??? Setting that oddity aside, to focus on the rational "thinking" element in the title of this thread...
Even works of fiction are still reviewed or critically evaluated slash analyzed. Being imaginary doesn't prevent a narrative or concept from being worthy of interest, examination, and consequent appreciation (depending on).
With religious doctrine it may be more a matter of internal consistency (how well various components of the "game" hang together without contradiction), rather than ferreting out (as in other creative literature) the meanings of story allegories slash symbols and the latter's merits.
Obviously, in a forum where naturalism is the background standard, the reality or facthood of anything supernatural is dismissed by principle in the metaphysical context; and lacks testable value in the methodological context (the science enterprise).
But again, classification as either "imaginary" or "impotent for this kind of endeavor" does not in and of itself equate to "uninteresting". The appraising process simply shifts to the benchmarks and methods for that kind of literature or set of intellectual abstractions.
And if the "religion" is actually practiced by some _X_ culture or population group (is not a mere construct confined to paper), then this means actual rituals, customs, and prescribed social interactions and behaviors being performed that attract anthropological study and the curiosity of historians.
_
