There have been major questions about the role of reason in religion and philosophy throughout the history of those subjects. The answer is too simple.

Reason is the natural function of minds. It's purpose is to determine whether realities in the mind correspond to external realities which are observed. It makes comparisons to find out. Making comparisons is the process of reason.

Therefore, reason should be defined as the process of making relationships between realities. Logic is the strictest standard of reason.

This process goes beyond a test of perception and includes a process of testing all relationships between realities. It provides an indication of whether interpretations are correct. It also indicates functionality, because consistent relationships are needed to prevent conflicts. So it is critical to the synthesis of technology and social structures.

Behind the process of reason there is an assumption that consistent relationships have a value, while inconsistent relationships create a problem.

Consistent relationships create a unified reality. Unified reality is what is meant by universe. Scientists say the universe is made up of laws which are compatible with each other.

More basically, unified reality in the mind is what creates awareness and understanding. It gives mental processes an ability to function, and it aligns the realities in the mind upon the unified realities outside the mind.

Therefore, what humans all have to do continuously, whether they realize it or not, is try to unify their minds by aligning the realities within them upon external realities in a correct manner. The correctness is determined by the process of reason.

For this reason, my method of approaching both religion and science is to evaluate relationships to surrounding realities to determine if they are consistent or in conflict with known realities.

While this process can never be avoided, it is too often too haphazard. Generally, people have not been taught the importance of doing this or how to go about it.

Science taxes human knowledge, since it's purpose is to extend knowledge into unknown areas. It therefore places a demand upon scientists to test and purify their knowledge to every extent possible. In doing that, it taught the modern world its basic concepts of evaluation. People now know that all evidence needs to be considered, and objectivity needs to be the standard.

Religion, however, is in a process of undoing the gains which science made in teaching proper methods of evaluation. Generally, the reasoning process is said to be too corrupt for religion. God's standards are said to be so far superior to those of humans that anything humans do is supposedly too inferior for religion. In other words, getting reality straight from God is supposed to replace the process of reason.

Fundamentalists will say this directly. While there is nothing consistent in religion, fundamentalists will say that common sense is a human corruption, even though the dictionary defines it as "ordinary good sense or sound practical judgment."

Catholics have been at it too long to leave themselves that vulnerable. They write documents with titles such as "Faith and Reason," as if they were the champions of reason, while there is nothing resembling reason, its description or its advancement in such documents. What their theology really says is that only Church authorities can produce the authentic (infallible) interpretation of God's reality, and therefore, the peons (the "faithful") are supposed to get it from them instead of evaluating it themselves.

After all of the theological arguments, the test is in the applications. I seldom get anything but contempt and scorn for trying to add rationality to religion instead of promoting some theological synthesis which is called God's word.