What Is Rational Deism®? The Executive Summary

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

Overall

Rational Deism® is a disciplined philosophy of belief for both theists and non-theists. It begins with personal revelation: each person’s experience of meaning, conscience, or insight is sovereign and cannot be mediated or invalidated by another. It insists on humility of knowledge: no one may claim to know the ultimate truth for all. And it unifies through love: the only binding requirement across differences. In short:

Rational Deism® affirms revelation as personal, knowledge as humble, and love as universal. [ChatGPT Summary]

You might be thinking, “What is Rational Deism®?”

It might be easy to say that it has the personal revelation of The Buddha, the humble rationality of Socrates, and the inclusiveness of Jesus. We might say that Rational Deism® accomplishes a new opportunity and perspective, without destroying the essence of what has already been accepted, but let’s do more.

And you might ask, “What is Zegarelli, a ripened attorney—after writing books on the Gospels, Aesop’s Fables and Socrates—doing with it?”

No, I’m not giving up my day job—this is my preferred social outreach project, like many of us do for other non-profits. Before I start on the Ted Talk-type circuit, video releases, and other such now-common mechanisms of information dissemination, here is the “Executive Summary.”

This post is not intended to “convince” you of anything, but merely to inform you of the basic principles of Rational Deism®.

Now, this is important: the following is not the common-person explanation, but a sophisticated “executive summary” for critical “rational” thinkers, being generally trained adult professionals. The reason that I say this is because an untrained person will tend to conflate and vacillate between fact and opinion, but a true critical thinker is trained to stay in a lane. Here our lane is rationality. Anyone can have an opinion, but fact is something else: fact is constrained to existential evidence.

Rational Deism® is for disciplined thinkers, as you will see, and particularly well-suited to a higher-educated audience.

When my children were younger and I was introducing them to the empathetic perspective for different religious, spiritual and philosophical belief systems, the issue arose as to whether I would cause “confusion” for them. My response was “confusion” is far superior to “delusion.”

1. Let’s start with an easy one, starting from the other side first. Let’s say you believe (have the opinion, faith) in Adam and Eve. You will tend to know that, in the state of that nature, there was no history (yet) and no books. Accordingly, the relationship of Adam and Eve with “God” was not by or through any book (or a Bible). The relationship and the revealing of that relationship was personal and direct, which would prove no book is required for a personal relationship with God.

Now, I already know the argument, being paradoxical ironies like, “The Word already existed before the Word, from the beginning.” [J1:1] These arguments are fine if we cross lanes, but here we’re going to stay logical. Anyone can purport to refute logic with clever abstract paradoxical ironies. The Word of God is one thing, but a book that is hearsay to that Word (a mirror, reflection, but not the thing itself), is quite something else, and each different edition of a Bible self-evidences the point.

Some people believe (opinion, faith) that the book is the first-instance Word of God (perfected directly from God without human intrusion), but this belief skips a lot of true existential factual steps, like the human drafting, the interpretations, versions, translations, lost and found works, etc. Therefore, rationally speaking, the books and the Word of God are not the same thing. Books are, rationally speaking, hearsay (reflections and interpretations of the Word of God). Moreover, Adam and Eve had a direct relationship with God, but didn’t need any book to have that relationship—the revelation was direct. God is permitted to reveal to a man on a desert island, without any book, and no book can tell God what to do. No person having a revelation will elevate any external contradiction over the actual revelation. Hold that thought.

2. If a relationship with God comes through a “book,” then the book intercedes control over the relationship. That is, if, but for a book, a relationship with God cannot exist, then the book itself controls the relationship, and talks for God—interceding and effectively preventing—direct communication. But no one prays to the book.

Some religions assert that someone’s personal revelation (whatever it is for that person) that is non-conforming to the book is made wrong thereby; that is, the book (depending upon the version is being used and applied) speaks conclusively and unerringly for God. This is fine for some people and works for them, because, for some people, reading words is easier than listening directly for the words. So be it.

However, if the book intercedes into the relationship as final arbiter itself, then the relationship between a person and God is subject to a lot (in fact, unlimited) external conditions that are accidents of existential life. For example, if we “discover” new “books,” like the Dead Sea Scrolls, or we have a new translation, interpretation, or any other existential condition, it changes the basis of the relationship. Change the fulcrum, change the dynamics. The relationship with God cannot be subject to unlimited existential human accidents, because the relationship would be no more secure than the accidents that control it.

