Surely though almost ALL your(my) decisions are based upon subjective application of logic.
Q,
this assumption is where i think your argument fails, although i see what you're getting at. my decisions are not based upon the subjective application of logic to an open system (as opposed to a closed mathematical one). my decisions are based upon logic applied to real world data (see end of post). there is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore he most likely does not exist. i will not kill a fellow man because i would not want to be killed myself. this is based in the real world, and therefore not subjective. if one said that they do not kill because god told them not to, then this is within the mind (enter parsimony), and therefore subjective, or more subjective than not.
You just said it was better to kill the mythical God rather than the factual neighbour but to be honest logic is fairly mute on this assertion since it just seems that way to you.
i didn't say it was better. just easier. i mean honestly, it's easier to become an atheist, than it is to kill thy neighbor. or is it? perhaps the bloody history of xianity refutes my claim? ;)
Logically there are arguments for not killing the 'myth' if you so decide to construct your subjective ordering of the facts.
okay. the facts come in their order, regardless of how we want to order them. for example:
fact 1: we both believe that the universe exists, and that we are a part of it.
(this is where i stop ordering the facts, as this is the only one)
fact 2: you continue on that there is a god.
so, are my facts ordered subjectively?
Logic may work for maths but we can't use it unfiltered for real world decisions since we have to be subjective about which logic to apply (in other words we have to apply a set of possibly illogical morals to decide which logic rule to give precidence to).
i agree with you regarding closed and open systems for logic. however, parsimony is not a "moral", and yet i have it on my side as an atheist. it is the basis of my morals.
why do i value parsimony over faith? because parsimony has done more to aid my survival than faith has. is this subjective? no, it's obvious in light of our historical progression as a species. faith would have never produced medicine, and yet parsimonious science has. is this a subjective analysis? no, it's obvious.
so, parsimony is not a moral. it is the basis of my morality. "which moral stance is most likely to be the better one based on what we know of the universe?"
true, my morals are not hard and fast. does this make them subjective? yes, because they come from within. but the question is not whose morals are right, and whose are worng. the question is whose morals are closer to reality, and whose are farther from it. whose morals are based on parsimony, and whose are not.
'Tis a funny old world (a phrase with no logic applied?). There is a strong suggestion that just as maths is an approximation of reality - so logic is - both are built as models (pretty darn useful ones) rather than actual facts that hold true at all times - in my opinion.
"reality" and "facts" are interchangable. they are the same thing.
so, whose approximation of reality is closer to the facts? enter parsimony.
TS
ps: satanus, sorry for the thread hijacking. but without "morals", there would be no institutions.
