"I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist?" Because the argument itself is

"I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist?" Because the argument itself is a fallacy. Believing that God exist does not make you less rational that believing that God does not exist(witch uses to be the theological affiliation of the people that proclaim the statement). One or the other is a prejudice. If the statement were true the best option should be to be agnostic, to be able to consider both options as true, and try one and then the other. The ancient Greeks used this thinking methodology regularly. They knew that believing our beliefs are true is a trap, everybody believes that their believes are true. Even with wrong believes you could explore options that makes you find a valid solution. Columbus calculations(believes) for getting to Japan were terrible wrong, but it was useful anyway.