There are two subjects here. 1. The quoted author is not saying "don't try and disprove god", rather have awareness of what emotions ("religious sentiment") the believers' faith have come from before you speak of it. Which is a valid point. ________________________________________________________________ 2. As to the separate subject of trying to prove or disprove existence of something, it does take an evidence to prove or disprove anything. In lack of evidence there could only be inferences or theories, some are better reasoned than the others, but still only theories. For instance, in physics, during the experiments in the laboratoty, scientists sometimes stumble upon certain phenomena, of which they can only say "this IS SO", while incapable of explaining it . Subsequently they can't tell us precisely WHY, or WHENCE FROM or HOW this is so. They then try to come up with some kind of theory (inference) to make sense of the phenomena or what might be behind it. The process of inference in such cases depends upon scientists' own preconditioned thought patterns, scope of knowledge, life experiences, individual reasonings and even desires, emotions , needs, views , past or current beliefs and etc. Now, someone might look at such phenomena and say that since there is no provable or clear explanation of it, then there must be a God behind it. But the concept of God, whether it be anthropomorphic God or not, is also an inference, a theory. What you could say for certain in such instances is that there are UNKNOWN causes for some phenomena or UNKOWN rationale behind a given phenomena, but since you nor anyone out there know anything about it then anything you or anyone could possibly say about it is an inference and nothing more. You know ,Einstein was one of the most rigid rationalists who refused to accept even empirical data if it run against his firm belief in rationality of everything in Universe. If there was no rational explanation he could come up with he would say that there most certainly is reducible to mechanical laws of physics explanation but we just don't know it yet. He had nothing to prove his theory about absolute rationality of Universe, he just had very strong belief in it. He was in essence going as far as invalidating the empirical data in favor of his beliefs (like many religious people are said to be doing). He even got into lengthy, heated debates with other physicists over it. (Albert Einstein: "God does not play dice!", Neils Bohr (in responce): "Stop telling God what to do!"). But in the end, if you give it a deep thought , it all comes back to square one: that there are things that are UNKNOWN and any interpretation of UNKNOWN, no matter from what angle you attempt to do it, are only inferences, theories and projections of our own thought patterns, emotions, desires and etc.