If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[vulcanlogician]

Kierkegaard's often misunderstood leap of faith comes to mind. 

I actually like Kierkegaard's leap. I'm no Kierkegaard scholar or anything, but I've done some reading on it (prompted by watching "The Good Place") plus what I read --and liked-- in college. The leap "into" faith might be the best remedy for someone. I say, if the despair is taking a stranglehold, go for it. Make the leap.

As William James notes, the contingent world cannot always be adequate. (As a quasi-Spinozist and hard determinist --more on that later-- I agree with James's assessment.) Religious beliefs can MAKE the contingent world adequate. If a person is in a state of despair, I say, make the leap.

But I also think there is a wrong way to make the leap. Clutching on to religion greedily, as if it were a rabbit's foot that is there to bring one fortune, or a doctrine that affords one power over others. Those are not a leap of "faith." The worst case is a leap into fanaticism. We all know how wrongheaded that is. And oftentimes it is NOT a leap into faith in Christ that leads to fanaticism. But rather a leap into institutional delusion. Fanatics usually want to control other people with their "revelations." They externalize their religion.

I think Kierkegaard meant that after the leap of faith, the religion should be internalized, and then the "true self" becomes externalized. Kierkegaard hated institutional religion as much as any atheist. And I think that's telling. I hate institutional religion, as you well know. But if someone needs to take refuge in the Buddha or take refuge in Christ... I say do it. 

I can elaborate on my reasons why. I'm not endorsing delusion. Even though I think people who see Christ (or Allah or whatever) working in the world ARE misinterpreting the world. 

My analysis here can be quite lengthy. (Keep in mind, I'm a hard determinist. That's relevant.) The broad strokes are: 

FACT: A person can be in a state of existential anguish. I take a Spinozist (hard determinist) vantagepoint when analyzing such a situation. Spinoza would say that a despairing person has "inadequate ideas." Those ideas ought to be replaced with (surprise!) adequate ideas. "Christ" is an internal symbol that can serve as such an adequate idea. Ultimately, it has its limits as an idea. Spinoza would say there are more adequate ideas THAN it. But he would also agree... in the final analysis... that the idea of Christ is more adequate than the idea of inescapable despair. The wise person selects the most adequate idea available. Period.

But why not simply select the MOST adequate idea from the git-go? Well, it's not that simple.

According to Spinoza, we are emotional beings. We can't always just select the the most logical and accurate ideas to live by. But why not? The problem is, inadequate ideas (despair and the like) have emotional power. We are emotional beings. There is no escaping this. We need adequate ideas with some "emotion in them" in order to counteract the emotional power that the inadequate ideas have. Spinoza advises that we use them as a stepping stone of sorts to arrive finally at an outlook of pure reason. A person who is entirely reasonable, Spinoza says, is truly free.

I've gone on long enough. Like I said my analysis on this is lengthy. And I haven't even touched on how it relates to James.