I'm conflicted. I've been reading about rationality and thinking about apologetics. I was raised Christian, went to a Christian school and all that.
Some people (EY and the LessWrong crowd in particular) believe religion is not only harmful, but that it must be completely extinguished for being an error in thinking. Their frame of reference is the scientific method and aspects of mathematics (statistics, probability, game theory, etc.). They're all atheists there, that's a given, but instead of the atheist that "lacks belief in God" and other irregular wordplay, they are actively trying to deconvert people.
One aspect they discuss is cognitive biases, that our thinking style is "imperfect" according to mathematical rules humans made as a result of evolution being a clumsy and imperfect designer. If we all adopt materialist-scientism worldviews the world would become a better place, apparently. There's "nothing but" matter and energy, so you must arbitrarily deny that reality has a meaningful nonmaterial aspect, or any kind of meaning for that matter - we're nothing but atoms (but for unspecified reasons we must protect the human race from a superintelligent AI identical to God by definition). Why build an AI God if you want to remove existing religion from the equation? Creating an omnipotent being with powers of atemporality and acausality could potentially be The God of the religions you try to do away with, that is this precise historical trajectory is the temporal loop needed for the AI/God to ensure its own existence. Who knows?
lesswrong.com
Here is another example readthesequences.com
Here the author doesn't point at the claim of God, but to the finger of another that points to God. Instead of addressing whether an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God can be studied, modelled and predicted as a localised event as the scientific method does, or through arguments in pure logic. Instead we get a Whiggish and selective description of history, and that "religion's" (not a religion, or theism, but "religion") position in civilisation is Non-Optimal by the standards of an unqualified silicon valley neckbeard.
My ramble leads to this: current research on rationality and the scientific method deal with localised events, like a poker game and a synthesis of two chemicals. Acting "irrational" is the norm because 'bad' evolution. Science is also having a replication crisis, is subject to fudging the numbers and plagiarism, and is often funded by motivated political interests with agendas.
Do you believe it's possible to be completely rational in your worldview (in your dealings with matter and atoms) while still believing in God? Is religion destructive, considering of all recorded wars non-Islamic wars account for ~3.5% of them in total?
Frankly I think the Orthodox notion of Prelest very rational and the prevalence of Hubris very irrational, but on the God question I'm a bit on the fence.