Why would limiting ourselves to using only hard scientific evidence as guide lead humanity to more morality?

Science is neither moral nor immoral. It is the application of scientific knowledge that is either moral or immoral. Thus morality must come from outside science. Inspiration and intuition cannot be ignored. They both may result from a foundation of scientific knowledge.

No one limits themselves to using scientific evidence as moral guide. People use the emotions.

The problem comes in when monotheism is used to shape morality. It historically has had such a negative effect I consider it to be worst inhumanity of all time.

Inspiration and intuition are vague words that could have Buddhistic or Humanistic connotations as well. This is a good question that could open up hours of good debate.

Because science is essentially a method to try and understand what the truth of our experiences is.

There is a contradiction in your question though. Without insiration and intuition, there would be very little science. If people were not inspired to compose theories and then either prove or debunk them, there is no scientific process.

Inspiration creates art. Intuition can save your life. They are great. Those are entirely separate from worshipping invisible beings.

Why would blind worship as a guide lead humanity to better morals?

EDIT: to Rev Albert - Your reference is terrible. Lenin and Stalin killed people because they were dictators, not because they demanded atheism. Let's not talk about EVERY OTHER war that has involved god or even been "for" god.

Scientific research is about finding out the truth, and has nothing to do with morality. I'm not saying scientists are immoral, I'm saying their work is not based on morality, nor should it be.

Morality is the realm of philosophy and religion.

Science is the search for empirical truths, not spiritual ones. Science doesn't begin to ask Why, simply How.

These are separate questions, and require separate methods of investigation.

We don't need to limit ourselves to only using scientific evidence. We just need to keep ourselves from using Inspiration and intuition that directly contradicts scientific evidence. Also, morality can exist with only science. You just have to have the priority that helping everyone creates the best environment to advance science.

Who says it would? Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Hard scientific evidence does not lead to more morality, but neither does it lead to less; it has nothing to do with morality at all, but a lot to do with telling us what actually happens in the world.

Inspiration and intuition are fine qualities. Just don't get them all tangled up in my morals. I prefer morals based on rationality.

Inspiration and intuition ARE unreliable. That doesn't mean they don't have their uses.

Religion is not related to any of this - bronze-age ideas of what is "moral" do not have a lot of relevance to the 21st century.

I have found that whenever I go against my intuition, it turns out to be a mistake, even when all the evidence suggested other wise.

I think there are at least two reasons:

Studies (and common sense) have shown atheists to be at least as moral as any religionist.

Religion is the greatest detriment to morality in the history of the world.