Conscience

I ve no time .. Perhaps 12 hours later..

Interesting couple of videos recently on msn. Researchers were studying altruistic behavior, and found that preverbal human babies, younger than 18 months, and chimpanzees would help human adults in (minor) distress at losing an object, by coming over and picking up the object and returning it to the experimenter--behavior that didn't directly benefit the kid or the chimp. Altruistic behavior, in short.

This doesn't deal with the question of conscience directly, but it does seem to indicate that fairly early in our developmental scale, and far back in our evolutionary development, there's an empathic sense, and a social sense, when someone else is hurt, that are probably basic to a conscience. And they don't seem to necessarily be contingent on anything having to do with religion--since the baby was too young to have knowledge of it, and chimps, as far as we know, are not religious.

The baby / chimp don't benefit by making the whinging adult shut up?

Wasn't whinging--just looking sorrowfully at the dropped thingy. The baby was interacting with his mom, six or seven feet away from the experimenter, with whom they'd had no contact.
Baby looks over at the sound of the drop, looks at the thing, and at the experimenter, pushes himself up to his feet, toddles over, picks up the thing, and reaches WAY up and offers it to the experimenter. Very cute. Neotony triumphant.

Mr. Neologist..

Heart (Arabic:Kalb... meaning is the thing which changes all the time ) which organ which pumps blood has a very important role for all over the body.. If it stops we die.

So it is said also heart (Arabic:Kalb) to spiritual heart. Also this heart has a duty for all sprit as other heart.. So These hearts r same fonctions for their land.

Heart is divided into two part..

1. mind ( It is places of science and thinking .. ) : It must be very good about science and Religious knowledge. Because satan effect this area firstly.. If satan gets victory, goes inside conscience.. Last station for Satan.. Brakes down everything..

2.conscience : Place of believing... It is Illumunated in every (all people also atheist) by God and lights of believing..

There is a 2 windows in conscience

''two small windows are opened onto the Court of Mercy of the All-Powerful and All-Compassionate One, which may all the time be looked through.''BSN

So conscience is the entrance of Allah NOUR (light) inside humanbeing.

It seems to me that "conscience" is entirely about "living with yourself". IMO It is evidence for the concept of "the committee nature of self" rather than the objectivity of morality.

It is part of our Spiritual self that is used as a tool to help guide our conscious self.

I would simply argue that highly social animals such as primates have innate drives to support their social structures.

No social structure = no survival.

Thus no intellectualization (or god) required.

Chumly,

I agree with you about the general argument that "morality" is likely to be genetically transmitted but "conscience" would appear to be a peripheral phenomenon of this. It seems to manifest as a form of "mental debate" regarding action choices. Indeed as Freud might have argued most of us operate with several personality traits which can be temporarily compartmentalized from each other to maintain mental integrity. Mental debate stifles action but we may have to live with the consequences of impetuosity.

OK good point!

Would it fair to say this innate drive of biological morality manifests itself as a conscience when we intellectualize it?

I'll go with that !

Not about to let this topic end in a moon shot.

Did Adam and Eve have a conscience? If so why did it not prevent them from eating the fruit?

Sometimes my conscience doesn't work the way it should.

They were commanded not to eat of the fruit - that was how they know it was bad. If they had resisted, it would have been because of faith in God, not a conscience, IMHO.

Re: Conscience


You peddle the fallacy of a false dilemna here--it appears that you suggest that there are only two choices, to wit, that concience is a spiritual gift or a sham.

William Shakespeare flourished in the reign of Elizabeth, the last of the Tudor monarchs. The Tudors came to power in 1485.

Henry V had "won" the Hundred Years war, and married Catherine, the daughter of the mad King Charles le Bien Aimé (the Beloved). That was in 1420. Within twenty-two months, his son was born, and he had died. Catherine was not overly fond of the idea of hanging around in an English convent, and eloped with Owen Tudor, a minor member of the Welsh nobility.

Henry V had come to the throne after his father, Henry IV, Henry Bolingbroke, had usurped the throne from Richard II. Richard II was the son of Edward, Prince of Wales, the Black Knight. His father, Edward III had begun and prosecuted the Hundred Years war--but he outlived his son, and so was succeeded by Richard II. Edward's younger son John of Gaunt was the Regent for Richard in his minority. John of Guant contracted a morganatic marriage to an English commoner, and one of the children of that marriage was Margaret de Beaufort. After Owen Tudor and Catherine of France eloped, they produced a son, Jaspar Tudor, who married Margaret de Beaufort. They produced a son, Henry Tudor.

