Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Humanistheart]

Yes. Because outside of what God tells us to do there is no such thing as morality. Therefore we do it because God says to do it. Why do we listen to Him? Because He created us, and because He created us it follows that He would know more than we do.




There is no such thing as a "moral" person outside of God's definition of morality. We can dream up opinions of morality all we like. It won't matter because morality is not objective. God having evil motives is something we cannot know. The only way we could know that is to say that we have equal to or more knowledge than He does.

If I make something (like a computer for instance), I know more than it does. Therefore it follows that I would know what is best for the computer. In a similar fashion, the very fact that God created us leads to Him knowing more.

He doesn't actually have to know more than we do, the thing is that we can't ever know how much He knows and whether or not He knows more. Therefore from our point of view, and with what we can determine, it only makes sense to do as He says.


How can we say He knows better if He didn't create us?


No. Forget what God knows for a second....


If we as a humanity discover that God created us. And we also discover that God has given us specific instructions. On what basis can we oppose those instructions as being incorrect? It is my belief that disagreeing with it isn't enough.


He could have, but I can't know that. So because I cannot know His reasoning (and it doesn't matter anyways because the point is that He made me and therefore I listen, not that He's trying to do the right thing.) I should do what He says.

You say He could have created us for an evil purpose....what exists beyond Him so as to define evil? Outside of Him nothing can exist, including morality. Therefore there is no external standard of morality by which to judge Him. Not only that, but even if there is such a standard, we don't know it.




And how exactly would I know what evil is and isn't without first assuming that:

1. I can know evil outside of God
and
2. God doesn't already know what is morally right.

I agree, if an evil God created me for an evil purpose, than it would be my duty not to obey. However, as a limited creation of this God I have no way of knowing whether or not He is evil.

You're presuming so very much. That your god created us is one. That your god actually exists is another. You also seem to think that the ability to create is synonymous with knowledge and morality, yet you've stated nothing to support this claim.

As for the number 2 you listed above, god can know what is morally right and wrong and still choose to do what's wrong. In fact we see this over and over again in the bible and, if he actually existed, in life.

I like your computer example however. You presume that if you build a computer you know more about it. At the time of the computers birth, it's activation, this would be true. However an AI computer (you must be referring to an AI otherwise the word "know" would be inappropriate) would rapidly gain knowledge, and quickly surpass you the creator. The point being is that typically children surpass their parents, or creators, if you will. Even if there was a god, and he created us, the bible makes it clear that humans have surpassed said god in morality. The god of the bible commits immoral act after immoral act, from the OT to the NT. In short, we as humans have clearly surpassed the dead beat, would be father you call god. You don't have to know everything to know when an action is immoral.

 

[TheKnight]

You're presuming so very much.

This thread only makes sense if one first accepts the presumption that God exists.

BTW, I've always wondered, but is your username "Humanist Heart" or "Human Is The Art"?

Every time I see your posts I'm intrigued to know.

 

[Humanistheart]

This thread only makes sense if one first accepts the presumption that God exists.

BTW, I've always wondered, but is your username "Humanist Heart" or "Human Is The Art"?

Every time I see your posts I'm intrigued to know.

I partially agree with your first statement. Looking at it your right in that this thread really does only work if one assumes there is a god, but in my statement I said you seam to be presuming your god exists. There are other gods in other religions. And quite frankly I think there are as many god's as there are believers in god, in that everyone seems to define and think of god in at least a slightly different way. Two people who grew up in the same church will describe their god at least a bit differently from the other. Did the original poster specify which god was meant in this thread? I can't remember now. But you are still making the other assumptions I listed before.

I laughed a bit when I read your ladder portion because I've been asked that question before and hadn't even realized my name could be read two ways until it was asked, lol. I think it was Rosie that pointed it out to me. I had intended it in the former way you listed, but I have come to enjoy the duality of the name, and the ladder option has a certain ring to it

 

[TheKnight]

I partially agree with your first statement. Looking at it your right in that this thread really does only work if one assumes there is a god, but in my statement I said you seam to be presuming your god exists. There are other gods in other religions. And quite frankly I think there are as many god's as there are believers in god, in that everyone seems to define and think of god in at least a slightly different way. Two people who grew up in the same church will describe their god at least a bit differently from the other. Did the original poster specify which god was meant in this thread? I can't remember now. But you are still making the other assumptions I listed before.

