I think that theism is rational insofar as one has himself had a direct experience of "something divine." Whatever that is zen, Krishna, Buddhahood, wonder at the universe as understood through science, Eudaimonia, Christ etc. it does not matter. If something is genuinely experienced (even perhaps with so-called a mystical experiences) it is rational to accept that experience as possibly real. Experience is the only evidence of a reality. However. Systems of thought which impose such revelations upon others (religions) are not basing truth claims on experiences (like mystics do). Rather, religion (often) bases it's truth claims on a tradition or authority. This is not rational. At least not in the way that mysticism perhaps is.
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.
I consider myself a friendly atheist because of this. I have had no experience leading me to believe in God or religion, but I think that God belief can be rational. But I also think that rational God belief is atypical. God belief is usually rooted in social pressure to accept a mutual delusion.
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.
I consider myself a friendly atheist because of this. I have had no experience leading me to believe in God or religion, but I think that God belief can be rational. But I also think that rational God belief is atypical. God belief is usually rooted in social pressure to accept a mutual delusion.
