Is it right to call a believer rational even if she cannot prove articulately or
If she had reasons to believe, it would not be faith that she had but knowledge.
I respectfully reject the implicit reasoning in Prof. Marino's claim. Someone's having reasons to believe may make her belief rational or epistemically justified, but her belief is knowledge only if her belief is true, and its truth doesn't follow from her having reasons to believe.
[A]s human beings we still have to decide whether or not [to] believe in what falls outside the bounds of reason.
Does what falls outside the bounds of reason also fall entirely within the bounds of reason? If no, why not? If yes, then how can anyone understand the statement of Prof. Marino's that I just quoted?