We're not talking about my God specifically, but about God as a concept. If that being which you see as God commands you to do something that you see as immoral, is it immoral for you to do so?

That's, more or less, the topic purpose. That being the case, from my point of view the answer would be yes. I'm not trying to speak for every man and his God, I can only speak for myself and I don't even do that very well

 

[Humanistheart]

We're not talking about my God specifically, but about God as a concept. If that being which you see as God commands you to do something that you see as immoral, is it immoral for you to do so?

That's, more or less, the topic purpose. That being the case, from my point of view the answer would be yes. I'm not trying to speak for every man and his God, I can only speak for myself and I don't even do that very well

Hmm, well, if we're just talking about god as a concept then are not most of us here making assumptions? For example, that there's only one god, that god is good/evil, that god is a sentient self-aware entity, that we're talking about a creator god, etc? I wonder if I'm making sense here. Maybe I should take a break and grab some grub, lol.

 

[TheKnight]

Hmm, well, if we're just talking about god as a concept then are not most of us here making assumptions? For example, that there's only one god, that god is good/evil, that god is a sentient self-aware entity, that we're talking about a creator god, etc? I wonder if I'm making sense here. Maybe I should take a break and grab some grub, lol.

Hypothetical discussion are built on the backs of assumption. That's why when it comes to practical decisions, nothing said in this (or any) thread will matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're missing my point. I don't need to show that He is the ultimate moral authority. All I need to do is show that we do not have the capability or the knowledge to know whether or not God is the ultimate moral authority (neither can we know what that authority is if there is one). As His creations, and therefore being naturally less powerful than He, it is only natural for us to assume with our limited knowledge that our Creator is the ultimate moral authority. Whether He actually is or isn't doesn't matter if we cannot know otherwise.

I think you're assuming many things about your Creator. Why does the Creator have to be powerful? What does it take to create a universe? Personally, I have no idea; maybe once things get rolling it all does itself; maybe it's no more difficult than getting a rock from the top of a cliff to the bottom by giving it a gentle toss and letting gravity do the work..

Logically, we don't know what reality is. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant fool.

Heh... but saying that reality is unknowable doesn't count in that, right?

Yes. For if I were to test it He could easily create an instance in which granite is lighter than air.

But say you test it: you let go of your granite rock and it falls like, well, a rock. But God continues to tell you that it's lighter than air, it's always been lighter than air, and it will always be lighter than air... in every circumstance, not just in some hypothetical instance after weilding the right miracles. Say God tells you something that can be easily and conclusively demonstrated by evidence and observation to be false. What then?

 

[TheKnight]

I think you're assuming many things about your Creator. Why does the Creator have to be powerful? What does it take to create a universe? Personally, I have no idea; maybe once things get rolling it all does itself; maybe it's no more difficult than getting a rock from the top of a cliff to the bottom by giving it a gentle toss and letting gravity do the work..

I'm not assuming anything about my Creator. I'm telling you what how I see it from my point of view. I'm telling you how I see my Creator. As I told Humanistheart, I can only speak for my perspective.

But say you test it: you let go of your granite rock and it falls like, well, a rock. But God continues to tell you that it's lighter than air, it's always been lighter than air, and it will always be lighter than air... in every circumstance, not just in some hypothetical instance after weilding the right miracles. Say God tells you something that can be easily and conclusively demonstrated by evidence and observation to be false. What then?

I would have to ask:
1. What does God mean?
2. Is it really God that is telling me that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not assuming anything about my Creator. I'm telling you what how I see it from my point of view. I'm telling you how I see my Creator. As I told Humanistheart, I can only speak for my perspective.

Hmm. It seemed to me that you were trying to convince us to take that position as well.

I would have to ask:
1. What does God mean?
2. Is it really God that is telling me that.

Okay... so you'd evaluate the statement against what you know to be true, right?

Now we're arriving at my point: what if a person believes some moral truth (e.g. that genocide is evil) just as strongly as the physical truth that granite is heavier than air? What if a person places the statement "the Amakelites should all be wiped out" in the same category of truthfulness as "granite is lighter than air"? What would be wrong with rejecting the statement? What would be wrong with saying "what you say is false, but God is truthful. I know this message does not come from the God I believe in"?

 

[TheKnight]

Hmm. It seemed to me that you were trying to convince us to take that position as well.

