"While religious beliefs are often regarded as unquestionably false or at least strongly in need of justification, other world views, such as
the naturalistic thesis that the natural sciences are the only reliable access to reality, receive unquestionable public applause.
This is particularly astonishing because there is actually... a long tradition of convincing philosophical counterarguments against this thesis, which in no way feed from religious sources"
And in the course of this false basic conviction, the "unreasonableness" of religious convictions is also repeatedly spoken of:
"Sometimes it is argued that religious beliefs do not satisfy scientific justification claims and are therefore not reasonably justifiable. One could call this objection zientiistic (science-believing) and it appears in several variants "
Yes, it is exactly the same, as I have repeatedly noticed in my discussions with atheists over many years. And "science and reason" are often mentioned in one breath. Reason is based on the sciences... some even claim that only that which is scientifically justifiable can be considered reasonable.
"But this is already implausible, for example, because we do not attribute the most fundamental beliefs of our everyday life and most important decisions of our lives to scientific reasons, but they still do not feel unreasonable."
In other words, even the atheist believes to think and act reasonably if it is not science-based and - justified. But at the same time wants to deny this reasonableness to the religious believer, because of lack of scientific justification. Doesn't that already make it clear, as is measured here with two different measures?
(All quotations are taken from the scientific book "Religionsphilosophie" by Stefan Löffler)