What man calls rational thought is the admixture of passion, knowledge, certainty, intent, and context.  In ancient times people believed in animism and supernatural gods.   Were they irrational? 

If I throw a coin into the air a million times, it will attempt to  fall back to the earth.  In ancient times this phenomena was explained as an affinity between all objects and the earth, and therefore like Romeo and Juliette the pain of parting drove them back together.   Today we explain this same phenomena as gravity.   The ancient view is essentially correct, it is predictive and useful, although it lacks some of the precision of the modern view, and therefore lacks some usefulness.   However, I would posit that our modern view still has much room for improvement.  What will be the rational view of why a coin falls, say 100 years from now, and will the scientists of that day see our views as irrational.

The point is that rational is not more supernatural, or pre-potent than many of the ancient theories that life was built on.  We love our rational like a doting mother loves her child.

I take issue with rational, and rational thinking because it is so frequently called upon to deny other views of competing views of reality.  Especially religious views which are often much more honest from the perspective of Socrates, in that the religious view accept the unknown as a fundamental precept.  Socrates concluded that he was the smartest man in town, because he knew that he knew nothing.

For the record I am not a particularly religious person, I in fact consider my self to be a scientist.  However, I cannot accept the certainty of any doctrine that is wholly based upon human rational.   I would go so far as to say that in my view science and religion are both based upon as yet unexplained phenomena.

For example in Moslem teachings, God through the angel Gabriel dictated the Quran to Mohammed,  In science numbers like pi exist to explain even more that the Quran ever attempts to.   Where does pi, and a long list of given constants, which are essential to scientific understanding, originate from?  Are they not as supernaturally derived?   Some would argue that these fundamental constants were discovered by deductive research, and this I cannot refute.  However, can we be sure that these keys are not also alien in origin, or that they too will fall under the label of irrational in the future of man's quest.

If find particular fault with man made laws, based upon rationality and rational thinking.  For example Newton's laws are stated and adhered to as if they were apodictic, and yet they are based upon both the fallible insights of man, and in the sense of infinity...very limited evidence.

----------