It is true that the core of the human being extends beyond rationality (and that our metaphysical presuppostions are decided on grounds that are pre-rational or a-rational), but this does not for one moment mean that we "shouldn't aspire to be rational," nor that we should delight in the irrational.
why is that? if we accept our irrationality as a part of ourserves, as it indeed is, then there's no need to aspire to be 100% rational as that would mean to aspire to deny a part of who we are, a part of our very nature.
Nor would I concede, as you seem to, that "religion" is necessarily or intrinsically irrational. Again, while it is true that much of its proper content might be said to be a-rational, this does not mean that any given religion's claims should be protected from the tribunal of reason. Indeed, one of the many reasons that I find Christianity so compelling is that, taking the "whole picture" into consideration, it is the only worldview that satisfies the demands of reason.
as a Christian man myself i've got to say that if you think that believing in a omniscient and invisible Holy Being who created everything and who can do anything is "the only worldview that satisfies the demands of reason", then you're simply deluded. I mean no offense or irony with this. in point of fact, i've gotta admit that your defense of religion as something that satisfies reason's demands is even somewhat endearing to me as I can tell how deep your faith is.
Finally, you are actually giving Hitchens far too much credit by saying that "total rationality" has "impoverished Hitchens's mind." He was not, in fact, terribly rational at all. His books lacked intellectual sophistication and he was regularly trounced in the scholarly debates that he undertook. His undeniable urbane charm, however, was enough to please the choir and impress the unreflective.
could be. i haven't read a single of his books nor do i plan to read one. in that regard, there are tons of other writers more worthy of my time than hitch.