You're just arguing that a "model" based on make believe is still a type of model. I don't find that compelling. It's like saying a scientific theory not based

You're just arguing that a "model" based on make believe is still a type of model. I don't find that compelling. It's like saying a scientific theory not based on empirical information is still a scientific theory. I don't see why that point is worth defending. Except perhaps as a way to give bad ideas higher stature by lumping them in with good ideas. > Faith, also, does not dispense with evidence of the senses, it just applied it differently. No idea what you are talking about here. For instance, the only sense-based evidence I know of for Christianity or Islam is the historical record, and that isn't reliable enough to establish these beliefs as anything more than make believe. In other words, we can't see Jesus work miracles, which would constitute partial evidence for Christianity; the only evidence we have is that someone said they did a long, long time ago. I'm also not aware of evidence for Zeus or Thor or Brahma. > as are positive sensations associated with a particular belief Emotions do not constitute evidence for religion.