All humans by definition are irrational. 

This is the emotional state we are in. We have out grown the animalistic rationale behaving solely on survival, yet animals when not in their everyday behavior of such survival show emotions and irrationale. 

Are theists more irrational than non-theists?

The point is here that rational or irrational isn’t a general state of mind. You can be fully rational about one thing and totally irrational about the other. For the deduction whether one person is more irrational than another, we need to look what it would be that we call irrational. Irrational behavior or thinking means it is inconsistent with logic (hence irrational could be equalled to illogical).

So, irrational would be illogical response to specific stimuli, information or knowledge.

For instance, if we know snow is cold, illogical would be to say it is hot. If we know snow melts from heat, it would be silly to say you can’t melt it with a fire. That would be irrational.

Humanity started of as an animal with a totally changing habitat, which gave its nervous system many new possibilities. It didn’t need as much responses (all based on fear meant for survival) to survive anymore, it could predict, plan and imagine. Eventually the huge brain mass was used to make causal connections which weren’t needed for survival of the individual, but for the generation, and next and next. Communication became more complex and caused holding knowledge from one generation to another other than the fear etched instincts that are inherited genetically. 

Cognitive knowledge was growing. But this cognitive knowledge was build on emotional knowledge (patternicity), for survival. As with all species, the choice for survival supersedes that of the cognitive mind. Thus fear is still causing people to choose rather on fear than cognitive insights. This is what we can define as irrational (as long as the choice is not warranted by actual stimuli). Patternicity eventually caused agenticity and this is where belief started. 

As with every theory, one first has to believe something occurs for a specific reason. At first, like children, humanity saw patterns that seemed connected to arbitrary events. Mostly connected to their own actions. Opening your eyes in the morning would bring the sun back. That kind of magical thinking. But like children, humanity learned how to distinguish more and more. 

When more and more humans populated the earth due to the improving temperatures and more secure locations, more and more ‘technological’ advancement came about. BUT, emotions came first, societies grew on the same fears and emotions as the first humans. They still needed soothing for these fears, to not go crazy. Religion was the structure that, based on answers given by ancestors, to these fear questions, controlled the societies (like witch doctors and medicine men and others ), even when people were using less emotional driven choices to decide who should lead (often out of greed, or alpha male protection). 

Eventually humanity started to become fragmentised. As everyone (literally) had their own belief, they would teach their children a little bit different. Eventually folklore and superstition were slowly discredited by logical thinking. We now could philosophize what was a rational thought and irrational thought. Something that was (by test and deduction) an illogical choice or reaction to the pletoria of impulses, was seen as irrational. As such, holding to any superstitious idea from before, was seen as irrational, because these ideas were rebuked by science and advancement in human intellect. 

Answering that ancestors were both rational and irrational, is correct. We all still are. Humanity doesn’t know everything yet, but we do know where certain ideas came from. We even know that in some way, believing (irrational sometimes) isn’t mutual exclusive or is even required to get to the next step of finding out.

Irrational in a way is subjective to the observer, like quantum physics. Don’t tell Highs by the way.

So, yes, when a person is religious AND chooses to deny humanity’s collected facts, he/she is irrational. If one keeps to religion for the comfort of it, but still tries to find new knowledge to equate away the leftover beliefs, he/she isn’t automatically irrational.

The decision tree theory takes the following premises:
1. The brain and nerve system are evolved as a response system to protect the organism from dying.
2. The Claustrum is the center of all neural nodes and due to its place, houses the consciousness.
3. The Prefrontal Cortex is what causes the organism to be ‘self conscious’.

The model of decision trees, works around the build up of actual decisions depending on other decisions before them. As if the whole brain is molded into a ‘electronic’ circuitry AFTER each learning part gets added.

The results of how this relates to mental disorders etc will be explained in ‘The effects’.

