Or it's Jiminy Cricket.

Let's define this:

"a personal sense of the moral content of one's own conduct, intentions, or character with regard to a feeling of obligation to do right or be good. Conscience, usually informed by acculturation and instruction, is thus generally understood to give intuitively authoritative judgments regarding the moral quality of single actions.

Historically, almost every culture has recognized the existence of such a faculty. Ancient Egyptians, for example, were urged not to transgress against the dictates of the heart, for one “must stand in fear of departing from its guidance.” In some belief systems, conscience is regarded as the voice of God and therefore a completely reliable guide of conduct: among the Hindus it is considered “the invisible God who dwells within us.” Among Western religious groups, the Society of Friends (or Quakers) places particular emphasis on the role of conscience in apprehending and responding through conduct to the “Inner Light” of God.

Outside the context of religion, philosophers, social scientists, and psychologists have sought to understand conscience in both its individual and universal aspects. The view that holds conscience to be an innate, intuitive faculty determining the perception of right and wrong is called intuitionism. The view that holds conscience to be a cumulative and subjective inference from past experience giving direction to future conduct is called empiricism. The behavioral scientist, on the other hand, may view the conscience as a set of learned responses to particular social stimuli. Another explanation of conscience was put forth in the 20th century by Sigmund Freud in his postulation of the superego. According to Freud, the superego is a major element of personality that is formed by the child's incorporation of moral values through parental approval or punishment. The resulting internalized set of prohibitions, condemnations, and inhibitions is that part of the superego known as conscience." -Encyclopædia Britannica

Hmm...well, takes on a whole host of different background meanings from religion to behavioral stimuli. Guess it's up to you to find the one that suits your belief system.

~Zoo

Lula posts:

Seems a logical question to me.

I just gave an explanation of the voice of conscience from which we surely can agree gives us the sense of moral obligation.

Buddha most definitely had a conscience from which the moral law dictated which way he should conduct himself...in this sense, by conscience which a Lawgiver can alone give, then it is certain that God exists. Having a conscience is proof that God exists.

no, I answered it twice Ock. I made a comment and then I answered your question with an explanation. I said this. What more do you want?



what more do you want? You asked a yes or no question. Not only did I give you that but I went on to explain it.

I find you extremely hard to talk to. I have no problem hitting any point head on.

Bertrand Russell is NOT a go-to person for me OCK. I'm quite familiar with him.

Good idea. Thanks Zoo.



I note that those who postulate intuitionism, empiricism or behavior stimuli seek to understand or explain what is the interior law known as conscience not describe where it comes from or tell of its source.

One would have to do more research to see if there are any origin theories. I just took an excerpt from the ol' encyclopedia.

Hmm, just so happens Wikipedia has a lot of stuff: Conscience


~Zoo

Lula posts:



ASAXYGIRL POSTS:



I've given my thoughts on what is, and Who our interior voice of conscience comes from...a Lawgiver.

Now it's your turn..as a scientist, you should be able to give a rational argument as to where did our interior law known as conscience come from? What's the source?

KFC:

But I believe it's truth mixed with error and I know who's behind it.

Nope. You don't know that. You believe it. There's a difference.

Lula:

by conscience which a Lawgiver can alone give

Nope. Not true.

You're a Buddhist thinking person and I'm a Christian Centered person and we are not going to agree on this Ock.

A Buddhist thinking person? I don't know what you mean. I know a good bit about Buddhism, and some of it is appealing (the things I mentioned.) But there are all manner of Buddhists just as there are all manner of Christians. The difference is Buddhists say "Of course there are different kinds - how wonderful!" and the Christians say "Nope...that isn't allowed."

OCK, which came first, God's definition of "right" and "Good" or Buddha's?

I called this question irrational and you said it seems logical. Logic cannot be based on belief. You might as well just say "God exists, therefore he exists. Proof." When you ask "which came first, God's definition of right..." you presuppose that God exists. Sorry. That's irrational. In fact it's irrational to bring Buddha into it, as well for the same reasons. Even if I produced written works describing what Buddha's definition of right and good were, there's no telling how many hands it has gone through, and more specifically, under how many agendas it's been altered.

KFC:

I find you extremely hard to talk to. I have no problem hitting any point head on. Bertrand Russell is NOT a go-to person for me OCK. I'm quite familiar with him.

Who asked you to go to him? If I had attributed that quote to some guy named Freddy Filbinger, would you then have commented on the content? If you have no problem hitting any point head on, then hit it. Hit Russell's point head on. I'd like to see that. Describe what he's saying in your own words then refute it with logic remembering that logic is fact based, not belief based. Do you even have the slightest idea why I chose that quote? Hit MY point head on - if you know what it is.

