What is Religion?

Consider this response to prof. R's claim below, which I lifted from the following article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1427916/St-Paul-converted-by-epileptic-fit-suggests-BBC.html

"Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran, the neuroscientist who delivered this year's Reith lectures, told the BBC that patients who suffered seizures often had intense mystical experiences like St Paul's. He argued, however, that this did not rule out a divine role. "If God exists and he is interacting with us humans, he could have put an antenna in your brain to be sensitive to him or her," he said. But Canon Tom Wright, a leading theologian who regularly advises the BBC, said that there was "no shred of evidence whatsoever" for the claims."

I can think of nothing more ironic, and certainly nothing more hypocritical, than for a person who simply chooses to "believe" in a God, for which there is absolutely "no shred of evidence whatsoever," to claim that anything that in anyway challenges their beliefs about anything, especially anything in anyway supported by their religious beliefs, must not necessarily therefore be true, because there is "no shred of evidence whatsoever" to support such a claim. 

"Believing" unto death in that for which there is "no shred of evidence whatsoever" to support, and a universe of evidence to refute, is the very definition of what a "religion" truly is - and nothing else!