Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

According to an atheist, there are few, if any, reasons to believe that God exists, and the God belief has been passed down from pre-scientific times in the guise of religion. The atheist often believes this in itself is good reason to reject the existence of God. The atheist might even say it is not rational to believe in God. Is it rational to be a theist?

[Cathar1950]

I am reading thru this tread again trying to find evidence for rational belief in God. This is in response to Harvey1 in another thread.
But first a few words from our sponsor.
QED wrote:

I would say that there is no doubt that man has always thought it rational to have mystical beliefs. You would have a hard time convincing anyone otherwise. The issue has to be: are such beliefs justifiable? The fact that mankind has depicted mystical events and beings right from the very beginning of recorded history is also beyond question. The earliest cave paintings are a clear indicator of a belief in the transcendency of natural forms into the supernatural. It strikes me that this could be the result of one of two things:

1)Either there is a real 'signal' coming from the supernatural realm into the natural that inspires such behavior.

2)Or it is all just a result of humans filling their imaginations with interesting possibilities.

I would like to add another possibility.
Reason maybe just a facet of our nature.
Mystical thinking maybe another.
I think it was Whitehead or Heartshorn that said we experience the world
there is more to it then we experience, we know less then we experience , We understand even less. Or something like that.
I tend to think Atheism and Theism are both rational and have their irrational and non-rational aspects as well. I see no difference between the universe brought it's self into existence or God brought himself into existence or that the both bottom line is they always existed as a form of causality.
ST88 wrote:

But, of course, these bits are taken in isolation -- without context, without contributing and coincidental factors, and without sufficient information from a non-theist viewpoint that would have explained what those bits were doing there. I don't think it's a question of rationality. I think it's a question of having all the facts -- and even knowing that there are additional facts to be had.

Here I belive ST88 hits the nail on the head even if the nail is bent.
We don't have all the facts. I doubt we ever will. The Bible is an unreasonable source of the compleat truth. It is too diverse as it should be and way to many possible interpretations to ever be conclusive. We forget often that at the time Jesus was preaching or what ever he was doing depending on which gospel there were many Judeaisms as later there were many Christianities.
harvey1 wrote:

Keep in mind, though, that theism is not just based on inference to the best explanation. Theists base their beliefs on their own religious experience as well as their own need to have meaning in their lives. In addition, there's moral arguments, intuitive arguments, ontological arguments, and transcendental arguments for God's existence.

Since atheism relies mainly on inference to the best explanation, it is much more vunerable to the charge that it is over inferencing based on unknown variables. The theist, by using a combination of arguments, is able to reason based on known and unknown variables, thereby assuring that the answer is as good as any other answer of things that humans tend to believe (e.g., that science gives a generally accurate view of the universe).

I don't think that the sum of these argument for the existence of god make for reason. Each has been addressed over the centuries and found lacking. i also don't belive because they are all lacking is compelling reason for Atheism. I think it is wonderful we are creative both in science and religion. Both can be good and evil.
Curious wrote:

Perhaps it is the atheists obsession with physical detail that has helped in the survival of this particular predisposition as the theist appears to have a definite evolutionary advantage in terms of health, general happiness and lifespan. Now if the atheist was to take this additional fact alone into consideration (which is verifiably true) then it would seem that not becoming a theist would be rather irrational.

Now this seems to be a good argument for both sides.

evolutionary advantage in terms of health, general happiness and lifespan.

This might have been especially true during the inquisition or other religious reforms.