He also brings out the point that there is zero evidence for religion.
I fail to see how this is at all relevant and isn't just another attempt at empiricism trying to colonize the other intellectual disciplines with its own rules and arrogantly judging them failures for failing to meet the test it imposes.
OK, can you tell me if there is non-empirical evidence for religion, by giving one or more examples?
That's just it, though, evidence-based argumentation is itself not relevant. Depending on the religion, it is going to either expect faith in certain claims or ritual observance of certain activities. Assuming you're talking about Christianity, we're in the realm of the former. If you had proof of God's existence or in Heaven's existence or in Jesus' resurrection, you by definition could not have faith in it because you'd know that it happened. Proof and evidence are, almost by definition, the enemies of faith, because once you have them, the claim in question is no longer a matter of faith.
Once you move past that to the other type of religious practice, the ritual observance breed, the faith claims matter even less. A Roman would say that he sacrifices bulls in the hecatomb to Apollo and puts incense on the Altar of Victory because his ancestors did it and their ancestors did it. You don't want to anger the gods by denying them their just due, but it matters little to our Roman whether or not this Apollo turned a woman named Daphne into a tree or murdered the twelve kids of Niobe because that's simply not what the religion is about, you can disprove every myth in Ovid and it still wouldn't make this Roman want to stop sacrificing bulls to Apollo because it's his link, his continuity with centuries of precedent and who would want to disrespect his ancestors by becoming the one to break the chain?
EDIT: There's a reason the first word of the Credo is
Credo and not
Scio.
Poll
