As always is often the case, we are disagreeing about terminology and points of emphasis rather than on any particular content. I just about agreed with everything you said. Now, to keep things interesting, let me voice the differences in emphasis.
***However, I do know this much: if an idea has no logic or is not based on an empirical fact, then I'm in no way forced to accept it as truth. I may, but I may not, and the choice is entirely mine. But when it comes to logic applied to facts I have no choice, and I don't think anybody has. That is all I'm trying to say.***
The difference in emphasis here is that I insist the reason for accepting logic has nothing to do with something external, it is internal. I cannot refute logic and still be true to my internal thoughts which are based on the same agreed to logical standards that composes formal logic (mostly, anyway). My justification for accepting logic is all internal, not external.
***" What I have in mind is to treat such fully undeniable statements as myth. " You're asking for trouble in my opinion. A universe without a single absolute truth would be an awful place in which to exist. Our universe may not be perfect but I wouldn't call it awful. Ergo, some absolute truths must exist since we have evidence of their existence. Perhaps you are smart enough to realize that what I'm saying above is that I believe in God.***
It's trouble in the since that 'myth' has very bad connotations as being dumb if you believe it, or outright false. However, myth is a much more richer word than the common usage, and it doesn't mean false or superstitious and it doesn't mean dumb if you believe it. It's a useful word that actually implies truth and implies a worthwhile endearing belief. That said, there are times when God is nowhere to be found, and even Jesus when on the cross cried "Father, Father, why have you abandoned me". These words express the view that even God disappears sometimes, but like the chair that I am sitting on, those times are few and far between and we don't have to question the certainty that God exists. Rather, we justify this belief not on any external reason which ultimately a secularist could never accept, but we accept it for internal reasons that provide meaning in our lives. But, I would cringe if someone said "God is a myth" and your point is well taken in that regard.
***My only argument, Harv, is that you can't do away with "logic" and somehow retain "meaning" - one is consequence of the other. If logic is not a source of absolute truths, which is a possibility I rule out but still a possibility for some people, then all we're left with is meaninglessness. That is in fact what people believed to exist before the creation of the world - chaos.***
Exactly. In order to find meaning we need myths of order and logic in our lives. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this stance. I accept as absolutely true that God exists, that logic exists, and that even mathematical symmetries exist, I just don't think they all exist in the way that I think they do.
You have a good week! Harv