sourmìlk wrote:I'm arguing that in your well meaning crusade to define away all intellectual grey areas, you're letting your love of the idea of logic get in the way of its proper application.
Since when have I been trying to define away intellectual gray areas? I've said several times that there are certain things that need to be taken as axiomatic and certain things that can only be known to within degrees of certainty. That doesn't change my point that we should use logic and observation to determine truth because it consistently and by definition results in the most accurate conclusions possible, whereas emotional appeals do not.
You gotta explain that to my girlfriend
In broad principle, I'm not disagreeing with you that a logical approach to a given set of information tends to lead to better results -- but I don't define "better" in terms of "logical", as that renders the term meaningless in this context. Instead, take "better" to describe results more in keeping with reality. Given that definition, saying that a logical approach tends to produce "better" results actually means something. Circular definitions are not useful. You can define "better" as "in keeping with the Word of God" just as easily as "in keeping with logical analysis", in which case a strictly Biblical approach (perhaps in combination with fasting, meditation, and a sacrificial goat) to all problems will, by definition, produce "better" results. But are those results more in keeping with reality?
The leap one must take to trust logical analysis over emotional impulse is not a bad thing at all -- but it is not logical.