Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

The whole point of rational inquiry is that we understand and accept that we possess these limitations, all of us.  The system is meant to shore up our inherent and well demonstrated weaknesses in cognition.  If we didn't possess these we could assert the contents of our intuitions without reservation.  

A belief formed and held on a-rational grounds,  then rationalized, based upon selective appraisal of evidence, confirmation bias, and so on is categorically a-rational (and borders on the irrational).  The first part is just a statement of historical fact regarding the belief or position, though.  That it was initially formed a-rationally.  That doesn't matter much today unless it's still in that unjustified state.  The qualifiers that followed that statement of historical fact are far more relevant to any current appraisal of the position. 

I can tell you with certainty that my atheism formed a-rationally.  I was making macaroni necklaces..not considering the reality of the divine or the esoterica of material implication.   It wasn't a belief for my heart to follow, or based upon any selective appraisal of evidence, nor was there anything to confirm by bias or otherwise.   Still, though, categorically a-rational.  We all start our lives in this meaningful state of forming a-rational positions.  My position then was self evident..I didn't believe in gods.  That being said....my position on this matter...like most matters (and like most people), is not the same as it was when I was four years old.

The relative quality of rational justification isn't a matter determined by belief or assumption. It's a fundamentally simple declaration of whether or not some position meets the requirements of a specified system. So, no, there's no reason to assume as much, it's often not the case, and it can only be decided one way or the other -after- consideration. Consider every atheist kindergartner in the world. Do we expect their rationalizations..if they even possess them, to be "better"..somehow, than the rationalizations of adults who...it has to be said..may be wrong, but at least know how the game is played and are aware of and fully acknowledge their cognitive limitations? OFC not.

We do get the odd nutter (believer and non-believer alike) who somehow manages to outperform children for a-rationality, though.....and that's when it gets really impressive...