I take time, occasionally, to help atheists understand the reality of God as they often get tangled around their own rationality.
My love for God, whom I see as morally perfect, inspires me to attempt my own moral perfection. Nothing else inspires me to this degree. Therefore it is logical that if I retain my faith and love in God, then I will be a better person than I would otherwise.
The above syllogism does not require acknowledgement or even the existence of an actual physical entity. It requires a commitment to the concept of God into which any number of spiritual, natural, mystical, supernatural, fictional characters might be employed. The proof is in the works and actions of the inspired individual. That is the reality of religious faith.
It is illogical to deny that religious people make this connection, and it is illogical to deny the causal effects of actions accompanying such connections.
None of this hangs on the physical, provable existence of God in the way one's wife is physical of provable. If such a provable existence were necessary, all sorts of illogical consequences would follow. For example, If no provable god ever existed, it would be illogical to say the religion exists or that religion has consequences. Yet in fact religion does exist and instantiates the belief in god. This is repeatable in the human species, generation after generation. It is illogical to say that belief in God does not exist, whether or not God itself exists. It is illogical to say there are no consequences in the belief in God, whether or not God exists. It is illogical to say that none of the consequences in the belief in God are morally improving, inspirational or loving.
It is logical to acknowledge that morally improved, loving and inspirational individuals are that way because of their belief in God, whether or not God exists. Whether or not Secular Humanism exists, whether or not Nazism exists. It is simply the existence of humans who are improved by their faith - one must logically acknowledge that such people exist, in substantial numbers, with substantial impact. Having done so, one needn't assign any kind of exclusivity to their moral position.
-- A final analogy. Imagine that you drive a Ford automobile, and you do so because the existence of Henry Ford is physical, provable and logical. You drive your Ford from point A, of immorality, to point B, morality. I on the other hand drive a BMW, from point A to point B. You are telling me that I am illogical because there is no physical, provable Henry BMW, regardless of the fact that I arrive at the same point B. You are judging my vehicle for moral improvement on a basis which is irrelevant to the purposes of my using it. I love my BMW and you do not. So what?