Rationality and Satan

He [Allah] said, "What prevented you from prostrating when I ordered you?" He said, "I am better than he; You created me from fire, and created him from mud." He said, "Therefore, you must go down, for you are not to be arrogant here. Get out; you are debased." 

Quran 7:12-13

The icons of Satan and God in their relation to rationality are fascinating in its intertwinement of ‘reason’ with ‘pride’, and being keenly aware of the emotional-orientation of peoples discussions and arguments. Not only is the great evil of the world understood as the moral knowledge garnered from Adam and Eve eating the apple of Eden; and in the Quran, fell from grace from his refusal to prostrate himself before God. Satan defended his superiority to Adam on the grounds that he was made from fire, yet Adam merely from clay. Value is not inherent to what you’re constituted by, but defined through the will of God, and one's obedience to that will - what does this mean? There is absolutely no chance I can begin to do justice to such a profound metaphor. Something like what god something serves is more indicative and transformational of a thing than what it actually is. That if one merely relies on themselves, they will bring themselves into ruin. In not understanding and appreciating our fundamentally limited nature, we cannot be rejuvenated by the infinite power of God.

Every rational claim can be understood as somewhat indulging in satan-like. We make a claim, and implicitly suggest that it is the reason we propose which justifies the claim, lying with such skill we believe the lie. Matthew 4:3 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

    “‘He will command his angels concerning you,

    and they will lift you up in their hands,

    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Satan in tempting Jesus uses scripture in an act of persuasion, which is immediately followed in verses 8-9 with Satan offering the entire world to Jesus for his worship. There is no differentiation made between temptations of someone's desires, and persuasion through reason. Or more specifically; the use of reason is utilised as a weapon to trick someone into not resisting Satan’s influence. And yet is this not what we do with our own reasoning? When you want to give in to the temptation of something you know you shouldn’t do, do you not create some explanation or justification? Yet evidently it is not a reasoning to be trusted if it only emerges to coerce you into evil. Why do you expect the rest of your reasoning to be untainted? You cannot think without some motivation to do so, and you cannot act without being an ego who has an identity to maintain; and you believe these will not affect your thoughts?

Satan’s words are to be understood not in what is said, but the fact that it is said by Satan. If you try to out-rationalise Satan, you have misunderstood what the battle is really about. You cannot persuade Satan because he is arrogant, no matter of argumentation will make a difference because his heart is hardened against reason. We tend to value reason because of its coercive power, the illusion that with the right words and arguments, we can make anyone believe whatever we want - all the more reason to be suspicious of the authenticity of your ‘rationality’. But to believe such requires burying the awareness that others determine whether such words can infiltrate their mind, not necessarily by choice, but they can certainly guide their will to oppose outside influence. By trusting Satan is working on a ground of mutuality necessary for a rational discussion, you’re misunderstanding Satan. Instead you understand what he says by knowing his intention: to deceive. You can somewhat grasp this in everyday life through being aware if one sounds like a temptress. But you can be certain of the evil of rationality if it is aimed at some unholy purpose. The consequence of a suggestion can inform you of what ‘voice’ is speaking despite the mask of ‘objectivity’, and prevent the temptation of being manipulated into seeing morality through the idea.

Quite understandably, many will take this to be a form of coercive religious dogma, as a means of control. If you kill rationality, you destroy the ability to resist, and then establish dependence. Do you not judge Satan based on blind faith in God? That anti-rationality has been used for tyranny is historically self-evident, and to some degree the burden of moral knowledge makes it somewhat of a necessity to deal with the world with some form of rationality. But what if the Abrahamic narratives were articulating something more profound than mere control? What if something approximating dogmatic faith was beneficial for navigating the world? What if we should uphold what is holy and good regardless of the apparent facts, and bend reason against dogma? Reason is the suicidal depressive who is certain there is nothing in the world but pain and suffering. Optimism and an unwavering devotion to improving how you engage with the world will get you much further than depressed reasoning, yet clearly such will seem absurd and ludacris to the ‘free rationalist’ worn down by his own mind. Maybe the question goes one step further, are we capable of high-quality thought without blind faith to certain ideals? If the depressed person’s rationality is degraded and ravaged by their own misery, is it not possible that the only worthwhile rationality we can muster is when we are healthy? Is not committing yourself to being healthy regardless of justification not worshipping God - devoting yourself to what is good despite any temptations persuading you otherwise?

In some sense the issue is twofold: the belief our knowledge and rationality is better than what it is, and an ignorance of our own motivations. That we must adopt humility to be willing to accept new ways of thinking. Humble enough to not immediately judge new ways of thinking through the awareness that we are not competent enough to grasp them sufficiently for judgement. That if we weren’t limited in our thinking; we would have eradicated every problem in our life, and would be a master over every conversation - but considering we are not, we must deny ourselves enough so that we can fill ourselves with the thoughts of another. Alternatively that through the deceit of our own reasoning, the truths of ourselves we wish to deny can be found. That in every lie is a fragment of insecurity and ego, that we expose our own vulnerability through our defences. Once we are willing to confess we are not righteous enough for our thoughts to be rational, we can begin to understand the character we adopt. Both the intellectual and the emotion come back to one fundamental attitude: arrogance. That is, all comes back to a fundamental idolatry: the worship of Satan, and irreverence of God.