Peter, In an effort to twist Descartes maxim to conform to your religious views, you've tied yourself in a knot. "I think, therefore I am" is a very simple truism. Humans are animals that have evolved with all the traits of every other animal that share this planet. Survival has always required many of the behaviours you dislike - selfishness, aggression, accumulation of valuables. About ten thousand years ago when the climate stabilised sufficiently for humans to farm and live in permanent settlements, it became clear that survival also required deliberate control of instinctive behaviours. This change/modification requires us to think about our behaviour. We can be more or less civilised animals only if we think about our situation. I am what I am because I think.
I like the Bedouin saying - "Nature is god, thought is prayer."

Dear Ybgirp,

"Cogito Ergo Sum" is in error:

"I dance, therefore those legs which I call 'mine' exist".
"I sing, therefore that voice-chord which I call 'mine' exists".
"I weave, therefore those hands which I call 'mine' exist".
...
Similarly,
"I think, therefore that mind/brain which I call 'mine' exists".

That I AM requires no proof, nor can it be derived, nor does it require thinking, dancing, singing, weaving or even breathing - either you know it, or you don't.

If ever there was an activity that could be called rationalisation it would have to be ‘theological thinking’.

All theological thinking is rationalisation without exception. Theological dogmas and dictates are all rationalisations of religious behaviour. Religious people try to justify their behaviour by dreaming up rationalisations for it. They know that their behaviour is totally irrational but sometimes they try to explain their behaviour as if it is like other behaviours and attempt to make it sound reasonable.

A person who spends five hours down the pub every night drinking himself in to a stupor will, when challenged, claim that he is not an alcoholic but that rather that he is a sociable fellow who likes company. He will try and convince himself by rationalising his behaviour and making it sound like a good thing. He is avoiding the reality that he has serious emotional problems.

Workaholics, fitness fanatics, compulsive shoppers, problem gamblers all try and deal with their problems by behaviours which cannot help them. They try every rationalisation they can think of to deny the reality of their emotional pain. Drinking, work, exercise, shopping and gambling can all be enjoyable when done appropriately. As activities they have redeeming qualities but religious behaviour has none.

People who indulge in religious behaviour do so because they have emotional problems and they try to rationalise this behaviour. Over the millennia such rationalisations can become so ingrained into the culture that they are mistaken for valid reasons. These rationalisations become written down and collected into books like bibles and Korans. You can even go to some of the most prestigious Universities in the world and obtain a degree based on your knowledge of these rationalisations. No matter how complex and ‘sophisticated’ these rationalisations appear on the surface they remain simply rationalisations. No amount of thinking about these rationalisations or ‘theological thinking’ will make you a better person. It is like trying to deny you are drunk by drinking even more.

phanto, you say that "All theological thinking is rationalisation." Not only theological. The rational, thinking part of the mind is a very small part of the whole, and we are constantly driven by reactions and past conditionings of the deeper part of the mind, the so-called subconscious. We can use the rational thinking to resolve problems, e.g.in engineering, maths etc, but our ideas and behaviour are driven mainly by the non-rational part of the mind. We can only see clearly when we free ourselves of past conditionings and observe the reality of the present moment as it is, in its true nature. This requires self-disciplne and properly-directed effort, not dependence on or obeisance to any external entity, whether real or imagined.

Dear Peter,

You wrote: "We imagine that religion can be reduced to whether or not we believe in God or whether we have been saved or accepted Jesus into our lives."

You have use the unfortunate habit using the word, religion, to refer to your particular religious belief. You are the one who would reduce religion to your cult. Religion is a concept much broader than Christianity.

Religion may have nothing to do with a belief in God. Buddhists have a religious tradition that goes back seven centuries before Christianity. One can follow that tradition without acknowledging any deity at all.

One can be a Jew, Muslim, Baha'i or other monotheist and not worry about Jesus at all. Concern with Jesus is not essential to monotheism.

Confusion of doing and thinking is the hallmark of tyranny. In a free society we may think anything we like. We may not do anything we like.

You wrote: "If we are having an adulterous affair, we know we are doing wrong."

However, if we think of having an adulterous affair but don't have one, we have done nothing wrong. If we confuse thinking of doing something wrong with actually doing something wrong we are afflicting ourselves with unreasonable, neurotic guilt.

Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity to keep people in subjection.

"In the absence of theological thinking we give ourselves permission to do what we desire and we rationalise our behaviour."

So the existence of an estimated 30,000 varieties of Christianity worldwide, and a similar number of non-Christian cults and beliefs, has nothing to do with people shopping for a faith which gives them 'permission to do what you desire' and 'rationalises' their behaviour? Really, Peter?

As other commenters have already pointed out, theological thinking is the ne plus ultra of rationalisation.