I think, therefore I am. It is this basic philosophy that separates humans from animals. Animals of the lowest order of sentience, even a roach will seek safety in a shadow, do think. It is more specifically the human ability, not only to have the language to express the idea, but also the capability to reflect on one’s own existence, that truly separates humans from animals.

The outcomes of this are far-reaching: this human intellect births religion, chock full of answers for the uncertainties created by this human ability. Religion conveniently creates the soul, placing man above animal. The difference is so obvious- an orangutan cannot give you a reason why he should be considered “above” a human- but the question has been asked, (because we can ask it) so we must answer. Religion decisively answers: “soul,” “heaven,” theoretically soothing our theoretical soul, while motivating the physical body.

Conversely, this question, enhanced: “What is the purpose of the human ability to perceive existence” (‘meaning of life’) spurs scientists to investigate and explain biology, astronomy and geology while artists catalog and celebrate all aspects of the human condition. With  respect to human ability compared to animals, scientifically language and capabilities derived from extended social relationships are the best answers science has attained. I, personally, haven’t heard about any research regarding the soul escaping the body upon death.

The inability for humanity to recognize the advantages that could be derived from this human ability to diagnose itself, which by this point to the elemental, genetic level, is the main thing that is holding humanity itself back. Big thinking paradigm shifting theorists will always have their place, but the large-scale shifts in popular thought tend to have larger impacts.

From the rejections of Galileo and Darwin, to the current trend of vaccination-phobia which is reviving eradicated diseases, humans suffer from an apparent fear of rationalism. The inability for rationality to win out in political and personal decisions is a major obstacle. From voting out of fear or anger as opposed to a rational measure of personal benefit, to rearing children to suffer through an upcoming climate catastrophe, lack of rationality as a basis for personal decision making can have severely adverse effects.

Though religion is my main culprit for this irrationality, it is not the simple negation, atheism, that will lead to rationality. Many critics of “the new atheists” claim their outspoken advocacy of atheism as its own type of religion. This is something I must disagree with. Atheists don’t congregate. Atheists don’t all adopt the same philosophy. A pantheist and a buddhist (who believes in buddhist theory but doesn’t believe buddha is God) can both consider themselves atheist, and they obviously won’t share the same beliefs.

The closest atheists come to religion is humanism. Even humanism has been divided between religious humanism and secular humanism though they both share basic tenets. The new atheists should go beyond advocating atheism and go on to advocate humanism. Sam Harris ponders on a “universal morality” in his writings, which is something that can conceivably become akin to humanist dogma, only Harris (from what I read) cannot identify a universal morality, but can merely reject cultural relativism. The society that accepts female genital mutilation, for example, doesn’t get a pass on observing human rights. Using this example Harris argues that human benefit can be gauged, and eventually this gauge can lead us to a universal morality.

Getting back to Darwin, though there are many who still refuse to accept a familial connection with apes, scientifically, the DNA similarity is striking. Unfortunately the argument has not evolved. Evolution of the human is rarely considered. The simple fact that humans evolved in a world much different than the one we live in today should be used as guidance. Sex (religion is definitely a cause of sexual misunderstanding and repression), is a great example. The Venus of Willendorf is the prime example of traditional sexual motivation. I still remember the hilarity that overtook AP art history class when she was presented as a “sex symbol.” The explanation of her symbolism of fertility smacked squarely against the modern conception of beauty where “no fat chicks” is the norm. Does anyone even ponder how or why this change occurred? Has overpopulation and child support laws made bearing children so less beneficial that thin, less fertile women become more sought after? Are homosexuals genetic adaptations to benefit an overpopulated planet?  Does athletic ability make the act of sex more enjoyable, supplanting child rearing as the main purpose for sex, leading to a change in desired body type? Have fashion designers, branded apparel producers  and their advertising molded the psyche of society? Any or all of these examples could be the case, but the rational people are still fighting against creationist museums, and intelligent design mentions in science textbooks.

Rational discussions about food have been the best case I’ve encountered, but even these are nowhere near mainstream. Tastebuds developed to appreciate fat in a world of scarcity. Today, a ubiquity of fattening food is a paradigm that’s hard to transition to. Will Brusselsprouts taste great in the future cause we need their nutrition more than we need fat stores to survive food scarcity?

I also do not want to identify religion as the sole cause of irrational thinking. For better or for worse, the root causes of irrationality are shifting. The importance of religion in people’s lives has waned in many parts of the US, for a variety of reasons. Increasingly, manifestations of popular culture from musicians to athletes to fashion magazines, mixed with a dependent news-media that spins more than it reports, play more of a role in driving personal choices. In many ways, portraying one’s status has become a raison d’etre, driving purchases from necessities as clothing and food to luxuries especially cars. Advertisers have flipped the concept of capitalism itself, plunging americans into a cycle of need that can never be fulfilled, as opposed to a socially-positive fulfillment of those needs by a responsible marketplace. (This is the main argument of Benjamin Barber in his book ‘consumed,’ that this has created a permanent ‘infantilization’ of American adults.)

The information deficit model – the idea that providing more information to the public will lead to an enlightenment – has also been proven to be insufficient. Studies have shown that, when confronted with data that contrasts with one’s beliefs, people dig deeper to justify their beliefs.

Once a standard of non-rationality is set, irrationality then may become a psychological defense mechanism for any of the normal problems or challenges of life. Depression, anxiety and fear are universal emotions, but the way in which people handle these emotions are far-ranging. For someone who deals with the situations that cause these emotions with irrational thinking, the negative emotions will linger. Coping can only be achieved through honest introspection.

Irrational and self-defeating thinking and behaving are correlated with emotional difficulties such as self-blame, jealousy, guilt, Low Frustration Tolerance, depression, and anxiety.