The son of Henry V was Henry VI, and he was never much of a King. He lost France, and then he was embroiled in a civil war, which was to rage for more than 30 years, and became known as the Wars of the Roses. Henry VI was murdered by Edward IV. Edward's two sons, Edward V and the Duke of York, disappeared shortly after the death of Edward IV. In the 1670's, in the reign of Charles II, the Tower of London was the scene of some serious renovations, and two skeletons of boys were found under a stair case--it was assumed that they were the remains of Edward V and the Duke of York, who were 12 and 10, respectively, when they disappeared.

They were succeeded by their uncle, Richard III. Contemporary portraits show a man who was not unpleasant looking, and who was normally formed, in terms of his physical appearance. But in 1485, Henry Tudor landed in Wales with an army. He was descended through his mother Margaret de Beaufort, with bar sinister, from the Lancastrians who had been deposed by the murder of Henry VI. He came to claim the throne. At Bosworth field, Richard III, one of the last of those old style Kings who actually took the field to fight his foes, was deserted by the Duke of Norfolk, was unhorsed, and was killed. Henry Tudor became the King of England. He married Elizabeth of York, and they had three children: Arthur, who became Prince of Wales; Henry, who just hung around and studied all the time--he was supernumary, but a potential successor--and Margaret (no doubt named for her grandmother). Margaret was married to the King of Scotland, and it was through that line that James I, the homosexual King who ordered the new translation of the Bible, came to the throne when Elizabeth died childless. Arthur died before his father, and therefore, his brother Henry became King Henry VIII. One of Henry's daughters was Elizabeth.

It was very politic of Shakespeare to make Richard III out to be a right scoundrel. Henry Tudor, descended from Edward III by way of a bastard daughter of John of Gaunt, had little claim on the throne other than having won it on the field of battle. If one reads all of the "historical" plays of Shakespeare, one will find the ones about the Kings in the period of the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor accession to be tedious and unaccountably preachy. But the preaching can be accounted for--Shakespeare was sucking up, for all he was worth. As a result, people continue to think of Richard III as an ugly hunch-back with a vile temper and vicious habits--despite the complete lack of historical evidence to that effect.

**********************************

In short, your citation is a crock of sh!t. It is entirely possible, and quite plausible, that one could have a conscience derived soley from the empathic experience of the pain and suffering of others, without reference to fairy tales about your imaginary friend.

Re: Conscience


You peddle the fallacy of a false dilemna here--it appears that you suggest that there are only two choices, to wit, that concience is a spiritual gift or a sham.

William Shakespeare flourished in the reign of Elizabeth, the last of the Tudor Monarchs. The Tudors came to power in 1585. Henry V had "won" the Hundred Years war, and married Catherine, the daughter of the mad King Charles le Bien Aimé (the Beloved). That was in 1420. Within twenty-two months, his son was born, and he had died. Catherine was not overly fond of the idea of hanging around in an English convent, and eloped with Owen Tudor, a minor member of the Welsh nobility.

Henry V had come to the throne after his father, Henry IV, Henry Bolingbroke, had usurped the throne from Richard II. Richard II was the son of Edwsard, Prince of Wales, the Black Knight. His father, Edward III had begun and prosecuted the Hundred Years war--but he outlived his son, and so was succeeded by Richard II. Edwards younger son John of Gaunt was the Regent for Richard in his minority. John of Guant contracted a morganatic marriage to and English commoner, and one of the children of that marriage was Margaret de Beaufort. After Owen Tudor and Catherine of France eloped, they produced a son, Jaspar Tudor, who married Catherine de Beaufort. They produced a son, Henry Tudor.

The son of Henry V was Henry VI, and he was never much of a King. He lost France, and then he was embroiled in a civil war, which was to rage for more than 30 years, and became known as the Wars of the Roses. Henry VI was murdered by Edward IV. Edward's two sons, Edward V and the Duke of York, disappeared shortly after the death of Edward IV. In the 1670's, in the reign of Charles II, the Tower of London was the scene of some serious renovations, and two skeletons of boys were found under a stair case--it was assumed that they were the remains of Edward V and the Duke of York, who were 12 and 10, respectively, when they disappeared.

They were succeeded by their uncle, Richard III. Contemporary portraits show a man who was not unpleasant looking, and who was normally formed, in terms of his physical appearance. But in 1485, Henry Tudor landed in Wales with an army. He was descended through his mother Margaret de Beaufort, with bar sinister, from the Lancastrians who had been deposed by the murder of Henry VI. He came to claim the throne. At Bosworth field, Richard III, one of the last of those old style Kings who actually took the field to fight his foes, was deserted by the Duke of Norfolk, was unhorsed, and was killed. Henry Tudor became the King of England. He married Elizabeth of York, and they had three children: Arthur, who became Prince of Wales, Henry, who just hung around and studied all the time--he was supernumary, but a potential successor--and Margaret (no doubt named for her grandmother). Margaret was married to the King of Scotland, and it was through that line that James I, the homosexual King who ordered the new translation of the Bible, came to the throne when Elizabeth died childless. Arthur died before his father, and therefore, his brother Henry became King Henry VIII. One of Henry's daughters was Elizabeth.

