was interpreted as demons and educating oneself beyond the church could get you killed. For that reason, and the fundamentalist traditions of the infallibility of religious texts, the religious too often close their eyes to the world around them and reject that which they are told not to learn. The result is that people die needlessly.

This article at Johann Hari says it beautifully.

Science stands for education and information. What could really be more compassionate than that. After all, give and man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and...well, you know the rest. It applies to almost any problem faced by the human race and in understanding the world around us science is unmatched in it's ability to conquer human problems.

Thanks to onegoodmove.org for the link