Shurrup Slag, what do you knoww about it, who asked you? God is the Absolute, the Infinite, the Ultimate Cause, and it follows as night follows pigeon, that if you fail to believe in the absolute truth of chapter 3, verses 1 to 7 of the Book of Mercy things will go hard for you on the Day of Judgement.

Reason is not a tautology; it's simply the basis for any discussion that is not absolutely solipsistic. Otherwise you may as well take the Postmodern position that all descriptions are equally valid.

Faith is usefully defined as belief in a proposition that can not be proved. It's absolutely necessary to continue living. On the other hand, faith that is not a temporary position (until better proof is available) is dogma, and faith that goes in the face of evidence is destructive. I think it follows that faith should be confined to the bare essentials; belief in the approximate validity of the relative strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces as now understood allows me to walk along the ground without fearing suddenly falling through it to the centre of the Earth.

There are no apparent consequences accruing from lack of belief another's subjective understanding of the ultimate nature of the universe that would affect the life of an individual- though there may well be consequences from showing that you don't believe them.

I wouldn't want to enter a building designed by an engineer who didn't believe in physics. I wouldn't trust to a microbiologist who didn't appreciate evolution. An astronomer who believes that the heavenly bodies are pushed around by angels, or that the distant galaxies were formed in 4004BC would be less than useful. A psychiatrist who belives in demons should not be in charge of a mental hospital.

Non- overlapping magisteria... if you don't claim that religion (or other speculation) has effects in the physical universe, it doesn't overlap with science. That of course is not the same as saying it has any actual field of application- particularly the moral.