It was very politic of Shakespeare to make Richard III out to be a right scoundrel. Henry Tudor, descended from Edward III by way of a bastard daughter of John of Gaunt, had little claim on the throne other than having won it on the field of battle. If one reads all of the "historical" plays of Shakespeare, one will find the ones about the Kings in the period of the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor accession to be tedious and unaccountably preachy. But the preaching can be accounted for--Shakespeare was sucking up, for all he was worth. As a result, people continue to think of Richard III as an ugly hunch-back with a vile temper and vicious habits--despite the complete lack of historical evidence to that effect.

**********************************

In short, your citation is a crock of sh!t. It is entirely possible, and quite plausible, that one could have a conscience derived soley from the empathic experience of the pain and suffering of others, without reference to fairy tales about your imaginary friend.

Re: Conscience


You peddle the fallacy of a false dilemna here--it appears that you suggest that there are only two choices, to wit, that concience is a spiritual gift or a sham.

William Shakespeare flourished in the reign of Elizabeth, the last of the Tudor monarchs. The Tudors came to power in 1485.

Henry V had "won" the Hundred Years war, and married Catherine, the daughter of the mad King Charles le Bien Aimé (the Beloved). That was in 1420. Within twenty-two months, his son was born, and he had died. Catherine was not overly fond of the idea of hanging around in an English convent, and eloped with Owen Tudor, a minor member of the Welsh nobility.

Henry V had come to the throne after his father, Henry IV, Henry Bolingbroke, had usurped the throne from Richard II. Richard II was the son of Edward, Prince of Wales, the Black Knight. His father, Edward III had begun and prosecuted the Hundred Years war--but he outlived his son, and so was succeeded by Richard II. Edward's younger son John of Gaunt was the Regent for Richard in his minority. John of Guant contracted a morganatic marriage to an English commoner, and one of the children of that marriage was Margaret de Beaufort. After Owen Tudor and Catherine of France eloped, they produced a son, Jaspar Tudor, who married Margaret de Beaufort. They produced a son, Henry Tudor.

The son of Henry V was Henry VI, and he was never much of a King. He lost France, and then he was embroiled in a civil war, which was to rage for more than 30 years, and became known as the Wars of the Roses. Henry VI was murdered by Edward IV. Edward's two sons, Edward V and the Duke of York, disappeared shortly after the death of Edward IV. In the 1670's, in the reign of Charles II, the Tower of London was the scene of some serious renovations, and two skeletons of boys were found under a stair case--it was assumed that they were the remains of Edward V and the Duke of York, who were 12 and 10, respectively, when they disappeared.

They were succeeded by their uncle, Richard III. Contemporary portraits show a man who was not unpleasant looking, and who was normally formed, in terms of his physical appearance. But in 1485, Henry Tudor landed in Wales with an army. He was descended through his mother Margaret de Beaufort, with bar sinister, from the Lancastrians who had been deposed by the murder of Henry VI. He came to claim the throne. At Bosworth field, Richard III, one of the last of those old style Kings who actually took the field to fight his foes, was deserted by the Duke of Norfolk, was unhorsed, and was killed. Henry Tudor became the King of England. He married Elizabeth of York, and they had three children: Arthur, who became Prince of Wales, Henry, who just hung around and studied all the time--he was supernumary, but a potential successor--and Margaret (no doubt named for her grandmother). Margaret was married to the King of Scotland, and it was through that line that James I, the homosexual King who ordered the new translation of the Bible, came to the throne when Elizabeth died childless. Arthur died before his father, and therefore, his brother Henry became King Henry VIII. One of Henry's daughters was Elizabeth.

It was very politic of Shakespeare to make Richard III out to be a right scoundrel. Henry Tudor, descended from Edward III by way of a bastard daughter of John of Gaunt, had little claim on the throne other than having won it on the field of battle. If one reads all of the "historical" plays of Shakespeare, one will find the ones about the Kings in the period of the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor accession to be tedious and unaccountably preachy. But the preaching can be accounted for--Shakespeare was sucking up, for all he was worth. As a result, people continue to think of Richard III as an ugly hunch-back with a vile temper and vicious habits--despite the complete lack of historical evidence to that effect.

**********************************

In short, your citation is a crock of sh!t. It is entirely possible, and quite plausible, that one could have a conscience derived soley from the empathic experience of the pain and suffering of others, without reference to fairy tales about your imaginary friend.

Re: Conscience
Was not meaning to disallow other explanations. Yours is certainly plausible given the quality of empathy which is by 'some mechanism' inbred in nearly all humans.

I personally have not and would not contend that there were a quality of empathy inbred in all humans, by "some mechanism" or by your imaginary friend.