7 January 2005 (Friday)
open issue
I don't have the time to devote a proper post to this at the moment, but I want to put a thought out there and let it molder for a little while until I can compose a property writing on it. You see, there are a plethora of bloggers out there who can be loosely described as closeted atheists living as observant Jews. I have been reading their writings with interest, and I will post some links in the near future, but I have noticed a flaw in the reasoning that some of them espouse. A primary argument is that as between faith/belief in God and logic/belief in science, logic and science must win. (We'll set aside the reasons for now. Just bear with me.) The missing question is: why can't there be another reason besides faith, a logical reason, why one would choose to follow a set of rules, even if such rules are arbitrary?
OK, more to come at some undefined future date.
Ooh -- I'm looking forward to reading this one!
How can logic provide a reason to follow arbitrary rules, except in the instances where a convention is required to avoid chaos (e.g., grammar, choosing one side of the road to drive on)?
I'm curious. (My personal answer is "It can't," but I'd like to hear.)
Personal benefit is largely subjective, right?