One thing I'll add to my other post is: Anything you're going to say to try to show that religion is trying to model the world is going to be an attempt to use

One thing I'll add to my other post is: Anything you're going to say to try to show that religion is trying to model the world is going to be an attempt to use logic and observation, because those are the tools that work, and you know those are the tools that work. You're just using them with an end goal in mind due to aforementioned anchoring bias, which isn't really the way to use them. What you probably aren't going to do is tell me to pray and God will tell give me the answers, or tell me to read a book written by ancient people who believed stuff like "the sky is a dome", because you're well aware nobody takes that seriously as a way of modeling reality. I mean, maybe you are going to tell me to do those things: if so, that's embarrassing. And the latter is what religion has to offer for modeling reality that science doesn't have. Sure, religion uses logic and observation because they so obviously work, but science has logic and observation too, and frankly, is better at it--we don't need religion (or philosophy) to tell us how to logic or observe. So if you really want to present religion as a way to model reality, that's what you've got to prove has value for modeling reality: talking to invisible friends and consulting outdated writings. We're already convinced that logic and observation work: how do your weird additions compete with that?