1. I found this funny.
2. I have no clue if this is LLM-written or not.

I'm never going to accept that because it just feels wrong!

Could you provide more context on the exact views which caused such a reaction? Before that, it might be a good idea to dissolve the question, as Yudkowsky (partially?) did with free will.

There is a very long history of interaction between scripture and reason, both collaborative and adversarial. But I assume you are thinking mostly of Less Wrong rationalism, rather than earlier rationalist movements. 

Let's think for a moment of where Less Wrong rationalism came from. What are its sources? It's a mix of transhumanism and secular science, with a bit of metaphysics to furnish tentative answers to questions like, what is consciousness, or what is existence. It is very secular and materialist in its approach to ontology and epistemology. But because of its transhumanism, its notion of the possible, and the destiny of the world, can remind people of religion, with its heavens and hells and its superintelligences reaching out acausally across the multiverse. The Sequences also tackle ethics and the meaning of life. 

Now while this may be an outgrowth of atheism and humanism which has come to acquire features also seen in religion, one thing that distinguishes it from scriptural religions, is that there is no divine revelation. The Sequences are just a message from Eliezer, not a message from God. The rationalist attitude here towards the world's scriptures is going to be that they are purely a product of human brains. Whether they are regarded as poetry, pragmatism, or delusion, there are no divine minds involved in their production. 

That is going to be a major "crux" of disagreement between rationalists and adherents of scriptural religion (a disagreement that was central to many earlier interactions between scripture and reason). And it raises the question, what kind of interaction are you looking for? Would it be to retain some of the premises of scriptural belief, but employ rationalist epistemology within that framework? Or it could be to find rationalist interpretations of religious parables and aphorisms, which are notoriously susceptible to reinterpretation. 

Or, you could be looking for people who are both rationalists and theists. Bentham's Bulldog is a scion of academic philosophy, but he manages to be both sympathetic to elements of the Less Wrong outlook, while also being a theist and even believing in miracles. Early in the 2010s, Leah Libresco was an atheist rationalist who converted to Catholicism. (I predicted, incorrectly, that it wouldn't last a year.) Then there's the diffuse realm of "post-rationalists" (TPOT on X), I'm sure there are quite a few theists there. 

I would find that difficult, because in my understanding, religion requires some sins against rationality: motivated thinking, privileging a hypothesis, writing your bottom line first...

I mean, most religions assume that a book written a few millennia ago, when people knew practically nothing about the world, because the scientific method didn't exist, and "a high-status person made it up" was a likely source of any statement that couldn't be immediately verified... that this book contains the true answers to the secrets of the universe and beyond. The obvious rational answer is: "why should we even take this hypothesis seriously?" (And the traditional answers mostly reduce to: "because someone powerful will hurt you if you don't".)

Now this is different from the fact that religion as a social process has accumulated some wisdom over the years. Like, smart people were thinking about things, figured out something, and sometimes added "because god wanted it this way" on the top of it. Or people were motivated by the religion to do something, and during the real work they discovered something; for example the religion wants you to build big churches, so you invent architecture.

But then you have the problem of how to separate the true knowledge from the religious justifications. Also, to separate the true knowledge from things that also have a religious justification but aren't true. And this is something that religious people would probably feel uncomfortable about, because the motivation is obvious: to separate the useful parts and then throw away the rest.

(My pet peeve: we already have fans of Buddhism here, who in my opinion fail to separate the wheat from the chaff, fail to consider alternative explanations, dismiss evidence by "if it fails for you, you must be doing something wrong". That's what you get when you become emotionally attached to the source you take the information from.)