Friendly Atheism

[Acrobat]

Very few people hold beliefs they believe to be irrational. You can perhaps view the brain as a reason-seeking organ; if it does anything it is because it has conceived, computed, or confabulated a reason to do so. Beliefs, therefore, will always be rational to the person that holds them, and perhaps irrational to the one that does not.

What you describe is internal whims asserted to be rationality.   But that is not rationality.   Rationality is the subordination, not free expression, of internal whims.   This is why real rationality follows a set of external rules validated in a manner that controls and eliminates as appropriate the effect of internal whims.

This sort of rationality sounds like a ghost in the machine, like an ethereal supervisor double checking how our brains draw it’s conclusion, replacing faulty workers if need be, insuring they’re following some set of rules, rather than their natural travel through our neuro-pathways.

---

I think that theism is rational insofar as one has himself had a direct experience of "something divine." 

I don't think mystics make very sound truth claims. But I think that the mystic's claim of God (or whatever) is--at minimum-- a possibly valid one. The "believer" or "doctrinal adherent's" claim is (conversely) unfounded/irrational or at the very least, lacking any rational basis whatsoever.

Hmm would you say then that rationality is not transferable? That if a belief is rational for you because of experience, it cannot be rational for me if I believe you?

I would think it would be like a witness, if you think the conclusion drawn by the witness is reasonable, it seems like it would be reasonable to believe the witness.

This is not to say you should believe the witness, it just doesn’t seem irrational to believe the witness.