Who says we use reason to interpret art? Art is a matter of taste. We use emotions and our experience and character to interpret art. You don't prove that art is good with an argument or an experiment.
Similarly, my point against Dillahunty is that he begs the question when he asks for "evidence" in support of theistic religion. Yes, many theists make empirical claims, which would call for rational assessments. But that's never been the core of religion. Religion became empirical in competition with emerging secularism, including philosophy and science.
So the real question for atheists is whether an atheistic or a theistic worldview is better on nonrational grounds. That's the common territory we meet on when we put our trust in some ultimate venture.
The atheistic worldview in question is the promethean, "satanic" one of becoming godlike creatures who rule over an artificial world we build to replace the natural wilderness. Is that venture supreme on purely rational grounds? Its unsustainability in view of our destruction of the ecosystems suggests we're pursuing that path not as a matter of pure logic, but out of ambition, fear, greed, and so on. Civilization might be based on a fraud, too, as I argue elsewhere (link below).
You're barking up the wrong tree, by the way, if you're assuming I defend theistic religion. I'm an atheist, as is clear from my many writings on religion.
Who says I disregard the harms done by religion? All of that should be factored into the existential decision to take a leap of faith in one direction or another. Religion is harmful, as is promethean ambition. Which path is best for intelligent life, given the universe as we commonly find it?