The model starts a single node of decision. This is based in the initial blueprint of the biological organism (genetically inherited brainpatterns).
The brain is a network of nodes, which will respond to a certain amount of tension (like a resistor). The tension will result in a (current visualisation) sonar like result to the claustrum.
So, the autonomous vital functions don’t fall within the decision tree’s context. The initial ‘breath of life’ is caused by the initial functions of the body (compression of the chest and decompression, causing first breath), the heart cells are responding to electrical stimulation, so while the body is alive, the heart will receive electrical impulses.
The first decisions are ‘etched’ (fixed pathway for the (neural) electrical current to create a certain response from the stimulus) based on input received from all the senses. The body’s receptors are evolved to respond to the same impulses as it’s parent’s body, adapted to perhaps small differences which have influenced the parent’s body with heavy pain or fear (Emotional hard etching). This is why children start to learn from the moment the neural network reaches a certain level of completion.
Lets call this period (the womb based learning period) the blueprint etching. This means the period, where most of the learning is ‘testing’ the ‘ancestral’ learning or ‘genetic inherited’ brain pattern. Here the most basic of neural paths that the species/family parent brain has passed on, are most easily activated. These will be the initial decision root. From these initial markings, the rest of the tree is based on these response fixes.

Effects:

The decision tree model/theory provides (in my opinion) a possibility to research what causes a person to emotional/cognitively fall into certain decision patterns.

One of the things I feel is best diagnosed and treated with the model for instance, is Multiple Personality Syndrome.

When the model is extended with the emotional/cognitive inheritance model (actually the ‘pre-conscious’ model) it also gives insights into the base of schizophrenia, and religiosity (which in my opinion are closely related, due to the ‘whisper’ effect.)

Explanation of effects with the model:

A quick example how MPS is explained by the model: The second personality mostly is a person who is fully functional regarding language and agility, but lacks ‘morals’ or decision that one makes depending on emotional results. This shows that in cases of sever trauma (mostly emotional trauma), the branch or sometimes a whole tree of a personality’s ethical/emotional decisions are ‘unrooted’. The new personality is a choice of the brain, to ignore the initial branch/tree results, meaning other parts of the brain will be used to ‘rewrite’ these choices. Hence the observed effects of a person with such trauma having less moral conflicts or regressing to childlike behavior. Why the person can alternate between the two branches, might have to do with the ‘mending’ of the mind, or the fact that the impulses are sent to both trees, but at certain moments will have more chances of initiating a result from the initial tree, instead of the new tree.

Using the model, it should be traceable by the amount of difference within the personalities, at which level the person has been traumatized. Ranging from Trust, to logical causality, to consistent rationalization.

Required research:

fMRI and high resolution scan of brain activity during different activities/active personalities.

Predictions:

During such scans, there will be a different level of activity in the brain, though these might be very close in neuron bundles (ie. Current technological resolution might fail to observe).

From this model and theory behind it, from a scientific point of view, predictions should be able to be made.

I think the biggest changes will come, in finding the bridging part in this model, from neurological to psychological.

Currently I see many mentions and results from researches saying: Oh, this and this thought comes from this and this hormone change or is influenced by your stomach.
Though these researches have been done thoroughly and correct, they fail one thing. They conclude something that is not related DIRECTLY.

See, of course the amount of processing in the stomach influences the brain, because the brain is the mechanism of the organism to secure correct feeding (energy intake). It secures survival from that perspective. However, there is no direct calculation possible from ‘enzym A’ in the stomach causes you to want a ‘Snickers’. Why not? Because there is an intrinsic structure which the body responds with, to changes in the intestines. However, it depends on how the brain is trained to respond to direct responses, but also how the brain is influenced on a more biological level by changed content of the intestines, whether it will respond in the same way each time.