Not at all. I have not, at any point in this thread, been doing anything more than trying to help you see it from my perspective.

Okay... so you'd evaluate the statement against what you know to be true, right?

Now we're arriving at my point: what if a person believes some moral truth (e.g. that genocide is evil) just as strongly as the physical truth that granite is heavier than air? What if a person places the statement "the Amakelites should all be wiped out" in the same category of truthfulness as "granite is lighter than air"? What would be wrong with rejecting the statement? What would be wrong with saying "what you say is false, but God is truthful. I know this message does not come from the God I believe in"?

The problem is that if someone says "Granite is lighter than air" I can go outside, find some granite, pick it up and drop it, and it will fall. We can know the density of granite in relation to air.

We cannot know morality. Anyone who says "I know morality just as much as I know the density of granite in relation to air" is someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Morality isn't factual nor is it objective. It's not something we can go outside and test.

And as to the final statement in your post, as I said, one would have to be sure that it was God who was telling them. In the case of the Israelites, God had delivered them from Egypt, spoke to them directly, showed them all sorts of miracles, told them to do things constantly, and each an every time it worked in their favor. If God told them to kill the Amalakites then it would have only been logical for them to obey. Especially considering God's extremely good track record up to that point.


If God came to me and said "Daniel go kill all your neighbors" I could rest assured that it was not God because God hasn't been talking to me and showing me miracles for my entire life. I would have no reason to assume that God suddenly started talking to me and God would understand that. I would require that He show me at least as many things as He showed the Israelites and for just as long a period of time.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm not assuming anything about my Creator. I'm telling you what how I see it from my point of view. I.

But knight, if you were only speaking from your perspective then at some point you would need to include something that indicated that such as, I believe, or in my religion, or from my perspective etc. You were decidedly arguing your point with fantome (or however you spell that).

 

[TheKnight]

But knight, if you were only speaking from your perspective then at some point you would need to include something that indicated that such as, I believe, or in my religion, or from my perspective etc. You were decidedly arguing your point with fantome (or however you spell that).

I figured it would be a given that I am presenting my outlook on things an no one else's.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all. I have not, at any point in this thread, been doing anything more than trying to help you see it from my perspective.

Ah... so that's why you've been talking in universalities and generalities. :sarcastic

The problem is that if someone says "Granite is lighter than air" I can go outside, find some granite, pick it up and drop it, and it will fall. We can know the density of granite in relation to air.

To a point. There are still things like the "brain in a vat" problem: how do you know that the reality you experience isn't just an illusion? Maybe in the real reality, granite really is lighter than air.

Also, when talking about an omnipotent God, anything's possible. Maybe granite has been lighter all along but He just holds it down with His divine hand most of the time.

We cannot know morality. Anyone who says "I know morality just as much as I know the density of granite in relation to air" is someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Morality isn't factual nor is it objective. It's not something we can go outside and test.

Just because you can't test it with some piece of scientific apparatus doesn't mean we can't know anything at all about morality.

Interesting you described morality as non-factual and non-objective, though. I've heard many theists say that it is. In fact, there's a whole (flawed, IMO) argument for the existence of God built around the idea.

And as to the final statement in your post, as I said, one would have to be sure that it was God who was telling them.

Right: which is what I'm talking about. I think the judgement of whether or not a particular command is of the sort that God might give factors directly into one's decision of whether it's God who is giving it.

In the case of the Israelites, God had delivered them from Egypt, spoke to them directly, showed them all sorts of miracles, told them to do things constantly, and each an every time it worked in their favor. If God told them to kill the Amalakites then it would have only been logical for them to obey. Especially considering God's extremely good track record up to that point.

But that track record was also generally moral (or at least pragmatic) as well:

- paint your doorposts with blood so that your children don't die.
- leave Egypt so you will be free from slavery.
- defeat your enemies so that you can build a nation.

And then, when we get to the Amakelites:
- wipe the entire people out. Kill even their infants and livestock.

If God came to me and said "Daniel go kill all your neighbors" I could rest assured that it was not God because God hasn't been talking to me and showing me miracles for my entire life. I would have no reason to assume that God suddenly started talking to me and God would understand that. I would require that He show me at least as many things as He showed the Israelites and for just as long a period of time.

So, then, if you had been Moses before the burning bush, you would have rejected God?

