Theistic Inclinations

[Whateverist]

For what it's worth, I don't say belief in God is illogical because that would depend on one's premises.  But surely it is to some degree non-rational.  While you may cobble together the best justification possible with logical aplomb, from whence comes the apprehension of a god?  The initial hunch that a non-detectable god is in play must benefit from something beyond mere reason.  Of course the usual route by which the kernel of god apprehension arrives is direct teaching on the part of parents and the 'tribe'.

Is belief in God, as you say, at least non-rational? To some degree I would agree with you since many parts of cognition happen below the surface or come into our awareness before reflecting on how they make us feel or what we think about them. Memories are a prime example. People have memories before they decide whether or not they are accurate. And if fact, they believe memories to be true unless there is sufficient reason to suppose those memories are not. The same is true for perception. People assume that they see and hear correctly the objects around them unless there is reason to suppose otherwise. I say it is right and proper for them to do so. As such the rule I apply is that things are as they appear to be until shown otherwise. And showing otherwise is where rational reflection comes in to possibly introduce doubt and/or defeaters.

I say that just like memory and immediate perception there are other pre/non-rational beliefs that are initially justifiable and include things like trusting reason, moral realism, the sensus divinitatis, and the sublime. It takes a special effort to show that these things do not point towards facts about the world. People do not start from a position of doubt (witness any teenager). Incredulity and skepticism are cultivated. For example, people have to convince themselves that senseless killing is not in fact actually wrong but only a personal or social preference against such actions.

On the other hand, further consideration may bolster our initial beliefs, like a photo album can confirm memories. That is why I say that faith is something you reason from not something that is reasoned to. The holy scriptures do not tell us that God exists, that sense is already in place. Instead, they tell us about what God is. The role of apologetics is not to convince anyone that Christian belief is true; but rather, to address possible defeaters and show that those objections suppressing people’s apprehension of the divine are unsound.

Well I very boringly completely agree with all of that, including my bolded.  My own predilection, if I were a theist, would not however square with that part.  My own bent is to seek experience which directly confirms what there may be beyond our human filters and rationality.  I would recoil from looking to a text to harmonize my interpretation with the broader xtian community.  Why aren't there more shamanic Christians, I wonder?

I do think you put your finger directly on the real use to which the bible and apologetics are put by nearly all Christians.  It has much more to do with maintaining in themselves the state they desire than in spreading it.  The attitude of wishing to spread their good stuff to others is probably itself an activity which bolsters the preferred state of faith.