The religionists love nothing more than debating aspect of their various theologies either against their fellow religionist or against members of other religions. Thus in the Christian community, the Catholics and the Evangelical would be at loggerheads about issues like the status of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the status of the Pope, baptism of infants, Trinity etc. In these debates, the various groups have nothing but their various history canon/liturgies etc to hurl at each other. Little in the way of real factual evidence is used.

Similarly, the Sunni and Shai Mos-lem also trade theological bouts across one another with nothing more than myths and traditions.

Across the religious platform the Christians and Mos-lems would trade blows on aspects of theology and traditions with little or no supporting factual evidence but myth, tradition and superstition.

In fact, this debates are nothing new in the religious landscape, for we read in the bible how Jesus was at constant acrimony with the Pharisees and Saducees over theology. So these have been going on for at least 4000 years. Jesus was constantly reprimanding the Pharisees for not obeying the laws of Moses (calling them hypocrites), much as these latter would have love to re-interprete these laws.

Can any of these debates be categorically resolved one way or the other if the only epistemic device employed is faith and myth and superstition? I douby it.   Not only do I believe that these tension could be abated by the used of more reliable methods of epistemic investigations, I also believe that such method would put pay to these senseless subscriptions to the supernatural.

Throwing literary fiction in the face of your opponents does not constitute objective evidence.