 

[TheKnight]

To a point. There are still things like the "brain in a vat" problem: how do you know that the reality you experience isn't just an illusion? Maybe in the real reality, granite really is lighter than air.

Even if it isn't, if I can't see granite being lighter than air, then God would not punish me for not believing Him if He said it was. Besides, this example really doesn't follow because granite being lighter than air is something we can go test. We can't test the morality of an action.

Just because you can't test it with some piece of scientific apparatus doesn't mean we can't know anything at all about morality.

All we can do is formulate opinions about that which we see as being moral. We can't do anything more than that.

Interesting you described morality as non-factual and non-objective, though. I've heard many theists say that it is. In fact, there's a whole (flawed, IMO) argument for the existence of God built around the idea.

I don't need arguments for the existence of God. If I did, I would not be willing to spout something that isn't true for the sake of it.

Right: which is what I'm talking about. I think the judgement of whether or not a particular command is of the sort that God might give factors directly into one's decision of whether it's God who is giving it.

That assumes that we can know what kind of commands God would give.

But that track record was also generally moral (or at least pragmatic) as well:

- paint your doorposts with blood so that your children don't die.
- leave Egypt so you will be free from slavery.
- defeat your enemies so that you can build a nation.

And then, when we get to the Amakelites:
- wipe the entire people out. Kill even their infants and livestock.

It wasn't entirely "moral." God killed the Egyptian firstborn, and then He killed Pharoh and his armies at the Reed Sea.

Also, the reason they were told to wipe out Amalek is because Amalek attacked them. This is why Amalek also serves as a metaphorical representation of moral evil in the world. Amalek attacked Israel when it was weak and nearly unable to defend itself. So later on when the Israelites were able to, God ordered them to wipe out Amalek.

The current manifestation of this is that evil is the metaphorical Amalek and God desires that we attempt to wipe out evil and injustice.

So, then, if you had been Moses before the burning bush, you would have rejected God?

No. I would only reject a command that I didn't agree with or feel like doing. If He said "Go to Egypt and free my people." Well that's a relatively easy command. He's not commanding me to go kill an entire race people. I have no problems going down to Egypt to fight for the freedom of an enslaved nation.

If He were to come to me right now (in a burning bush or the like) and tell me to go to Africa and fight against the LRA in Darfur Sudan then I would do it. That's not something I have a problem with. If He came and told me to kill the president I'd say "Well God, I believe that it might be you who's talking, but you're going to have to show me at least as much as you showed Israel 3300 years ago when you took them out of Egypt if you want me to go and kill someone (or He'd have to give me reason enough to kill him)."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even if it isn't, if I can't see granite being lighter than air, then God would not punish me for not believing Him if He said it was. Besides, this example really doesn't follow because granite being lighter than air is something we can go test. We can't test the morality of an action.

My point was that you can't test anything if you're just a brain in a vat, not even the relative weights of granite and air.

All we can do is formulate opinions about that which we see as being moral. We can't do anything more than that.

But surely you have a basis for morality, don't you? Or do you just base your morality on arbitrary choices and random chance?

I don't need arguments for the existence of God. If I did, I would not be willing to spout something that isn't true for the sake of it.

Okay... my point was just that some people take moral absolutes to be a rock-steady truth. Apparently you don't.

That assumes that we can know what kind of commands God would give.

Indeed, but I don't see why this is a problem. Every religion I know of assigns attributes to their gods. If we say God is good, then we say something about what sorts of actions God might take. If we say God favours a particular people, then it says even more about what actions God might take. If you think you know things about God, then that knowledge can inform your judgement of whether a particular command comes from God.

It wasn't entirely "moral." God killed the Egyptian firstborn, and then He killed Pharoh and his armies at the Reed Sea.

Yes - I've got issues with that, too. However, I was trying to look only at what the Israelites were commanded to do, not what God did. I'm trying to put us in the mindset of an Israelite in that situation trying to decide what to do: commands like "save your children" and "escape from slavery" are easy to follow and not particularily ambiguous morally. "Protect yourself from your enemies" is also morally defensible. "Wipe every trace of your enemies off the face of the Earth" is problematic.

Also, the reason they were told to wipe out Amalek is because Amalek attacked them. This is why Amalek also serves as a metaphorical representation of moral evil in the world. Amalek attacked Israel when it was weak and nearly unable to defend itself. So later on when the Israelites were able to, God ordered them to wipe out Amalek.

