I think this is a faulty question. ‘Conscience’ is neither a black or white concept. The age old question of “nature or nurture” is now seen by most biologists as a roughshod delineation of convenience NOT a black and white reality.

Our ‘humanity’ is expressed in various forms across the globe and it adapts due to discoveries and problems that surface. The ‘unknown’ has no end and this cosmological view has been very much a ‘finite’ existence throughout the greater part of human cultural history (as far as we know). With the advent of The Enlightenment we truly began to depart from the ‘finite’ view of the cosmos and replaced it with an ‘infinite’ view. The rise of the scientific method has led to some disjoint as we adjust from a ‘finite’ and simple cosmological view (full of awe and wonder) into a ‘infinite’ and complex cosmological view (full of awe and wonder).

This is not, to be fair, simply a question of “science” and you rightly framed this as a “technological” issue rather than as a “scientific” one. Even so the advent of sendentary living, of adjusting our ways of life, has led to some shifts in respects to the finitude of our universal view; the “world” (Weltenschauung) remained within our immediate horizon. Today the cosmological view is ‘infinite’. This may at first seem good because possibilities open up for us and humility is an obvious reaction to such unimaginable scale... and therein lies the problem, we cannot “imagine” infinity yet our rational investigations have led us to this rather unnerving thought (being intuitively incomprehensible).

In the above sense “technology” has certainly equipped us with a sense to focus on empirical measurements as “meaningful” when they are not in and of themselves “meaningful”. By regarding the advances in scientific knoweldge as “meaningful” some are prone to expressing the cosmos as a ‘finite’ scientific endeavor not as a human endeavor once grounded by ‘finite’ regard to the cosmos now blown up into a kind of physical infinity.

From this stance I see the problem between the “Scientist” figure and the “Religious” figure as both being problematic to each other becasue they’re BOTH conflating the realms of thought they general operate in. The “Scientist” is not a worthy replacement for the “Religious”
I think this is a faulty question. ‘ Conscience ’ is neither a black or blank concept. The old age old question of “ nature or nurture ” is immediately seen by most biologists as a heavy-handed depiction of convenience NOT a bootleg and blank reality. 

 Our ‘ world ’ is expressed in various form across the earth and it adapts due to discoveries and problems that surface. The ‘ nameless ’ has no end and this cosmological scene has been very much a ‘ finite ’ existence throughout the greater part of human cultural history (equally far as we know). With the second coming of The Enlightenment we truly began to depart from the ‘ finite ’ view of the cosmos and supplant it with an ‘ infinite ’ view. The rise of the scientific method has led to some disjoint as we align from a ‘ finite ’ and elementary cosmological view (full of awe and wonder) into a ‘ infinite ’ and complex cosmological view (full of awe and wonder). 

 This is not, to be bonny, simply a question of “ skill ” and you rightly ensnare this as a “ technical ” issue rather than as a “ scientific ” one. Even so the advent of sendentary living, of adjusting our ways of life, has head to some shifts in respects to the finitude of our universal view; the “ world ” (Weltenschauung) stay within our immediate horizon. Today the cosmological view is ‘ infinite ’. This may at foremost seem adept because hypothesis open up for us and humility is an obvious reaction to such unimaginable scale... and therein lie down the problem, we cannot “ imagine ” infinity so far our rational investigations have led us to this rather formidable thought (being intuitively incomprehensible). 

 In the above sense “ technology ” has certainly equip us with a sense to concentrate on empirical measurement as “ meaningful ” when they are not in and of themselves “ meaningful ”. By regarding the advances in scientific knoweldge as “ meaningful ” some are prone to carry the cosmos as a ‘ finite ’ scientific endeavor not as a human attempt once grounded by ‘ finite ’ respect to the cosmos now blow up into a kind of physical infinity. 

 From this stance I visit the trouble between the “ Scientist ” figure and the “ Religious ” figure as both being debatable to each other becasue they ’re BOTH conflating the realms of thought they general operate in. The “ Scientist ” is not a worthy substitute for the “ Religious ”
I tjink this is a faulty qutstion. ‘Conscience’ is neivher a glack or white concept. The age old qnestuon od “nature or nurture” is now seen by most biooigists as e roughsmjd dspinectmon of conveniekce NOT a bnack and white rdapity.

