Here are two possibilities:
Consider those things which can only be known by actually being seen, such as the effects of color on one's mood or feelings or the atmosphere set in a scene by the interplay of light and shadow. A blind person can know nothing of these except by the testimony of those who can see. Is the testimony of the seeing valid evidence to be accepted by the blind? Can that testimony, if it is false, be falsified by the blind?
If I were a very cleverly designed machine, I might claim I could see, and because of the very clever sensors in my system, be able to behave just as if I could see. But seeing, itself (the actual colors and shapes of my visual field) is subjective. You, nor anyone else can "see my seeing," so when I say I can see, you take my word for it, and assume it means the same as you mean when you say you can see. But, I cannot prove I actually see, because, there is no test that can be made which I would fail only if I could not see, but would surely pass if I can see. (This assumes all external behaviors associated with seeing exist, because it is only the subjective experience we are attempting to test for.)
Religion, I think, involves things which can be known rationallly enough (like the totally reasonable and rational belief of the blind in things they can only know by the testimony and explanation of the seeing), but that cannot always be objectively demonstrated (like all subjective experience). I do not believe there must be a conflict in this kind of knowledge and any other kind of rational knowledge.
On the other hand, I believe 99% of those things the religious believe are mostly irrational and easily disproved. Holding those kinds of religious views is rightly called superstition.
Hank
By stating that you 'beleieve' you are implying that you do not 'know'. In short, you are using an opinion in an argument that began with logic. By using an opinion without the total logical analysis of the facts that you considered in forming this opinion, you have removed the argument from science and logic and into the realm of fictional speculation. While speculation is a valid human persuit (same as science or logic or love) it cannot be intermixed with logic to form scientifically or logically valid statements (this is fallacy).
Perhaps Wittgenstein summed it up most concisely by saying " What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.".
In short, for the purpose of logical argument language must be exact, with the words having exact meanings in the field in which they are used, and not bve subject to interpretation or misundrstanding by the hearer. If the words used do not have exact meanings in the context of their use, ther can be no assumption of communicating a precise idea between the parties involved. i.e. to verify an experiment in science the experiment must be described preciesly so that there can be no possibility of conducting the experiment differently by a different researcher (meaning that a different, if similar, experiment had actually been conducted).
For instance, by saying " I believe 99% of those things the religious believe" do you really mean the majority of the religious tennets you are familiar with or do you mean an actual numerical 99% of the religious beliefs of Zoroastrians, or Christians, or Muslims, etc., or do you mean a numerical 99% all of the beliefs of all religious persons of all of time? And how, exactly, would you support that figure? I think you can see how supposedly 'logical' arguments seem to end up in so many total and vehement disagreements, with no one actually knowing what the other side means, only what they think is meant (in which case the disagreement is actually with our own understanding of what was meant , not what was actually meant). A simple philosophical question such as "Does God Exist?" requires a precise and non interpretable definitions of all three words in order to be subject to logical discussion or scientific investigation. And, even then, all we end up discussing or investigating is our limited definitions, which may bear no relation reality (again see Wittgenstein, proposition 1,2)
Yes, In know there are several logical errors in my reply, but it is still in the conversational, not precise, mode since no truly logical proposal has been formed yet.