Analyse and Question.

Many of us are well equipped to be rational and developed thinkers.  With all that grey matter (among other things that would be too retarded to list) that make up our anatomically pleasing human brain and CNS, it is fair to say that we are rather lucky in the scope of living animals.  But are we rational and logical thinkers?  Do we do more than just “think”?  Can we put our brains to good use?

Have you ever noticed a child’s curiosity?  To say purely that curiosity is responsible for developed thinking, in my opinion, is invalid I know- that will not be the basis of this argument.  It is evident that many animals are curious, but what seems to differentiate us from other animals is our driving need to know. I know that children ask questions, so many questions, but it would seem that they have a driving need for valid answers; they must know.  “Children are born to perceive – they make the ‘cause-effect’ links and relationships” (from the book “Why people believe weird things”…. Give it a read)!  So as I have established, as the child wonders, he must find out.  So as the adult wonders, what stops him from finding out?  That’s what I want to know?  It seems far less adults have the driving need to know that children so classically possess.  Do adults hit much bigger walls?  Is it too difficult to ‘find out’?  Surely not.  Do we think we know enough at a certain point, to get by without knowing more?  I guess on a basic level, thinking is required to keep us alive.  As children, thinking is required to help us grow and although we may not think of it, we are aware.  It is a competition to know.  But as we mature do we give in?  Do we see that specializing in a certain field of knowledge is more relevant as we become adults?

I suppose I think that that is so.  For I myself will not go out of my way to learn computer programming, the most uncommonly used words in the Oxford Dictionary or anything of sorts like that.  Do I need to know that or are there other more relevant and more important things for me to know on a personal level?  Do I know that I realistically do not have time to know those words or how to program and because everything is somewhat prioritized, they are further down on the list than others that hold greater status in the scheme of knowing?  Perhaps.  But if I had all the time in the world, would I ever want to know; would I try to know or would I stick to what I want to know most?  When is it progression and when is our mind’s curiosity to know, a limitation?

One thing I wonder, is how we can know what nobody does?  How can we really know that a big discovery is valid and real?  Because we hear about it, does that make us believe its true?  What I love most about science is that it leads us towards rationalism.  Science cannot improvise details as it must give valid details.  And if details are left out we, as humans, question relative evidence, and if evidence is scarce or irrelevant, this affects our scale of belief…. A rational mind would think this is valid to say?  So when you read a text, do you not analyse its content and rationally critique it, like us skeptical humans might with any new and valid information?  Don’t we select credible sources when writing academic papers, instead of just anything written?  I think so.  So why do many not perceive and/or read scriptures with a skeptic’s mindset?  This has puzzled me for years.  It seems such texts as the bible and other similarly based written work is that it lacks critique in itself and does not provide any absolute evidence, nor much reason.  As a contrast, science must prove itself to be believed, unlike religion, which seems a little ‘wishy-washy’ for me.  Take Darwin for example.  If he just chucked everything out there without properly discussing it or providing any evidence for his theories, would we even consider believing them?  The thing I love about Darwin is no matter what he argues; he likes to touch on “negative evidence” or “difficulties of theory”.  These are rational arguments that discuss exceptions to rules and theories.  I’d like to think that a rational mind would have decided to include such things (yes, perhaps to improve credibility) but it’s his open minded and thorough discussion of perceived and collected evidence that makes his personal papers/texts so pleasurable to read.

So why can’t religion be rational?  Why can people read the bible and assume it to be true because of its age and all the mystical things it says?  How is the bible any less or any more valid than any other piece of writing ever produced?  And who and how many people have ever critiqued it close to the time it was written?  Who was ever there to rationalize?  It makes it a very difficult task for us to do now as it could have held some truths.  But we will never know, so why build our lives around something that has such flimsy evidence, when science produces so much more, especially as technology has and does progress?

Although I have drifted, I conclude with my initial train of thought –

Why do humans have a limit on their ability to wonder?

Why do some choose not to think at all, if given the choice?

How can we get by with so little thought?

How can one ever be fulfilled with something without proper assessment?

I hate how some things just sound good, so convincingly good.

Please be rational, please think, please be inspired to learn in order to progress.

I know all of these things are only values to me on a personal level but I wish more people in the world analysed and questioned.