They are reaching many of the wrong conclusions. I think this might be because their definition of "use reason" is just to think about their beliefs, which is not enough. When I say "use reason," I mean thinking about my beliefs in a specific way. That specific way is something that I think a lot of us have roughly in common on less wrong, and it would take to long to describe all the parts of it now. To point out a specific example, one UU said to me "There are some mysteries we can never get answers to, like what happens when we die," and then later "I am a firm believer in reincarnation, because I have had experiences where I felt my past lives." I never questioned to her that she had those experiences, and argued a bit and was able to get her to change her first statement, because reincarnation experiences were evidence against it, which I thought was an improvement. However, not noticing how contradictory these beliefs were is not something I would call "reason."

Perhaps what is bothering me is a difference in cognitive ability, and UUs version of "reason" is as much as I can expect from the average person. Or, perhaps these are people who are genuinely interested in being rational, and would be very supportive of learning how, but have not yet learned. It could also be that they just want to say that they are using "reason."