I do agree with you on the subject of religion, but I wonder how you reconcile your rationalistic argument with your antirealist views. Do you follow Dick's line of reasoning where all mental models are of equal value, or do you take the slightly more realist line of reasoning where nothing is impossible, but some models have greater chances of validity than others?

I often find it difficult to follow the conversations Harv and you have, since about 3/4 of the words both of you use are either "ontological," "epistemological," or "metaphysical." Maybe I should pull out my dictionary occasionally and translate your polysyllabic terms. :) So there is a very good chance that I'm just simply missing your point.