This response only works for "religions" with a God - theistic religions. And even then, it poorly describes a theistic religions as being irrational.This question is actually very complex because there are many definitions of religious and secular. Some say that religious beliefs are based merely on unprovable beliefs and secular ones are evidence based. Though some may think so (and some religions may lean in that direction), I find that one's authorities for Truth are the more central issue.... Are ones beliefs based on their own experience, famous or learned people's experiences, the experiences of millions of others who come to the same conclusion, ones intuition? There are functional and traditional definitions of religion. Functional definitions look to the role of beliefs. If beliefs (even "secular" ones) are held as true and central guides for life, they can be considered "religious." Thus, conscientious objectors to war got a "religious" exemption from fighting in the military. On the other hand, traditional definitions of religion look at whether the set of beliefs looks, smells and tastes like the religions we are familiar with... they burn candles, kneel, talk to invisible beings, etc. Though the traditional definition of religion makes it relatively easy to describe a "religious" belief (beliefs that come from their God), I find it less accurate and prone to bias in our modern "rational based world." Most religions ARE rational and they include their beliefs in their rational framework as an over riding authority (when rightly understood). THUS: I do not see much difference between religious and secular beliefs. They are both rational, viewed as authoritative, and subject to being (rightly or wrongly) disproven!