> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another?
Religious belief is quite frequently based on evidence; it often isn't empirical evidence that is verifiable independently because it is grounded in personal internal experience, so it isn't the kind of evidence on which science works, but there is nothing inconsistent about:
1) recognizing empirical/scientifically-based beliefs and other beliefs as separate kinds of belief, and
2) preferring the empirical evidence in the domains for which it is relevant and available, but still
3) accepting other experience as the basis for non-empirical beliefs in areas where empirical evidence is not available (or even relevant.)
> Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion?
Not everyone who has a religion is concerned with evaluating it against other religions in terms of "factualness".
Religious belief is quite frequently based on evidence; it often isn't empirical evidence that is verifiable independently because it is grounded in personal internal experience, so it isn't the kind of evidence on which science works, but there is nothing inconsistent about:
1) recognizing empirical/scientifically-based beliefs and other beliefs as separate kinds of belief, and 2) preferring the empirical evidence in the domains for which it is relevant and available, but still 3) accepting other experience as the basis for non-empirical beliefs in areas where empirical evidence is not available (or even relevant.)
> Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion?
Not everyone who has a religion is concerned with evaluating it against other religions in terms of "factualness".