The Rational State of “Why?

As higher-level thinking human beings, we seek answers to existential questions.

Thusly, we tend to ask the basic and elemental question, “Why?”

Now, we need to remember something important about this formative essential existential question:

First, the question seeks an answer, and second, the question seeks a rational answer. “Why?” from critically-thinking adults is seeking a rationale.

The question, for adults, does not seek irrational “answers,” since irrational “answers” are not answers, such as the expectation implies. Irrational “answers” are no better than Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny for children, or even the quintessential paternalistic “just because.” Please understand that this statement is not intended to insult anyone, but rather to be a critical thought on an important subject of humanity.

Merely conceding any rational answer to “just because,” “trust,” “just believe,” and “just have faith” is insubstantial from a critical-thinking perspective. Those qualities are personal choices, but they are not rational answers to the rational question, “Why?“

Antiquity and ancient religion did not support critical thinking reflection, except perhaps by those educated privileged few who were biased and prejudiced by the very dogma that remains based upon irrational “answers.”

Throughout the history of the World, there was a time prior to language and recorded books.

Some people simply concede the question “Why?” for the period prior to recorded thought to something like, “the book existed before the book, and the word existed before the word,” but these riddles of ironic paradox do not satisfy the question to critical thought rationality, but only simply concede to irrationality.

There is nothing “wrong” with irrationality, if it rationally understands its own irrational nature and scope. So said Socrates rationally about divine wisdom, “I only know that I do not know.”

Each religion is entitled to its own book. This is a personal choice as a path to personal revelation. Each person is completely entitled to choose any book’s set of principles as a basis for social temporal life and any “after-life.”

But, choosing a book by free personal choice is distinct from whether or not that book is “correct,” or “true” or the “only divine” book for purposes of how to answer the question, “Why?” in an objective critical-thinking context.

Many if not all ancient religions attempt to socialize revelation by tribal affinity, rather than personal revelation, and they will point to their own respective “book” as authoritative. Perhaps that book is the Torah, Christian New Testament, The Koran, The Bhagavad Gita, or something else. Each book is accepted by that ancient religion “to be one and only” basis of the “true” religion. This tends to be indoctrinated by the cult of culture from the time a child is born, such that the opinion about god is transmuted to a fact about god. And this opinion, treated as fact, makes everyone else “wrong” by resultant necessity.

Ask almost anyone why the person is of a certain religion and the source of claimed “knowledge,” and the person will point to an external person or book. But, let us put that external book aside to critically think about the context.

Let us ask any person who purports to have divine wisdom, “Tell me everything you know about god without any reference to, from, or through your book,” and that person would become a Rational Deist having thusly reduced all that purported knowledge to the person’s own divine revelation. That person, if a socially temporally awarded “doctor of god (theology)” will be reduced to nothing but personal revelation by necessity. God will be personal by this essentiality, not social.

So, we now must ask ourselves, “If a book is necessary for faith (belief, trust, etc.), then how do we know the book is actually true?” so that it will rationally ground the answer our question of “Why?” Each religion will tend to respond that their on religion is true, begging the question illogically, “because my own book says so.”

Now, if a book is true, we can ask, “Was there, or could there be, personal revelation with god for a person, prior to the existence of the book, or without a person’s knowledge of the book? Can a man on a deserted island have faith in god without a book?” That is, stated another way, is knowledge of god, by, or through any “book” a necessary precondition to the divine revelation?

If the question is answered, “No” (a book is not required for a relationship with god), then that book has been made immaterial to god, which is the very foundation of Rational Deism®.

Alternatively, if the question is answered, “Yes” (a book is required for a relationship with god [a person on a deserted island being separated from god]), then it purports therefore to credify the book substantively rationally. To this foundation, we may follow-up with simple logistics of fact; to wit, “Since your book is required (faith grounded in or by a book), then, if you find a new book tomorrow, or you discover a book that qualifies or modifies the meaning of your current book, or a different human interpretation, or a mistake in translation, will you accept to allow a change to your book and thereby concomitantly your faith?” Faith now de-tethered from a personal revelation is now the subject of externals, human interpretations, social validation (Likes) and such statistics of god and faith; that is, what is “right” and “correct” from an “external.”

Moreover, the question may reasonably be asked (in a manner of “How do you know if you like chicken if you never tried steak?”) question of whether the person has read alternative books, such as all the Torah, Koran, Gita, the non-dogmatic books, etc., and perhaps every other book ever written, existing or lost; that is, if a person has never read other books, how is a rational choice made, because rationality is comparative by merit and attributes, grounding in the presumption of knowledge.

If the answer to this question is “yes” (the person has read every extant work available), then it implies agnosticism since there are holes in the basis of information by the rationality of lost works. If “no,” it implies irrationality of delusion, because a fact is undertaken to be known with imperfect information, vitiating its own purported conclusion in a type of reckless folly, having knowledge of lack of knowledge and treating the resultant opinion as fact, being delusion.

The reason that ancient religions have never allowed critical thinking is because thinking will tend to vitiate the tribal socialization of the religion that is required for the religion to survive.

But what is good for a religion is not necessarily good for human beings, and all of the history of human existence proves it. Ancient religion tethers humanity to ancient concepts to which humanity is now prepared to free itself with confidence and without fear.