Should rational inquiry serve to reinforce the notion that purported rationalism is synonymous with illogical reasoning, one may ponder whether a rational belief can be held in the efficacy of 'rationalism' as a broad framework, offering as much benefit to its adherents as it does to the broader society, which may ultimately amount to a rather paltry sum.
It never ceases to amaze one how uncodified methods of spiritual exploration, such as those found within dispersed indigenous or tribal cultures, garner unquestioned merit from those who present their ideology as open and tolerant. In reality, however, it often serves as a Trojan horse, surreptitiously undermining Christian ideals, the nuclear family structure, and traditional moral conceptions that would otherwise be considered, at the very least, domestically conservative. The intention is to infiltrate the political sphere by extending influence from the domestic to the societal realm. These deities, less dominant in number, are welcomed, while the dominant ones, based on conglomerate reasoning, are seen as oppressive. The conundrum arises if the genuinely supreme ruler were not truly supreme but merely sharing the top position under the pretense of egalitarianism with every other entity claiming a theological particularism.
Spiritual inquiries that are open to refinement, reformulation, and relentless scrutiny are not truly built on the foundation of tolerant acceptance. They are wielded as tools against the Eurocentric majority by so-called "rationalists" who show no regard for any metaphysical truths that might hold their self-perceived intelligence accountable.
Rationalism, paradoxically, falls short because those who identify as rationalists are, by definition, anti-rational. They habitually disregard substantial reasons that counter their own biases because their biases do not stem from rationality but from ingrained prejudices, often intertwined with a subjective aversion to anything conflicting with their chosen lifestyle.
In essence, rationalism does not necessarily lead to truth; it instead often leads to subjective preference. The source of such beliefs? None at all. This perspective stands as an overtly anti-rational opinion.
