Two philosophers on reason and religion

I would say, they are certainly not reasonable, that's obvious. 'Unreasonable' implies, with everyone, rebuke. I want to say: they don't treat this as a matter of reasonability. Anyone who reads the Epistles will find it said: not only that it is not reasonable, but that it is folly. Not only is it not reasonable, but it doesn't pretend to be.

(L. Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief)

Is Wittgenstein right to insulate religious beliefs from 'the historical proof-game'? I doubt it. It is certainly impossible to insulate religion entirely from rational criticism: 'If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain' implies 'Either Christ is risen or our faith is vain' for exactly the same reason as 'If the weather is not fine, our picnic is ruined' implies 'Either the weather is fine or our picnic is ruined'. But if religious beliefs and systems of religious beliefs are not invulnerable to logic, why should they be cocooned from other sorts of rational scrutiny?

(John Hyman, "The Gospel According to Wittgenstein")