Did the Amalekite cows attack the Israelites? What about the Amakelite infants?

No. I would only reject a command that I didn't agree with or feel like doing. If He said "Go to Egypt and free my people." Well that's a relatively easy command. He's not commanding me to go kill an entire race people. I have no problems going down to Egypt to fight for the freedom of an enslaved nation.

Actually, it would be quite a difficult command if you were living as an Egyptian prince. And he wasn't just told to lead the Israelites out of Egypt; he was also told to instruct the Israelites to plunder gold and silver from their Egyptian masters. Do you have no problem with mammoth-scale theivery?

If He were to come to me right now (in a burning bush or the like) and tell me to go to Africa and fight against the LRA in Darfur Sudan then I would do it. That's not something I have a problem with. If He came and told me to kill the president I'd say "Well God, I believe that it might be you who's talking, but you're going to have to show me at least as much as you showed Israel 3300 years ago when you took them out of Egypt if you want me to go and kill someone (or He'd have to give me reason enough to kill him)."

Wait a minute: would you not plan on killing people while fighting against the LRA?

 

[TheKnight]

But surely you have a basis for morality, don't you? Or do you just base your morality on arbitrary choices and random chance?

Do I have a basis for my morality? Yes. I base it on the Torah. But why do I base it on the Torah? That is what is my opinion. I believe that the Torah is true.

Okay... my point was just that some people take moral absolutes to be a rock-steady truth. Apparently you don't.

Morals are only absolute when everyone agrees.

Indeed, but I don't see why this is a problem. Every religion I know of assigns attributes to their gods. If we say God is good, then we say something about what sorts of actions God might take. If we say God favours a particular people, then it says even more about what actions God might take. If you think you know things about God, then that knowledge can inform your judgement of whether a particular command comes from God.

I guess that makes sense. Perhaps the most important quality that Judaism assigns to God is the fact that He created the universe with us in mind. We are the crown of His creation.

Yes - I've got issues with that, too. However, I was trying to look only at what the Israelites were commanded to do, not what God did. I'm trying to put us in the mindset of an Israelite in that situation trying to decide what to do: commands like "save your children" and "escape from slavery" are easy to follow and not particularily ambiguous morally. "Protect yourself from your enemies" is also morally defensible. "Wipe every trace of your enemies off the face of the Earth" is problematic.

It's much less problematic if God has a track record like rescuing you from Egypt, providing for you miraculously, giving you the Torah, having every promise He's made to you come true. It takes a lot of stress out of making the decision.

Did the Amalekite cows attack the Israelites? What about the Amakelite infants?

Nope and nope.

Actually, it would be quite a difficult command if you were living as an Egyptian prince. And he wasn't just told to lead the Israelites out of Egypt; he was also told to instruct the Israelites to plunder gold and silver from their Egyptian masters. Do you have no problem with mammoth-scale theivery?

I don't consider plunder in war to be theivery. At the very least we should tax those nations that we conquer.

Wait a minute: would you not plan on killing people while fighting against the LRA?

Well yes. But that doesn't conflict with my values. Killing "innocent" people does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do I have a basis for my morality? Yes. I base it on the Torah. But why do I base it on the Torah? That is what is my opinion. I believe that the Torah is true.

Okay... why?

And do you believe the Torah to be good? I mean, just because you follow it doesn't mean you think it's good or right. Maybe you believe it to be immoral but follow it for self-serving reasons.

I guess that makes sense. Perhaps the most important quality that Judaism assigns to God is the fact that He created the universe with us in mind. We are the crown of His creation.

"We" as in humanity?

Doesn't it strike you as odd, then, when he would command part of the crown of His creation to destroy some other part of the crown of His creation?

It's much less problematic if God has a track record like rescuing you from Egypt, providing for you miraculously, giving you the Torah, having every promise He's made to you come true. It takes a lot of stress out of making the decision.

Why's that?

The point I was trying to make is that his track record can be seen in several ways:

- he's been successful (the point it seems you're making)
- his commands have been generally moral... or at least reconcilable with morals without too much difficulty.

Being commanded to perform a seemingly immoral action would stand out against that second track record.

Nope and nope.

So, then, the justification you gave for the genocide doesn't apply to the infants and cattle?

I don't consider plunder in war to be theivery. At the very least we should tax those nations that we conquer.

The plunder wasn't of the Amalekites; it was of the Egyptians prior to the Exodus.