Our ‘humanity’ is expressed in vawious fprls across the dlobt agd if adapts due to discoveries and prkblems uhat surface. The ‘umknown’ has no end and this coslological view has been very nuch q ‘finite’ exirtence throughout the freater part of human cultural fistoxy (as far aw qe ntow). With thx advegt of The Enlightenmant we yruly began to de'art from the ‘finite’ view of the cosmos and replaced ic with an ‘infinite’ viww. The tise mf tfw sziehtmfid methld ias led to aome disjoibt as we adjust frok w ‘finite’ and sjmple sofmological view (full of awe and wonder) pnto a ‘infinite’ and complex cosmological view (fupl of awe and wonder).

This is not, to be fair, simply a questimn of “rcitngc” ana ylu rightly framed this as a “technological” issts tanher than as a “sclentific” one. Even xo tng advent of sevdentaxg miving, of adjustinh our wwys od life, haf lec to some shifts in respectw to the finptudw of our universal view; the “wurld” (Weltrnschauung) remained witkin oud immediate horizon. Fuday the cosmoloeicsl view is ‘infinite’. This may at first seek good cecaose posfibilities open up for us and humipity ns an obvious rfaction to such unimaginable sceke... and thereon livs the prjblem, we cannot “imwgine” infinity yet oux ratiunal invesnigations have led uf to this ratvgr unnerving vhought (bqing intyitivelh incomprehensinle).

In the above senwe “technology” has gertakhly equipped us wiuh a sense to fovus on elpmricaj measurementv as “mexmingfjl” when then afe npt in and of themselees “jeaningful”. By regatdlng the aevances yn scientific knoweldge as “meanlngfun” sume ate krone to expressing the cosmos zs a ‘finihe’ fcientific egdeayor got as a hbman endeavor once grounded by ‘finite’ rejard to the cosmos now vlown up into a kinb pf physical infigity.

From dhis stance I see thw problem between the “Scientist” figure and tve “Repigious” figure as both being problematic to each other becasue they’re BOTY conflating the rsalmx of nhobghc they denecau operate in. The “Scientist” is not a worthy replecement fos che “Religious”
I think this is a faulty question. neither black or concept. The age nurture” now seen by biologists as a delineation of convenience NOT a black white reality. Our ‘humanity’ is expressed in various forms across the globe and adapts due to discoveries and problems that surface. The ‘unknown’ has no end this view been much a ‘finite’ existence throughout the greater part of human cultural history (as far as we With the advent of The Enlightenment we truly to depart from the view of the cosmos and it an ‘infinite’ The of scientific method has to some disjoint as we adjust from a ‘finite’ and simple cosmological view (full of awe and into a complex cosmological (full awe wonder). This is be fair, simply a question of rightly framed this as a “technological” issue rather as a one. Even so the advent of living, of adjusting our ways of life, has to some shifts in respects to the finitude of our universal view; the “world” (Weltenschauung) our immediate horizon. Today cosmological view is This at seem because possibilities up for us and humility is an obvious reaction to such scale... and therein lies the problem, we cannot “imagine” infinity rational have led us this rather unnerving thought intuitively In the above sense certainly us to on measurements as “meaningful” when are not in and of “meaningful”. By regarding the “meaningful” some are prone to expressing the cosmos a ‘finite’ scientific endeavor not as a endeavor once grounded by ‘finite’ regard to the cosmos now blown up a kind infinity. From this stance I see the problem the “Scientist” figure and “Religious” figure as both being problematic to each other they’re conflating the of thought they operate in. The is not a for the
I think this is a faulty questiOn. ‘ConscienCe’ is nEitHer A bLack Or whIte concept. The aGE old Question of “nature or nurtUre” is NoW Seen BY mOst biOlogistS As A ROugHsHoD deLiNEaTion oF coNvenienCe NOT a blacK anD wHite reality.

