Rationality cannot lead you into the chaotic unknown, which is where one must go to avoid getting stuck in the moral journey. You have a conscience to lead you. The conscience leads rationality when you have reasons on each side. It makes the ultimate value judgment on which reasons are better. Your instinct for meaning resides in your conscience.

You have a current version of self associated with your status quo conscience. Then, you have the higher conscience connected to a new version of self competing against the status quo. A shrewd and sophisticated strategy the current self + conscience will use to defend and preserve its position is to hold the belief that the rational intellect is what drives moral progress when it actually preserves the status quo by intervening between the self and the higher conscience.

What I’m saying is true, but you can’t believe me because most of you is the current version of self protecting its position. The best you can do is doubt. In that doubt, the seed of the higher, future self can begin to grow.

There are plenty of things in which a rational take looks straight at and says, "Yup, that's unknown." It is the religious zealot that refuses the unknown by believing in the certainty of fairy tale answers. I live in the unknown mystery. When I briefly claimed I was a Christian, it was actually the result of disowned fear, and what it really meant was "I'm joining this club because I'm insecure and to assuage existential issues which it's easier to face with a fairy tale than with reality." Add the pure capitulation to cultural norms under the pressure of anxiety to indoctrination, and you have the religious masses, who are massively skewed, of course, to the dominant religion of their culture regardless of what it is. THAT is refusing the chaotic unknown and opting for convention.

You don’t live in the unknown mystery; you just stare at it from the edge too scared to enter into it. Then, as a cope, you tell yourself this lie about me, someone who actually has navigated through it, because you are determined to remain a loser, completely cut off from greatness. It’s pathetic.

Says Koresh who speaks for god but can't bring himself to say who the god is.

Am I supposed to give the Holy Spirit a name? It’s not real unless I call it a name like a child with a toy? What kind of dumb*ss idea is this?

This is presumably a grown man I’m interacting with through this account? Acting like a chihuahua nipping at my feet? Name calling? Like I said, it’s pathetic.

What makes it a "he?" Or are you just reciting superstitious, anthropomorphic drivel from thousands of years ago without realizing it? Does the holy spirit have a penis? A Y chromosome perhaps? No answer from god's emissary.

With all the millions of spokesmen for all the countless different gods, it is incumbent on claimants to present some evidence that they aren't just more of the same, that is, that they aren't just another self-deluded soul fulfilling their identity needs with a holy messenger routine. Now that's a thing millions of times over, for sure. What's not so sure is that some of them are the real thing. (Ha ... just had a cool overlap word synchronicity with the words "real thing" in a quantum mechanics lecture as I wrote them in that last sentence. Synchronicity, of course, being a fascinating phenomenon.)

So if you are a spokesmen of god for real, let's see some evidence besides a religious spiel.

Reaction Formation (in its religious manifestations): "I have no idea about my place in the universe and I feel very anxious about this giant uncertainty, now watch me act as if I am a spokesperson for the one and only god revealing 'his' ultimate nature with awesome and authoritative insight."

This is where all the channelers of god come from. "I will manifest the direct opposite of my truth and do so with greatly exaggerated certainty." That is a reaction formation. This dynamic is so automatized and tenaciously defended within the psyche that the question never gets asked: Why am I acting like this? It's just full speed ahead with the bluff.

Of course the world awaits the real thing coming along, one that isn't like Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith. And so when that person comes along, they are going to need some provenance for all the providence. "Yo, I'm just taking that for granted" ... doesn't work. There has always been the type that deals with the existential predicament of the self in that way. If one wants to have any street cred on this, they'll need some kind of substantiation. Or maybe we are just supposed to believe it along with the hundreds of millions of impostors who have done the same over the eons.

If you come across the kinds of things that are happening in religious stories anywhere else, would they be considered magic-based and fictional? And did they originate from a magic believing, superstitious culture? If the answer to both of these are yes, we have a very strong indication, nearly 100% (and exactly 100% if they appeared anywhere but in a religious guise), that it is indeed a fiction.

Would it be considered a fable or a magic fairy tale if it appeared anywhere else? To suspend one’s judgment of what an obvious fable is, of what a fantastic story is, of what fiction is … is to put our religion in the lala land of the not literally true. A magic believing, superstitious culture creates a magical, fairy taleish system of metaphysics, morality, and religion. And to look back into those times for our understanding of things is obviously ill-advised and disreputable, not to mention indefensible under any sound standard.