One of the cornerstones of New Atheism is the idea that morality arises from the physical and social nature of humans, and is therefore entirely within the valid scope of scientific inquiry.

So let's suppose this is true, and over time, the work gets done. So at some point in the future, well-funded researchers doing impeccable science and publishing in the most exclusive peer reviewed journals proudly announce that they have reached an unprecedentedly unanimous conclusion on a weighty moral issue.

The problem is that this conclusion is diametrically opposed to your own strong moral intuition. Since this is just a thought experiment, pick an issue you have strong feelings about. Gun control, abortion, gay rights, whatever. And now suppose that science has authoritatively determined that the opposite is true.

Would you stick to your conviction that science can validly investigate moral truth, if you had to abandon your own most dearly-held morals to do so?