Revelation from God necessarily wants to de-motivate truth seeking

Revelation is when God tells us something. He may reveal stuff to us without us hearing voices or seeing visions. He may inspire our feelings to tell us what is true. Or he may speak to us audibly or send a vision.
 
Some say that unless God set up the universe to produce creatures who realised there must be a God we would not have a clue. He has to help us to see that he is there otherwise we will not see at all. So even if we see by reason that there is probably a God it can be called revelation.
 
Divine revelation is an evil concept and miracles are stated by religion to imply that we must seek divine revelation and believe it when we find it. If religion is right about that, then that implies that God knows things nobody else can and he has to reveal them. The concept is dangerous for somebody could speak in God's name and say, "Kill that baby. God uses evil for a good purpose. It is not intentionally evil as long as you do it to help God's purpose. You have to do what is best". This is the potential danger. Support that and you accede any right to criticise the religious fanatic.
 
Revelation is the miracle of God giving us knowledge we wouldn't get otherwise. It is necessarily anti-reason and anti-evidence  - and therefore anti-science. We will see this in a moment.
 
The Church disagrees - it says revelation is not irrational, not even slightly. It says reason is good for seeing if a claim is coherent or true or false. It sees it as a tool. But it says reason alone cannot tell us everything. So revelation helps fill in the gaps.
 
Reason says we need to take things on trust in order to function in life. It is reasonable to do that for reason is not enough. But it is not reasonable to claim that religious trust, trust in God and religion, is needed. The minimum faith we need is faith in each other. That is the default. And we need enough of that faith for we know that people can't be bad and untrustworthy all the time. Humanism, us deciding what is best for ourselves while assuming there is no more to life than the natural universe, is the default. Any faith that goes beyond the essentials then is against reason.
 
It is objected that we have an emotional need for religion. It is said that the principle that we come first must take account of that. We have a need to feel that there is always hope. We have a need to feel that we can cope with the risk of severe sickness or death. These are human concerns. They are not religious concerns in themselves. Art and religion seem to have something in common. You can fulfil your need for wonder by developing a taste for art be the art in the form of music or paintings or anything.
 
Revelation inherently denies the fact that it is not God's concern what we believe as long as we do our best to learn how to live the best life we can.
 
Even if revelation is just God discreetly planting a thought in your mind it is still a miracle so when miracles are bad news revelation is even more so. The Bible belongs in the fire then just for claiming to be the word of God.