Continuation of the "Conscience Question"

I don't recall us clearly defining "conscience" in class, though we outlined it marginally. Conscience, in today's world, is generally defined as the part of the mind (superego) that dictates and admonishes the ego. Interestingly enough, conscience was originally associated with religion (Catholicism), and it dictated precisely what was right and wrong in earlier times; however, modernization has caused society's idea of conscience to morph from the "devil and angel" idea into an "inner voice" telling a person only what is wrong.

Based on what others have said and the definition above, it appears to me that conscience, while universally relevant, is individual-specific in its interpretation shaped by one's religion, upbringing, family, and associated morals. Here is my claim: conscience is the most dominant way of knowing, the ultimate authority, per se, over any organism, and is a purely acquired characteristic.

To support this, I sought the help of the all-important Google search engine and found this article: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Peter Kreeft, a PhD of philosophy at Boston College, has two premises: 1) that conscience is an absolute authority and 2) that the only possible source for conscience is an absolutely perfect will, a divine being. Kreeft continues by establishing four possible explanations for conscience (check out the website to see them explicitly). One example is that we all possess the “herd” instinct, the altruism that applies to our need to protect offspring in the face of danger in order for our “lineage” to survive. However, he specifies that a mother would do this to protect her children, but no other type, such as a child, man, or child-less woman, would do such a thing…I find the example to be more applicable towards intuition than conscience- what do you think?

The first of his premises is more or less a given; however, I disagree with the second. Frankly, my religion is different from the mainstream one in this country- that does not make my ideas illegitimate. As Ali suggests in her post, is what I condone what you condemn? Conscience seems to be something of an intuitive, second-nature, less of an analytical or intellectual by-product.

That then leads me to think whether conscience is really a way of knowing. If conscience is affected by religion, and other extraneous factors, conscience cannot be innate. Not only does each religion differ, but each Hindu’s interpretation of the religion is different as well, for example. To address the most basic level of this, my family, from Southern India, worships a completely different set of gods and beings than another family, from Northern India. Nevertheless, our collective beliefs are known to the world as Hinduism. While some tenets and ways of our religion are universally accepted, such as the respect for other beings of the earth or the pressing of the hands together to pray, there are slight differences in the bases of each family that affect our consciences.

The same idea is applicable in America: we all share a similar belief of right or wrong because of education and other factors. But at the same time, we all have different morals established by our respective families, religions, and other acquired ideals.

So. Do you agree? Or do you dare to disagree? =D Is it really a way of knowing?