Well yes. But that doesn't conflict with my values. Killing "innocent" people does.

"Innocent" is often a matter of point of view. Many people are killed, and continue to be killed, at the command of the President of the United States. Is this good or bad? Depends on what you think of the people who die and the purpose behind those deaths.

 

[Autodidact]

Do I have a basis for my morality? Yes. I base it on the Torah. But why do I base it on the Torah? That is what is my opinion. I believe that the Torah is true.

So if I follow you closely, and check me if I'm wrong here, you base your morality on the Torah because you believe the Torah is true? And you believe the Torah is true [in what sense?] because...?

 

[Autodidact]

Knight:

You said that one should not obey an immoral commandment without being very sure that it's from God. You also said that you could not be, and did not need to be, more than 50% sure. 51% sure does not seem to me to be very sure. It only seems to be somewhat sure. So if you can only be somewhat sure, shouldn't you NOT follow such a commandment, according to your reasoning?

 

[TheKnight]

Okay... why?

The Jewish people. They have existed under circumstances that should have obliterated. They have carried and lived the message of Torah for the last 3300 years. To put it simply, I believe in the Torah because I believe in the reliability of the Jews as a people.

And do you believe the Torah to be good? I mean, just because you follow it doesn't mean you think it's good or right. Maybe you believe it to be immoral but follow it for self-serving reasons.

Good how? How do I define good outside of Torah? I like the Torah, that would make it good in the eyes of some people.

"We" as in humanity?

Doesn't it strike you as odd, then, when he would command part of the crown of His creation to destroy some other part of the crown of His creation?

It's not destruction. We are all like appliances plugged into a wall. We all require the electricity that is given from the socket. God is the one who provides that electricity. Death is when the plug is pulled. That doesn't mean the appliance disappears, it simply stops operating as it did. He didn't order them to destroy the Amalekites, He ordered them to pull their plugs.

Being commanded to perform a seemingly immoral action would stand out against that second track record.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The type of action isn't relevant to the fact that His track record is "God says do X, we do X, and it works out well for us." The quality of X isn't relevant in light of the track record.

So, then, the justification you gave for the genocide doesn't apply to the infants and cattle?

The justification for the genocide was God saying so. I was simply telling you that the Amalekites did attack the Israelites at some point before the genocide.

The plunder wasn't of the Amalekites; it was of the Egyptians prior to the Exodus.

A war-like situation. Leaving a nation that has you enslaved...

"Innocent" is often a matter of point of view. Many people are killed, and continue to be killed, at the command of the President of the United States. Is this good or bad? Depends on what you think of the people who die and the purpose behind those deaths.

That is correct. I look at Torah and it gives me certain situations for which I am allowed to take the life of another. One of these situations is when a person is attempting to kill another person or is causing that person undue harm. That being said, the LRA has oppressed the people of Sudan for a long time. I wouldn't kill them all, only those I witnessed as committing acts warranting their death. IE, I go there and see an LRA man with a gun to the head of a child, that would be reason enough for me to shoot the man with the gun.

So if I follow you closely, and check me if I'm wrong here, you base your morality on the Torah because you believe the Torah is true?

Yes.

And you believe the Torah is true [in what sense?] because...?

The Jewish people. They have existed under circumstances that should have obliterated. They have carried and lived the message of Torah for the last 3300 years. To put it simply, I believe in the Torah because I believe in the reliability of the Jews as a people.

Knight:

You said that one should not obey an immoral commandment without being very sure that it's from God.

Being sure means having a 50%+ evidence of probability of the choice being the right one.

51% sure does not seem to me to be very sure.

Part of our decision making (since we cannot know things 100%) is basing our decisions off of evidence of probability. Any positive probability is enough to confidently make a decision. IE you go to the doctor and he says "Medicine A has 48% and medicine B has 52%. If you take the wrong medication than you die." The logical choice would be to take medicine B.

So if you can only be somewhat sure, shouldn't you NOT follow such a commandment, according to your reasoning?

We can never be fully sure. You don't have to be fully sure to make a decision. We are never fully sure whenever we make any decision. All we need to make a logical decision is a 50%+ evidence of probability of the choice being the correct choice.

If I can choose between A and B and I have A=49% and B=51%, that is no different than a situation where A=11% and B=89%. In both cases, the fact that you should pick B is equally sure.