It's not a scientific "instrument". It's more art than science.
Then don't call it an "instrument"... just answer the question. How do you find out what is "true and good" to fine-tune the
art you use to find out what is "true and good"?
We have wills. Desire enters into it.
With all the evasion and excuses, I might start to think that you don't want to defend the concept of "conscience" at all.
This is the statement I initally referred to:
Everybodyknows: "If God is good how do we know and apply his standards of goodness to our lives?"
you: "I decided to rely on my conscience (which I believe is God-given) and on the teaching and examples of Christ."
And up to now, you have done your best to point out all the reasons why this conscience that you believe is God-given
completely fails at knowing what is good.
I have an idea why you do that... must do that. I think, as I have said before, that the Christian moral system is purely authoritarian. It is not based on reason, examination, societial interactions, learning, experience... all you have is an authority that you copy.
Just admit it.
It means to be in accord with the "way" or the "tao" of what we are intended to be.
Ah, yes. I pointed out the flaw in such a reasoning in one of my posts to Oseas. If you include the concept of a divine creator, there can be no difference between "intention" and "actuality". That leaves only the conclusion that, whatever we are is the way we are intended to be.
You're wrong. They were completely utilitarian, in defiance of right and wrong.
They strove to shape their countries and societies in a way they thought it was "intended to be". And they did so, even when it was not useful, or even hurting their country/society. They did that in accordance with a fixed dogmatic worldview, even when it contradicted reality.
How is that utilitarian?
To "mean" is to refer to something external. That's why we have dictionaries. If you want to know what a word means you can look it up. You can't make the word "table" mean a "chair" unless you're an anarchist.
You are the last person who should refer to dictionaries to support your position. Just go back a few posts and look at you using a very personal definition of "delusion"... and someone throwing a dictionary at you.
And what's more: the "something external" that dictionaries refer to is convention. It is nothing more than "what a lot of other people mean when they use this word". It doesn't refer to a "meaning" of a word externally to human usage.
"True" would be in accord with fundamental reality.
Wow... I would agree with that!
And now tell me how a skyscraper is not "true"?