Therefore, if the book controls, then we never get a solid foundation sourced from within ourselves, but are tossed around by external writings, external words, external disputes, different pastors or priests, new knowledge, and all of that existential contradiction and unrest, forced into defensive insecure adversarial tribes. [2] What is not uniquely secure internally within itself will naturally tend to seek to try to be made secure outside of itself by the homogenized external multitudinous tribes who share a book. [3] This is not to say that the words and books are not good and meaningful, but only that their authority and purpose is constrained as secondary to personal direct revelation.

3. Most priests and pastors are XY-men, even today in 2025. This is the perpetuation of ancient custom, but it is not necessarily better. Tethering to male authority is not a rational tether, but only by irrational tether. [4] Just about every pastor, rabbi and priest in Western culture perpetuate authority from a line of authority where someone, asserting some divine relationship with God through a book, authorizes the next person; that is, to “ordain.” Each person is “ordained” from the authority of the last person, and will, by being ordained, be self-proclaimed as empowered by the divinity to do divine works, marriages, last rites, and all sorts of cultural tasks, which are dependent upon social acceptance and perpetuation of social recognition of those newly divine powers. A priest and pastor require a social congregation. This is not to condemn the tribal nature of congregations, but to understand them in the context of personal revelation.

Complicating these divine powers is that the authority must be traced uncorrupted back to an ancient divine authoritative source—a chain only as strong as its weakest link—which has confounded the entire space of the subject. Moreover, history is replete with human corruption of the very persons ordained as God’s claimed special instruments. [5] This is not to disparage the excellence of some, but only to point out that the premise is rationally flawed. Academic institutions grant “degrees” in knowledge of God that Socrates might say is inherently arrogant and foolish: what the Gods may reveal personally to a person is one thing, but socially teaching the Mind of God to others lacks humility, perhaps also considered human arrogance.

Who really can presume to know the Mind of God, or the Gods, in a manner to universalize it as truth? No human being should be entitled to usurp the personal revelation of another, or to judge it, for that is each person’s guarantee to the person’s own unique meaning of life. [6, 7] Even Jesus chided for calling him “good.” [Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19] Therefore, Adam and Eve did not need a book for a relationship with God, a book is hearsay to the Word of God that is directly revealed to each of us personally, and those who purport to be divine instruments with divinely granted powers rest upon sources of authority in dispute and corrupted often enough. Personal revelation is self-authoritative. Books are a path, not the destination, which merges and reconciles principles of The Buddha and Socrates. Therefore, Adam and Eve did not need a book for a relationship with God, a book is hearsay to the Word of God that is directly revealed to each of us personally, and those who purport to be divine instruments with divinely granted powers rests upon sources of authority in dispute and corrupted often enough. Personal revelation is self-authoritative. Books are a path, not the destination, which merges and reconciles principles of The Buddha and Socrates.

4. If we should reflect carefully, personal faith is never the issue in society. It’s the socialization of faith that causes the problems. It’s not the “what works for me” that tends to be the issue, but the imposition of presumption, “You must make what I do work for you, too, because I and others who voted for it say it is correct.” But personal revelation is not subject to a vote. [8]

Ancient religions—particularly Western ancient religions—are social and thrive on tribal acceptance, that is, Likes, where volume makes correctness. Through a process of cultural custom, generations press authority onto new generations without allowing the new generations the freedom to choose. That is, ancient religions seek conformity to a revelation by a set of principles set forth in a book. First all must be theists, then theists of the same god, then theists of the same book of god, then theists of the same interpretation of god—all conformed in thought and action. The concept itself contradicts everything to which a free-thinker binds. [9]

5. Many people disparage certain ancient faiths and religions, but offer no better solution. Rational Deism® does not disparage the essence of faith, but only a faith’s perpetuation by tribal intrusion into freely made acceptance: that is, forcing it onto anyone else, a form of condemnation or slavery that has never worked. [10]

What Rational Deism® does is to break an ancient chain of authority to God that requires socialization. Rational Deism® co-exists with all religions with one very critical fundamental profound difference: Rational Deism® constrains belief to the personal. “I read the Christian Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ is my savior, but I cannot say he is or should be yours.” By its free-thinking, rational and disciplined approach to religious belief systems, it only contradicts the failure of divine humility of presumptive arrogance of knowing the Mind of God as to anyone but self. Eastern religions tend to be more astute in this regard than the Abrahamic religions, but the principles are universal.

