It works for me says:
1. I use personal values to come to the conclusion that this set of beliefs works for me. No implication regarding the use of either rational function. You can't really argue with personal values.
2. When you use this for somebody else's beliefs, in my view you are also implying the above about that person and thus comes across as an end of discussion from either end.
The above. Did I misunderstand? Please clarify.
Can't you and don't you choose how to set up the model/logical inferences and which ones you concentrate on (to falsify or not)? It seems in the realm of religion where we have limited information and observation powers, you can use logical principles (depending on how you set up the model and thus what propositions you seek to to declare as true/false) to reach either conclusion in this case - there is a God or there isn't.
I'm not arguing there is an absolute morality. I said above that ethics are subjective -- I just don't see it as a black or white issue though, either an absolute morality or completely subjective values. However, there are other possibilities. There are commonly understood and accepted (based on consensus) principles we can use or establish ourselves to evaluate our beliefs based on these ethical principles.
As a social scientist, living in the world of probabilities and not absolute truths, I can't help but apply that to this realm as well.
Are you not attaching value to the term subjective as less than equal to objective analysis? If not, then I misunderstood you.