Maybe, Amos, but my point all along is that "empirical" is not the same as "true" or "real". It's useful to note that what cannot be proven empirically should hold guarded sway. But equally useful to note that it is not practical to limit what we believe to what is experimentally demonstrable.

We want to discount religion on the basis of its lack of empirical proof -- while, at the same time failing to acknowledge that the evidence of "reality" underpinning it may still be valid.