I think a lot of people – if not most – would claim they are rational people. That they for example try as good as they can, to choose the best and most logical choice in a given situation. Of course, a lot of people also are aware that they do not always choose the most rational choice - that they are often swayed by their feelings: “people aren't always fully in control of their actions”. You don’t raise your voice in anger at your child or lover, because you think it will have the best possible outcome. Your acting on your feelings because you feel misunderstood, not respected or ignored. It is safe to say, that most people would excuse such deviation from rational, as being very normal and quite human. After all we’re not computer programs – always choosing the best consequential option.

        I don’t want to discuss these momentary deviations from rational thought, but the more in depth philosophical deviation from rational thought. You might say that you try to act as rational as possible – also taking feelings into account, as sort of measurement. “What feels right” can arguably be the best rational choice – for example when deciding at which restaurant to eat or which movie to watch. It would be silly to consequently try to rationalize the best possible option in those cases. What about when choosing which college to attend or even which partner you choose. Now these choices are arguably more important – and might need some more thorough thinking. But, even in regard to these serious choices, one wouldn’t necessarily be sent to the psych ward for following one's heart, feeling or inner intuition. However, I think especially when deciding college or career paths – most people make well calculated choices. They will to best of their ability apply some sort of critical thinking.

        So far so good, but let’s dig a bit deeper! Let’s talk about existence - something I’m sure most of you have thought about one way or another – and some more than others. A lot of you might say you are atheists (chill, this won’t turn into a preach or pitch) – you might say something in the lines of: “I decided I was an atheist when I was around 17. It just didn’t make any sense! It just seemed so irrational, illogical!”. Regardless of which conclusion you came or didn’t come to – in this case – you most likely didn’t say: “You know what, all those things with a talking snake and ribs creating women and stuff, it just doesn’t FEEL right!”. Or if you did – which is completely fine – it could be said that you applied Kierkegaardian logic. That is to say, faith is outside logic - and therefor feelings are exactly appropriate to determine god's existence. For argument sake, regarding existence; one is either rational or one is not. You have either taken a “leap of faith” – as Kierkegaard calls it, and chosen to follow your emotion in determining existence – or you haven’t. The explanation of your existence – I feel – cannot both be rational and emotional at the same time – one annuls the other. It is at least, highly problematic for someone to take a “leap of faith” and be unconditionally rational. Such a leap is to choose away rational thought or critical thinking, when it comes to the question of our existence.  

I want to discuss the people who consciously or unconsciously are attempting to have it both ways – and apply a quasi-rational approach to existence. I am talking about the people whom in one instance strongly proclaims their atheism, while categorically reads todays horoscope in the next. The ones who says they could do what they want, but vigorously tries to find their specific lot in life; “What am I meant to do in life”. Even more commonly - the ones who say’s life is meaningless - but is sure their life has some predetermined destiny. The level of incompatibility these combinations represent is astonishing. I am inclined to call these people who toy around with the notion of destiny, by for example reading the horoscope – while being non-believers: “privileged destinies”. Because – how can destiny be true for your life, while not being true for everyone else’s? It cannot be so that some have a destiny, but others don’t. By reading the horoscope – while blissfully envisioning how your coming weeks will entail – one exerts privileged destiny thinking. Astrology is not science. Consequently, using it to predict one’s future, is destiny thinking – as much as any other religion. Where the compatibility becomes problematic is when these people look at the world and all its pointless horrors – while rationally maintaining their destiny thinking. Take Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) for example, like the hookworm which infects infants brain and leeches of its energy – inflicting unmeasurable pain and suffering until death. Or different forms of tapeworm diseases like neurocysticercosis, which also infects the brain and give the affected continued and unbearable seizures until they die. NTDs affect around 1.4 billion people around the world today – and making life barley liveable for those affected. What are these people’s destiny – what did it read in their horoscope? What was their predetermined lot in life? For me, rationality and destiny seem utterly incompatible. Which might explain why modern religious thinkers often have made a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”, and separated critical thinking and their faith.