Before I begin, let me tell that I suspect you may be fusing the concepts of anti-theism and atheism to some degree.
I think my point about theism in a rational perspective was in regards to what YmirGF was talking about how, "the general public, it'd see "back-sliding" into theism as little more than capitulation to wishful thinking."
The general public is by definition incapable of appreciating the subtleties of personal beliefs, regardless of what they happen to be. Those matters need some degree of personal interaction to be made justice.
Therefore, whatever perspective it may have will be unavoidably general and superficial, and not worth a lot of attention in any case.
And of course, the actual meaning of any transition between atheism and theism will and does vary according to the specific situation. In some cases (hopefully few) it will be capitulation to wishful thinking.
It is in the best interests of the reputation of Theism and Theists to allow those to be acknowledged for what they are, I think.
I was bringing to light that those who claim a rational perspective see theism, or religious belief in general for that matter, as prerational.
And their origins, it has been well demonstrated, do in fact come from prerational cognition.
Of course, it does not have to follow that they will be stuck at that level.
Again, I think that religion should not avoid being rational and at some point transrational, much less being questioned about its level of functional cognition.
In how you are framing your question, how strong of a significant theism will have in the presence of a rational perspective, seems to confirm this by way of contrasting it against, "in the presence of", a rational perspective. It places theism outside a rational perspective.
And is that not the proper place for it? Theism, regardless of its merits (potential or realized), is not a rational perspective. Acknowledging that is not IMO a criticism.
Why? Why do you believe it will make so little difference?
It is a matter of personal inclination, I suppose. I tend to see reversal from atheism into theism as a rare occurrence, because in my experience theism is more often than not an artificial state, created by peer pressure and often insincere or ill-considered.
But sure, it will no doubt happen (albeit rarely) of someone who considered himself a theism turning atheist, then theist again. I just don't think that should be
expected, because I am personally convinced that both belief and disbelief in the existence of god are petty, minor matters from a religious perspective, and no one should make an effort to seek either.
From a purely statistical standpoint, I would expect someone who decided that he is an atheist to remain that way until his death, simply because there is no good reason to expect otherwise. But it is certainly no big deal if it happens, just as it is no big deal if it happens in the opposite direction either.
In any case, for these matters the personal perspective is determinant. It matters not whether it is unlikely, someone who feels like being a theist should a theist be. You will notice that I worded it as such: "they
may well decide that it is not the trouble". Because if it is any trouble at all, then why attempt it? People should be confortable with their own beliefs about God.
What do you imagine it looks like, or why someone does in fact fit religious beliefs into a rational understanding?
Because religion is far too necessary (and unavoidable) to be stymied by the need for rational thinking. And it really shouldn't fear rationality either. It is a shame - and far more of a criticism of religion, or at least of many common forms of what is usually considered "religion" than of rationality - that it so often does.
Religion IMO is all about values and goals, about decisions and the prices that have to be paid. It can and should seek to be rational, if not better than rational.
In other words, that they find no conflict between religiousness, including theist symbolism, and their rationality? How do you imagine this is done?
In a lucid way, I would expect and hope. One that finds inspiration, but no motivation for fear or hostility, in the idea of the existence of God. It is quite legitimate when it happens, but it will not happen for everyone.
And, what value-add do you see in their doing so?
Heck, I use practice deities on occasion, even if only for a few moments. I have arguably created a few. They are useful as sources of reflection and inspiration. Nothing wrong with that, and belief in their literal existence is just as legitimate as it is optional, as long as it does not become overwhelming and unbalancing.
A good litmus test might be how prepared a person is to deal with disagreements about the existence of the deities he or she believes in. Disagreement is a fact of life and should be dealt with without losing balance.
I will certainly grant what you are saying here. I know it to be true. And this is the role I see popular atheism playing in our current times. It's a way to say "not this" and extricate oneself from prerational, mythic-literal dogma and to use their minds. And kudos to that!
Thanks for your good will and trust.
They are appreciated, and not taken for granted.
But I believe the question can also be asked, and should be asked, how difficult is it to throw out the baby with the bathwater? In other words, be done with myth as facts, and throw out anything even remotely related to it by fear of association, i.e., 'spirituality'?
That is indeed a good question. It deserves some attention.
I identified as an atheist for many years, and from the inside this is what I observed and experienced myself. Did I 'backslide"? To those who see any form of belief in God as prerational, that's the only thing they can conclude. But is that accurate? Most certainly not.
I wouldn't dare to guess how it happened to you, but do you think prerational thoughts and beliefs
are not to happen to rational or transrational people? I think it is a premature thing to assume.
And you make an extremely good and important point here. I have observed this too many times, that to many people, the embrace of the spiritual in their lives is too real, too important, too central to them, to reject their only ties to it in their mythic-literal religions, even though they are rational and can see science and reason hold truth to them. They also know the spiritual is real, and rightly so.
Fair enough.
So the options presented to them by those "preachers of the rational" are that in order to embrace the rational, they must reject their spiritual homes! In other words, the vocal atheists debunking and denouncing religions, in effect, drive them straight into the fundamentalist homes because there isn't any other place for them to go!
Is that so? I suppose I never saw that happen "up close". It sure sounds like a rare problem at first glance.
In any case, while regressing into fundamentalism certainly happens, it is nonetheless a failure and inadvisable. It is a clear sign of failure to grow one's religious mindset to the stature needed to deal with rationality. That is simply not a good thing to aim for.
The message is rationality is incompatible with belief in God. And to them, God is what they call that which connects them to themselves and life. They know of know other way to translate that experience, and so they 'stay at home' as it were because they don't believe rationality alone connects us to reality. And they are right in that view.
Doesn't that imply that their faiths need to be developed to the proper extent as to deal with rational concepts, though?
I don't think it's that strange to understand when you take into account the role that the symbols play in a very real, true, and important part of being human. They'll keep the bathwater, because the baby is real and they know no other way to keep the baby.
Shouldn't they learn better ways?
And that's its shortcoming, IMO. Again, I see atheism as a transitional step from mythic-literal dogma, to a playing field that allows for a 'transtheistic' transrational approach to spirituality, by allowing someone to differentiate from the bondage of mythic dogma.
I don't. Atheism is just atheism. It is far too simple a concept to sustain much of anything.
Maybe you meant rationalism, or even anti-theism?
There's a quote from the brilliant Hindu mystic and philosopher Sri Aurobindo I think illuminates this beautifully in his way of describing it.
(...)
So is it backsliding, or advancing when one takes the fruits of reason as foundation and moves upward into integrating the spiritual, the baby without the bathwater of myth?
Advancing is possible. But advancing does not fear what it left behind. That would be regressing.