Rational Deism® does not rely upon a collective dogma, but a collection of human individuals who are free to self-reveal using any core faith that works for them.

Thusly, The Three Enlightened Tenets™:

The First Enlightened Tenet: All Yields to Personal Revelation. To the Rational Deist, ancient religion helps a person to achieve personal revelation, such as in the spirit of The Buddha. At the point of personal revelation, faith is perfected unto itself and there is no proper measure for comparison. Ancient religion, as such, is a means, but not an end. Perfection does not need to defend, attack, explain, justify or excuse. It cannot be socialized, expressed or shared. It is as unique as each of us. Learn More
The Second Enlighted Tenet: Humility (No Arrogance) of Divine Knowledge. Socrates was clear that the greatest fools were those who presumed divine knowledge. Rational Deism® does not assert divine knowledge, in humility and rational self-awareness of the limits to existential knowledge. Faith that does not understand the limits of its own nature is delusive, and good is from truth, not delusion. Rational Deism® acknowledges the limitations of knowledge to know the Mind of God, but only as revealed to self. Learn More.
The Third Enlightened Tenet: Love. Rational Deism® invites everyone who loves, without judgment in the nature of Jesus. “I am a Hindu, Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew,” said Gandhi. Rational Deism® unifies. Unlike the presumption and arrogance of others, Rational Deism® does not claim itself as “the Only,” but, rather, unifying “the All.” Love is to live and let live. Learn More.

And let us add a twist. Perhaps the above is even the easier part to comprehend. But the greater profound difference of Rational Deism® is that its set of principles welcomes atheists and agnostics. How can this occur? Truth.

The substance of the Three Enlighted Tenets controls, untethered to particular dogma: Personal Revelation, No Divine Knowledge, and Love all can apply to theists and non-theists. Think it through. Everyone can have personal revelation, and can love, and can refrain from professing knowledge of the divine, if it exists at all, by the limits of human contemplation. Therefore, naming conventions aside, by substantive principles, atheists and agnostics are welcomed completely and without reservations or judgments. Learn More.

Some might say that Rational Deism® simply provides a new framework to remove the external judgment from anyone else’s personal revelation. Therefore, Rational Deism® does not contradict any faith, as such, but only the constraints and burdens upon a unique individual’s meaning of life and self-realization by revelation. Rational Deism® does not rely upon the cult of social culture, but rather it respects as personal the unique revelation of each person, the most basic right of life. Perfection does not require more.

Perfection does not need to defend, attack, explain, justify or excuse. It cannot be socialized, expressed or shared. It is as unique as each of us. Revelation is self-perfected.

My many articles on this site and elsewhere—political theory or otherwise—are expressions that hold to this similar framework: live and let live, believe and let believe. Let each person be and become an individual person secure in self and secure with God, whether the person has one god, 20 gods or no god. [*6, *7]

One in diversity.™

To learn more about Rational Deism® please review the website and FAQs.

The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.

Linked In https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-rational-deism-executive-summary-gregg-zegarelli-esq–raupe/

This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/rational-deism/what-is-rational-deism-the-executive-summary/

[2] Religion, War and “The Vehicle of the Light Analogy” [GRZ97] [LinkedIn #GRZ_97]

[3] Misery Loves Company – No. 51. The Fox Without A Tail – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_51] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_51]

[4] A Brisk Critical-Thought Exercise in the Circumcision of Circumcision [GRZ152] [LinkedIn #GRZ_152]

[5] I Am Not Brainwashed, And Neither Are You. Maybe. But I Might be Wrong. [GRZ165] [LinkedIn #GRZ_165]

[6] Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia) – Abridgment Series [GRZ61] [LinkedIn #GRZ_61]

[7] “Forgive Them, Founding Father; They Know Not What They Do.” Or, the Folly of Trying to Socialize the Meaning of Life [GRZ219] [LinkedIn #GRZ_219]

[8] Martin Luther https://greggzegarelli.com/index/movie-reference-set/#M23X

[9] The Woman Wins. Now. It’s About Time. [GRZ199] [LinkedIn #GRZ_199]

[10] SQL Nulls, Socrates, and Black Holes. Or, Agnosticism and the Great Lawn Chair Debate [GRZ72] [LinkedIn #GRZ_72]

Entire Article Index