Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?

[shadow]

Well, perhaps the axiom question is best left for another day.  The question I'd like to ask today is, if we form beliefs initially for non-rational reasons (as a consequence of the feelings of the heart, or whatever), and we then develop rationalizations based upon our initial belief, selective appraisal of the evidence, confirmation bias and so on (methods which undermine the rationality of our conclusions), are then our beliefs not ultimately lacking in rational justification and thereby inherently unreliable?  If the head follows the heart in matters of belief, instead of unbiased reason, is our certainty in our conclusions undermined?  I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?

Interesting question. I would posit that reason is a tool for meeting a goal. A very very powerful tool, which is why it appeals to us.

What that goal is is not something I think pure rationality can determine. I don't think there's an answer in the stars for that. So it's not so much that the head is following the heart, but that the heart determines our objectives. The head then gets us there. If one ignores reason, by relying on prayer for example, they are less effective at meeting their goals. So this is why I would not support that irrational behaviour. When it comes to our feelings and desires, though, I don't know why you assume it is possible or preferable to determine these with pure reason.