“That is why I argue that the requirement for historical/forensic evidence is really a post factum concern about whether belief in such a thing is intellectually respectable- respectable enough to satisfy someone like Hume.”

A fantastic point that I strongly agree with. I would add that the call for empirical evidence is a legitimation effort. It is a way to bolster a commitment given the broader contextual dominance of “scientific” (e.g. empirical, testable) justifications.

One of the problems that I like to rail on is how, in some instances, it becomes a matter of mixing a little religion with your science. God becomes an empirical, scientific, absolutely provable proposition. God is fashioned into a scientifically knowable entity that can be rationally explained and accounted for. The risk, I see, is that faith can become a propositional certainty. Or said differently, religious truth can be warped into true religion.