Well, OCK, as I just said to ASAXYGIRL, I've given my thoughts on what is, and Who our interior voice of conscience comes from...a LawGiver or LawMaker.

Now it's your turn...what's your idea as to where did our interior law known as conscience come from? What's the source?

OCK posts:


Then what do you suggest logic is based upon? Unbelief?

and I believe I can KNOW something and believe it to be TRUE at the same time. From a Christian POV I can understand that you don't "get us." I was there at one point...so believe me Ock, I do understand where you're coming from.

When a person comes to faith, he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does alot of things for a Christian. He informs, comforts, and protects the believer but I absolutely understand that you can't wrap your mind around this. That's why I said we can't agree on such things. We are coming from two much diff world views.

Paul said:

"For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish but to us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.....but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."

asaxygirl posts:

Here, you invariably assume that my intellect is enslaved becasue belief is my starting point that God is the First Cause of all things including the inner voice of conscience. Since having facts is all important in your case, what are your facts to deny God and that He is the Source of the moral law known as conscience?



of logic, OCK posts:



To both Asaxygirl and Ock, what is the logic and the facts that bolster your unbelief?

Logic, traditionally is based upon facts, proofs, evidence, and probability. For someone to declare a belief is not exactly a logical move.

Example: 2+2=4 Now, I can say I believe the answer is cheese...but that's not logical because cheese is a food and I'm dealing with numbers. I can also believe the answer is 22, however, that's not the case. I use knowledge I've gathered regarding this equation(mathematical proofs, facts, and probability) to logically conclude that the answer is indeed 4.

Now, there can be logic in one's beliefs.

Example: If God says to be good, and I behave accordingly then I will get into Heaven.
That's logical because you know following the rules often leads to the desired outcome.

Normally logic does not incorporate personal beliefs when talking about real world situations only what you know and can surmise from previous evidence. It's not logical to jump to conclusions without taking into account all the factors of a situation.

Logic can also be used to create, reinforce, or dismiss a belief.

Example: This man tells many lies, he has always lied to me. He tells me that he will give me money. I can safely assume that he will not, based upon his past actions. I do not believe him when he says he will give me money.


~Zoo

Zoo posts:

Just as your post on "conscience" was most helpful, ditto here on logic!

Here's some food for thought regarding---the topic of discussion which imo, boils down to belief vs. unbelief and the difference between those who have to be shown facts before believing and those who by faith believe at the starting point---and your example of 2 + 2 + 4.

On what principle do we believe 2 + 2 = 4? I'd say it's upon faith...and this would raise an oh no stir amongst the Asaxygirl and the Ock's of the world.

Yet, when unbelievers send their children to school they do so with the same understanding that they'll do exactly what they did...accept on faith, upon the authority of teachers, the belief that one plus one equals two. Haven't these children accepted that two plus two equals four from their teachers on faith?

Why I wonder, is the objection raised by unbelievers when the same principle, the same process, is followed in the sphere of religion?

Well, I look to the Deposit of Faith of the Church (both Scripture and Tradition) to make proper religious, moral as well as material judgments. I accept upon faith through the authority of Divine(Christ) and human teachers, (His Apostles and their successors), belief in the one true Triune God and His Laws as absolute. From there, comes my understanding that by logical reasoning from effect to cause, and my mind ultimately comes to the First Great Cause, Almighty God.

Not faith. Children taught 2 x 2 = 4 count the product. The product is the evidence of the truth of the equation.

There is no factual evidence outside of the statements in the Christian scripture of Jesus miricles, his teaching, or much of anything else related to Christianity. There is no evidence that God created the world, let alone the universe. And the argument of firet cause only holds if one believes on faith that there ever was, or needed to be, a "first" cause. First Cause is a faith based assumption, nothing more. Jesus as savior is a faith-based belief system, nothing more. There is no logical or empirical evidence to support this belief system as anything more than wishful, if not whimsical, thinking. That's why its called faith by some and superstition by others.

Be well.

Hi Sodaiho,

Yes faith. Faith is warranted trust and required for learning. You are making the mistake of limiting faith to religious faith when actually it is an essential element in daily life. Children take what they are taught on faith of the trusted authority of the teacher.

Children learn what they learn on faith. So don't we adults for that matter. You have faith, Sodaiho. I know you do...

Do you believe in the law of gravity? I bet you're thinking "yes" without any hesitation whatsoever.

Now, did you ever see it? You must answer "no".

Gravity is one of a thousands things taken on faith.

My point....same thing for me in the sphere of the Catholic religion.  .