This is vague and sounds false.

Vague only because I didn't state it in mathematical precision. For good reason: it's not a statement of precise measurement. As to the 'apparent' falseness... as I illustrate further below: quite frankly, you ought to know better. If this comes across as condescending, well... read the below.

as Desrtopa noted, plenty of scientists more studied than you or I believe in God.

Certainly. And nothing I said gainsaid that. But I know that those self-same scientists do not also believe in witchcraft that can let you fly around on broomsticks. Or that God will smite the unbelievers if they live as Holy Warriors of God. Their scientific literacy has informed them too deeply about how the world works and as a result forced their religiosity to conform to large extents to what they do know. While they may not -- indeed, generally do not place direct instrumental emphasis on explicitly becoming more-rational, and fall into many very common traps... there is a large body of philosophy behind the concept we call "scientific literacy"; inclusive of standards such as the principle of parsimony, the Copernican Principle, the differentiation between anecdotes and evidence, etc., etc.. -- and all of these necessarily have an impact on the degree to which a person is rational or irrational. (There are deviations individually from this pattern, certainly. But to emphasize for example the fact that scientists can be religious ignores entirely the effect, on aggregate, that scientific literacy has on religiosity ).

Conversely; if you don't know the necessary science you will be unable to fully mature to the limits of what humans can achieve in terms of cultivated rationality.

"Sounds false". I'm disappointed that your comment has been upvoted here. This should have been self-evident to cursory examination: the direct correlation between cognitive science, behavioral economics, and the direct instrumental value of the increased efficacy of greater scientific literacy (to better achieve the terminal value of being better able to distinguish between true and false; to "be less wrong"), etc., etc.. -- they all are fundamntally requisite if one intends to deeply persue achieving greater rationality in their life and person. To "go further as a rationalist" -- to "Be Stronger".

I especially don't know what you mean by 'far'.

Please spare us references to inferential gaps when I say -- you should have.