Corollary: clear thinking is characterized by internal consistency, and intact modeling of the observable, external world. If either internal consistency, or a real world referent are absent, the thinking is disordered.
Corollary 2: no thinking which presumes reason to be paramount meets this definition, since emotion clearly intrudes on all decisions and all perceptions.
Corollary 3: Rationalism, as the philosophical equivalent to Scientism, is inherently irrational and disordered.
Corollary 4: If presently thinking depends upon empirical notions currently unobservable–e.g. “God”, which as a term can be variously defined–but notes and includes in the thinking this fact, it can still be rational and reasonable, provided a means is pointed to to make the assumptions empirical, eventually, in some form.
I would comment as well that the God, as one example, of the Catholic Church, who is rendered quite human in many ways, and the details of whose existence are enumerated in many ways which are necessarily recalcitrant to observation, is no different in principle than the History of the Communists, or their present evocations of “white people” or “privilege”.
All of this is, from a formal perspective, nonsensical; or, to be generous, ideosyncratic and non-communicable. I would add: ponder the word “nonsensical”.
Perhaps this makes sense. Perhaps it doesn’t. I am not imposing it on you, and you are free to modify these words, and what they represent to you, in any way you choose. By all means: make it better if you can.