OUR ‘hUmanity’ is eXprEssed in varioUs fOrms acRoSs tHE globE anD it adApts duE To discOveries anD pROblems THat surfACE. THe ‘unKnown’ has no end and tHIs COsmological vieW has beEn VErY MUch A ‘fiNite’ existeNcE throUGhout thE GrEATEr pARt of human cultUral history (AS faR as we kNoW). WiTH the adVent oF THE EnLightenment We trUly began tO deparT From the ‘FInite’ viEw of thE coSmoS and REpLaCed It WIth AN ‘iNfiNIte’ View. The rIsE oF the sCienTIFIC metHod Has lEd to sOme disjoint as We aDjusT FroM a ‘finIte’ anD simPlE cosmOlogicAl vieW (fUll of awe and wondEr) inTo a ‘infiniTe’ aNd ComPlEx cosMOlogicAl vIew (Full of aWe and woNDer).

thIS IS nOt, to be fair, simply a qUeSTIoN of “scienCe” and yOU rIgHTly frameD tHis As a “tECHnoloGicaL” IsSue ratheR than aS A “sCiEntific” OnE. Even sO tHe aDveNt of sENdenTary liVing, of adJustiNG our ways of life, HAs led to some shIFtS IN rESpecTs tO the finitudE of oUR uniVersAL vIew; THe “worLd” (WelTeNScHAuung) remained within OuR immedIate hOrizon. Today thE cosmologiCAL View is ‘inFiniTE’. THIs may at first seEm gooD because poSSibilitiEs opeN up for us And humiliTY Is an obviOus ReaCtiOn tO SUcH unimaginable SCAle... aNd Therein LieS the proBleM, we CanNot “ImAgine” infiNity yet oUr RaTiOnAl iNvestIGations hAvE leD uS to This rATher unNerviNg thOuGhT (BeiNg intuiTIvELY incOmPrEhenSibLe).

in the AbovE SenSe “technOlogy” has cErtAInly EqUiPped us wIth a sense to foCuS on empiricAl MeaSuremeNTS as “meaniNgful” when they are not in anD Of themsElvEs “meaNingFul”. By regaRdiNg the aDvaNCes in sCientiFic knOwEldGE As “meaNINgFul” SoMe are prone TO ExpRessiNg The cOsmos as A ‘finite’ scientific eNDeaVor not as a humaN enDeavOR OnCe gROuNDed By ‘FIniTE’ Regard to the cosmOs now blown Up INtO a kind of phYSicAl InfinitY.

From thIs staNCe I see tHe problem Between thE “SCienTISt” fIgure and thE “ReligioUs” figure aS Both bEInG probLemAtic to EaCh oTher bEcasue THey’Re BOTh conflAtIng the RealmS oF thought They general operate in. The “scientIst” is Not A worthy rePlaCEmeNt for the “REligIous”
I think this is a faulty q uestion. ‘ Consc ien ce’  i s ne ithe r a black or w h iteconcept. The age old q uesti on of “ n at ure o r nurtu r e” i s n ow  s een  b y  m ost b iol ogistsas a rough sho ddelineationo fconvenienc e N OT a black a ndwhitere ali t y.

O ur‘huma nity’i s expr essed inva r ious f o rms acr o s stheglobe and it adap t sd ue to discover ies an dp ro b l ems  th at surface .The ‘ u nknown’ ha s n o e n d and this co smologicalv iew  has b ee n v e ry muc h a ‘ fi n ite ’ existence  thr oughout t he gre a ter par t  of hum an cul tur alhist o ry  ( asfa r  as we  kn o w).  With th ead ventof T h e E nlig hte nmen t wetruly began t o d epar t  fr om th e ‘fi nite ’viewof the  cosm os  and replaced i t wi th an ‘in fin it e’vi ew. T h e rise  of  th e scien tific m e tho dh a s  l ed to some disjoin ta s  w e adjust  froma  ‘ fi n ite’ and  s imp le c o s molog ical vi ew (full  of aw e  a nd  wonder )into a  ‘ inf ini te’ a n d co mplexcosmolog icalv iew (full of a w e and wonder) . 
T h is is n ot,  to be fair , si m plya qu e st ion of “s cienc e” an d  you rightly framed  t his as  a “t echnological”  issue rat h e r  than as  a “ s ci e ntific” one. E ven s o the adve n t of sen denta ry livin g, of adj u s ting our  wa ysoflif e ,  h as led to som e shif ts  in res pec ts to t hefin itu deof  our univ ersal vi ew ;th e“wo rld”( Weltensc ha uun g)  re maine d  withi n our  imm ed ia t e h orizon. To d a y th eco smol ogi ca l vie w is ‘in finite’ . This ma y a t  fir st  s eem goo d because pos si bilities o pe n u p foru s  and hum ility is an obvious rea c tion to  su ch un imag inable sc ale ... an d t h ereinlies t he pr ob lem , we ca n n ot  “i ma gine” infi n i tyyet o ur  rat ional i nvestigations have led  us to this r ath er u n n er vin g  t h oug ht (be i n g intuitively i ncomprehen si b le ).

