What I'm trying to figure out is if this community thinks that any SREoE must necessarily reject G1 (based largely on the inconsistency of E1). I'm not claiming that a SREoE must accept G1 upon being exposed to E1.

I get that you're trying to be polite and all, and that's nice of you.

Politeness is important, and the social constraints of politeness are a big reason I steered this discussion away from emotionally loaded terms like "rational," "irrational," "God," "faith," etc.in the first place; it's a lot easier to discuss what confidence a SREoE resides in G1 given E1 without getting offended or apologetic or defensive than to discuss whether belief in God is rational or irrational, because the latter formulation carries so much additional cultural and psychological weight.

But politeness aside, I don't see how what you're saying can possibly be the case given what you've already agreed to. If E1 entails high confidence in G1, then an SREoE given E1 concludes that G1 is much more likely than NOT(G1), and an agent that does not conclude this is not an SREoE. That's just what it means for evidence to entail a given level of confidence in a conclusion, be it a low level or a high level.

Which means that if you're right that I have evidence that entails reasonably high confidence in the existence of God, then my vanishingly low confidence in the existence of God means I'm not being rational on the subject. Maybe that's rude to say, but rude or not that's just what it means for me to have evidence that entails reasonably high confidence in the existence of God.

And I get that you're looking for the same kind of politeness in return... that we can believe or not believe whatever we want, but as long as we don't insist it's irrational to conclude from available evidence that God exists, we can all get along.

And in general, we're willing to be polite in that way... most of us have stuff in our lives we don't choose to be SREoEs about, and going around harassing each other about it is a silly way to spend our time. There are theists of various stripes on LW, but we don't spend much time arguing about it.

But if you insist on framing the discussion in terms of epistemic rationality then, again, politeness aside, that doesn't really work. If E1 entails low confidence in G1, then an SREoE given E1 concludes that G1 is much less likely than NOT(G1), and an agent that does not conclude this is not an SREoE. That's just what it means for evidence to entail a given level of confidence in a conclusion, be it a low level or a high level.

Or, expressed in the more weighted way: either we have shared evidence that entails high confidence in the existence of God and I'm not evaluating that evidence as reliably as you are, or we have shared evidence that entails low confidence in the existence of God and you're not evaluating that evidence as reliably as I am.

All the politeness in the world doesn't change that.

All of that said, there's no obligation here to be an SREoE in any particular domain, which is why I started this whole conversation by talking about pragmatic reasons to continue practicing your religion in the first place. If you insist on placing the discussion in the sphere of epistemic rationality, I don't see how you avoid the conclusion, but there's no obligation to do that.