He said:

“The answer is that a rational person who acknowledges his Creator’s wisdom would not imagine that He would be displeased with someone who thanked Him, humbled himself before Him, and implored Him, even though He has no need of any of this. What prompts him to give thanks is not a belief that his Creator needs gratitude, or that his gratitude could match the favor bestowed upon him, such that knowing His freedom from need would cause him to refrain. Rather, he is prompted by the goodness of gratitude, humble submission, and reverence toward one’s benefactor, which is self-evident to reason. One who is wise is not displeased with conduct of this kind.

“He is therefore assured that giving thanks will have no harmful consequences, whereas he has no assurance against punishment for failing to do so. Reason thus requires him to pursue that course.

“This is comparable to a rational person being told: ‘Along this road are bandits who seize property and kill people, or wild beasts that prey on human beings.’ He is then told: ‘You have only a paltry sum with you, and the bandits have already enriched themselves with what they have taken. Perhaps they will not trouble you, disdaining your meager possessions. The beasts have already devoured several people and are now sated, so perhaps they will not trouble you either.’ Reason requires him to refrain from taking that road rather than venture along it. The same applies here.”

I say: The substance of this is that reason requires taking the safe course rather than the dangerous one.

He said:

“A third proof: If the judgments of reason imposed neither obligations nor prohibitions, a rational person could avoid being bound by anything at all, since whenever he was addressed, he could block his ears and not hear the message.