I suspect that a religious perspective contains a vulnerability to making empirical inferences for which the religious nature of the sources are insufficient. This impedes interreligious dialogue and does not reflect well on the religionist. I don’t believe the religionist realizes the extent to which his or her empirical justification is over-extended. From the other direction, we tend to “excuse” the religionist, not letting a non-religionist get away with such over-reaching. This is ultimately enabling.
In other words, just because we think we know that Paul made an empirical claim does not mean that he did, or that the empirical event really happened. Tradition might say that he made the claim, and we might think it probable…but neither is sufficient to justify knowledge that the empirical event occurred historically.
The leap from “probable” to “so it really happened” is a cognitive lapse that I believe goes with a religious frame of mind. I don’t want to say as some have theorized that this makes religiosity some sort of sickness; such a conclusion is generalizes over too much of religiousity. I believe there are healthy or positive elements even if there are “short-circuits.” If we could have the former without the latter…that would be an improvement in the phenomenon of religion. Is this possible? Can you have one side without the other? I really don’t know, though I have faith that it is possible. This is not to say that I KNOW, for if I knew, I wouldn’t be relying on faith.