Any thoughts on the relationship between the words conscience and science?
96780
Science is from the Latin for knowledge.  So "conscience" is inner knowledge or knowledge inside.
828137
In a very limited sense you could say that it is correct.\n\nScience holds that all of life (not just man) originated materials available on the Earth.  If "clay" is a euphemism for "water + earth materials", then you could say it is true.\n\nSo science doesn't so much have a problem with the "clay" part as with the "was made from" part.
871660
If you are talking about an innate knowledge of doing right and wrong the answer is that not everyone does.  Certain mental illness lack the characteristic, people with damaged brain function because of an injury etc.  Perhaps you need do define "conscience."
627471
I like to THINK that I am rational, at least sometimes ;-)\n\nQuestioning faith is essential, it's only by doing so that you can keep a track on what you believe and to ensure that it can stand up to scrutiny.  To quote Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool".  Later Feynman goes on to say how a scientist should be seen to be almost bending over backwards to be proven wrong, and in doing so their work will stand with a special type of integrity.  I think that this is the yardstick which Christians should use for their apologetics.\n\nSadly this standard is not lived up to (and I hold up my hands here as being as guilty as anyone) by some of the Christians on this forum.  \n\nEqually sadly, I get the impression that most of those with questions about Christianity aren't really interested in any answers, apart from those which confirm their prejudices.  Also it can get a bit wearing to have your intelligence and rationality questioned by someone who can't string a sentence together.
158623
I think that God's teachings tell you what is right and if you truly follow the heart of say the 10 commandments, and love everybody, you will choose to do what is right. Your conscience is God's gift to us to help us in our free will. People will always be tested and will not always pass their tests with the "best" answer or response. Your belief in God and your faith is a matter between you and God. The outward appearances that people put forth are a reflection of what they want other people to think, and cannot accurately show what is in somebody's heart. That is between a person and God. You can live a good life and lose it all in the last breath, or live a terrible life and realize Faith at the last moment. Who are we to judge people's characters?
302960
Well scientifically speaking 'Hare Krishna' has to be a synonym of 'collective conscience'. Just as an element can manifest its properties irrespective of its size, even so our individual consciences depict the same moral and logical processes. Now if you group together all the people on this planet and try to derive the jist of their thinking you will get the 'collective conscience' and consequently the answer to your question.
990355
Science celebrates order in disorder.\n\nArt celebrates disorder in order.\n\nBoth Science and Art are moving toward each other in ways unimaginable in the past.
382314
Justify being considerate outside of a "religious" context? Well ... I do good for others or am considerate for one simple reason that has nothing to do with religion. Gravity is a physical law. I think that, and I underline "I think" because its just my opinion, that like gravity there is a mental or psychological law that operates along these lines ... "What goes around comes around." I've noticed that if I'm inconsiderate, well, that's pretty much what I get in return. If I'm considerate, well, I get that back too. So, as selfish as it may sound, doing good can be viewed as enlightened self-interest.
709796
There are no words ending in 'scien', but if you meant to say "words ending with 'science'", then there are several:\n\nantiscience\nbioscience\nconscience\nethnoscience\ngeoscience\nnescience\nneuroscience\nnonscience\nomniscience\nprescience\npseudoscience\nscience\nsubscience\n\nIf that's not what you're looking for, maybe this alphabetical list of words with "scien" anywhere in them will help:\n\nantiscience antisciences antiscientific bioscience biosciences bioscientific bioscientist bioscientists conscience conscienceless consciences conscientious conscientiously conscientiousness conscientiousnesses counterscientific ethnoscience ethnosciences geoscience geosciences geoscientist geoscientists inconscient nescience nesciences nescient nescients neuroscience neurosciences neuroscientific neuroscientist neuroscientists nonscience nonsciences nonscientific nonscientist nonscientists omniscience omnisciences omniscient omnisciently overconscientious prescience presciences prescient prescientific presciently pseudoscience pseudosciences pseudoscientific pseudoscientist pseudoscientists science sciences sciential scientific scientifically scientism scientisms scientist scientists scientize scientized scientizes scientizing subscience subsciences unscientific unscientifically \n\nI hope this is helpful.\n\n\nA few days later: Thumbs down?
586297
yes \n\ncreation \n\nour conscience. \n\n\njust because i say i dont believe in the bullet flying at my head doesnt save me from it.
73846
Science is a human activity, and therefore it suffers from the same failings as many other human activities. One of these failings is a tendency to do unethical things from time to time by various participants, like steal each other's work or be less than honest about the outcome of various experiments. \n\nFor example, if one looks into the story of evolution, one finds that Darwin does not lay sole claim to the theory of natural selection. Wallace, Wells, Mathew, Buffon, Owen, and even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) and many others independently came up with the idea, or are contenders for the title of "father of evolution". The actual priority claims are somewhat murky, and there have been charges of ethical lapses of various kinds. \n\nSimilarly, it appears that Newton might have fudged some of his celestial mechanics  and optics data and his theory of sound to get agreement between theory and experiment. Even the monk Gregor Mendel's data look a little too good to be true, apparently.  \n\nIn these cases, if science is to remain vital, I believe that ethical restraint must be practiced. Otherwise the entire enterprise might descend into a useless morass. \n\nHowever, I do not believe these are the events you are referring to; I believe you are referring to blocking certain types of inquiry or investigation because it offends some sense of propriety of some group or society. I will argue that in all human activities, like warfare, and politics, and driving, there are probably some rules for behavior that can and should be adopted. Otherwise, one would end up still condoning practices like torture and the "science" of Dr. Mengele. As uncomfortable as I am with imposing artificial boundaries on scientific inquiry, the potential coarsening of society that might result from unbridled investigations should give us all pause.
252937
Yes.  Science is a belief that there are cause and effects that can be studied in a certain way, such that we may learn the underlying ways in which the physical universe operates.  It does have its limitations, however, and has limited applications in the really important areas of spiritual growth and awareness.  It is also limited in the fact that it requires and observer, and the observer influences the scientific findings, invariably.
777108
i think, yes. a person's like or dislikes can also be explained psychologically, his feelings can be viewed through brain activity, heart beat rate, etc. science is very wide, almost all things can be explained through science. we just have to look for the right branch or study that deals with it.
838226
i think this person is trying to say that science (physics) and religion (10 commandments) are opposing forces and that while most people order their world around science, this person prefers to use religion...now why they think the 2 can't coexist is beyond me
754090
I don't think of the American conscience in these terms, so I cannot answer this question.\n\nI doubt the liberals will ever provide a consensus for morality.
1067810
Sorry I don't understand. You mean like gaining conscience of oneself? Or is your question related to speech development?
213866
Ok. I will take a stab at this one, but a few more details might be helpful if you have specific scientific evidence you wish to be included in with my answer.\n\nFrancis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry. \n\nToday's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility. \n\nTruth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation. \n\nThe reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way: \n\nThe bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum. \nThe God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27) \nWould this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us? \nBelief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.\n\nThere is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientifi