I like the fourth point in this post. I have come to regard traditional religion as pretty much like a skeptical scenario. I cannot prove that I am not a BIV. I suppose there is some sequence of experiences that would convince me that I am a BIV, but I find it pretty much impossible to specify them in advance, because the evidence would necessarily involve also convincing me that I'm quite wildly deceived about any number of things. I mean, lots of things could happen; I could be removed from the vat and embodied, have everything about the vat scenario explained by a very plausible scientist, be re-envatted and have a projection of the scientist in vat world show me all the neat features of the vat simulation, etc. But at that point how would I know that wasn't all just more simulation, of a different than vat kind? Maybe an evil demon, or symptoms of insanity, or just a particularly vivid bad dream for that matter? Again, not saying I couldn't be convinced, but it would be extremely difficult, and I couldn't specify in advance what would be sufficient. But I don't think my rejection of BIV scenarios is made irrational by my inability to explain what would lead me to believe them (which is really the flip side of the defining characteristic of skeptical scenarios, the impossibility of providing evidence against them). And I think sophisticated religious scenarios are enough like skeptical scenarios for the same point to apply.