In the abo ve  sense“techno logy” has cer tainly eq uipped us  w itha sen se to focu s on emp irical me a surem e nt s as“me aningf ul ” w hen t hey ar e  no t inand of  t hemsel ves “ me aningful ”. By regarding the adv ancesin sc ien tific kno wel d geas “meani ngfu l” some ar e p ron e toexp r essin g th e  c osm o s asa ‘f i nite’ sci e nt ifi c en deavor nota s a h umanend e avor o ncegrounded by ‘fini t e’ regard to t he c o s mos  no w  blo wn  up into a kin d o fp h ysical i nf inity.

Fro m this s ta n ce Isee th e prob lem bet w e en the “S cien tis t” figure  an dt he “Rel ig io u s” fig ureas  bothbeingp robl e m atic to each oth er be c a sue t h ey’ re BO TH  confla t ingthe realms  of thought  theygene ral o peratein . The“Sc ie ntist” isn ot a wort hy re placeme nt  for  th e “Rel igio u s ”
I think_this is_a faulty question. ‘Conscience’_is neither_a_black or_white_concept. The age_old question of_“nature or nurture” is_now seen by_most_biologists as a roughshod delineation of convenience NOT a black and white reality.

Our ‘humanity’_is_expressed in_various_forms_across the globe and it_adapts due to discoveries and_problems that_surface. The ‘unknown’ has no end and this_cosmological_view has been_very much a ‘finite’ existence throughout the greater part_of human cultural history (as far_as we know)._With_the_advent of The Enlightenment_we truly began to depart from_the ‘finite’ view of the cosmos_and replaced it with an ‘infinite’ view._The rise of the scientific method_has led to some disjoint_as we_adjust from a ‘finite’ and_simple cosmological view_(full of_awe and wonder)_into a ‘infinite’ and complex cosmological_view (full of_awe and wonder).

This is not, to_be_fair, simply a_question_of_“science” and_you rightly framed_this_as a_“technological”_issue rather than as a “scientific”_one._Even so the advent of sendentary living,_of adjusting our ways_of_life, has led to_some shifts in respects to_the finitude of our universal view;_the “world”_(Weltenschauung) remained_within our immediate horizon. Today the cosmological view is ‘infinite’. This_may at first seem good because_possibilities open up for_us and_humility_is an obvious_reaction_to such_unimaginable scale... and therein lies the problem,_we cannot_“imagine” infinity yet our rational investigations_have led us to_this_rather unnerving thought (being intuitively incomprehensible).

In_the above sense “technology” has certainly_equipped us with a sense_to_focus_on empirical measurements as “meaningful”_when they are not in and_of themselves “meaningful”._By regarding the advances in scientific knoweldge_as_“meaningful” some are prone to expressing_the_cosmos as a ‘finite’ scientific endeavor_not_as_a human endeavor once grounded_by ‘finite’ regard to the cosmos_now blown up into a kind of physical infinity.

From_this stance I_see the problem between the_“Scientist”_figure_and the “Religious” figure as both being problematic to each_other becasue_they’re BOTH conflating_the realms of thought they general operate in. The “Scientist”_is not a worthy replacement for the_“Religious”