Thanks for responding.
Yes, they do rely on evidence and reason. People who do believe in something will likely justify it with their versions of evidence and reason. You’ve juxtaposed their version and yours (and also mine), and claim that their’s aren’t ‘evidence and reason’, precisely on the grounds that their version is unintelligible to you (and me).
My contention is not that ‘reason’ and ‘evidence’ themselves aren’t a means to inter-tradition discourse, but they’re epistemically grounded on our tradition, which makes discourse largely unintelligible.