Imagine:
You eat something very sour. You have already eaten sour the last few days. The pH in your intestines are raising and many bacteria needed for digestion die. The body will create hormones to support growth of these bacteria or at least the required pH level in the intestines. This can cause the rest of the body to receive these hormones or enzymes too, causing changes on cellular or intercellular level of behavior. This can influence the ‘throughput’ of information in the brain, but even cause certain resistance levels of neurons to change.
Does this mean you suddenly require a specific named combined food type that is wrapped in a specific color and has specific colors on them, based on the change of flora in your intestines? NO. The body is trying to restore optimal working and causes the organism to comply to this. This can cause ‘cognitive’ effects, but these are not directly induced. These are ‘collateral’ effects. The organism’s physiological processes are not aware (or should not care either) whether the organism’s neural system is further developed than the process requires to influence the organism to maintain life support/primary function: Life.

So, how will this change from the model?

Taking into account the above, with the model/theory I hope we will be able to connect all the dots and find out WHY certain individuals have a higher chance of getting ‘cognitive’ disorders, from changes in the biological inner space of the body.
The model/theory will also ensure the evolutionary theory/process will be bound on this level. We can calculate from it, which ancestral species would have had what traits and what traits we KNOW were there before certain lines and have been removed from the organisms traits.

Deja vu (as far as I have been able to investigate and incorporate existing research) is the moment the mind recognizes a pattern that has been (at some prior time) ‘considered’. This means that the brain has a response structure for it and at the moment of deja vu, it fills in the blanks. That is why the consciousness feels everything that transpires is predicted. But this only goes for the very basic response to stimulus. 

We as humans are evolved from a long line of organisms that were (for a long time) not the top of the food chain. This means that as most other species, our primal driving emotion was fear. Fear of death. Our body is prepped to try and survive in any case of fear. Our brains is the evolved version of the brain of other primates. However, our line has had the luxury to gain so much overhead in responses, that we could counter possible threats, before they occurred. This means that our system has space and basal response blueprints (instincts) embedded that are not used anymore. These options made us, as species become self aware. The same options caused us to become ‘religious’ (seeking a parent outside, or generally called animism), plan extensive, become verbal in more complex ways and sometimes have Hotwired in the complex structure of neurons. Our brain is behaving primarily to respond to threats. As we don’t have those in all levels of society anymore, there are levels where most of these parts of the brain are used for more cognitive options. However, the structures in which the brain is wired is inherited to extend. The decisions are caused by impulses coming in initially. As we come to a moment of deja vu, some arbitrary part of such a decision tree, is activated and the brain shoots hormones and other neurotoxins into the bloodstream to activate defenses of the organism. Such gives the organism a hastened response (heightened awareness) and the moment the brain sees something, the organism has the idea it has already transpired. We as humans are aware of direction of time and know that we can’t act what has already transpired, so our consciousness tries to make the event fit and you get the ‘idea’ that it was a repetition of an earlier event (but as we KNOW we haven’t been in that specific situation, we tell ourselves it must have been a dream).

Do we have free will or are our actions controlled by our subconscious?

Yes.

With this answer to your dual question, you mind will question which I answer. Thus you didn’t ‘automatically’ responded to it.

First off: ‘free will’, is a religious infused concept. 

Consciousness is the part that makes us human. The ability to plan and reflect. Other primates lack this consciousness.

What we call subconsciousness is basically our basic neural adaptability system, which creates decision trees or ‘instinctive behavior’. What animals show as behavior from instinct is what humans see in themselves as subconscious.

The first time we encounter a situation, we will evaluate, cognitively what the risks, chances, probabilities there are. When we have planned and executed actions, they become a blueprint for the next time you encounter the same kind of situation. Still, humans also have gained the possibility to have abstract thoughts and concepts, these are not behavioral. This results in the answer: we are conscious, which gives us to choose. We also are primarily a result of millions of years of evolution, which causes us to learn, adapt and behave much in the same way as other animals: instinctive.

The parts that have been ‘etched’, we don’t think about it anymore. They are an ‘agreement’ between events and your neural system, to respond in a previous acted way. If the event happens more often, the response will become automatic and will not be a ‘choice’ anymore. 

Concluded: yes, we have free will over what we are conscious about, and are controlled by our subconscious over what we don’t (anymore).