Moridin said:
Religious epistemological frame works are necessarily circular, and therefore invalid. Let us assume that one gets knowledge of the supernatural through scripture. However, that lies on the assumption that the scriptures come from the supernatural, which is circular.
Yes, but in a way, the same can be said about the scientific epistemology: let us assume that our subjective impressions come from a rationally explainable (modelisable) objective reality. In that case, we can use our observations to validate/invalidate the correctness of that assumption. But this very validation rests on the assumption that there is some meaning, or reality, to our observations, and that this is the "important" part.
In other words, the scientific epistemology makes the assumption that 1) there is a kind of modellisable objective reality from which we deduce our observations and 2) that's what is important (and, extended, that's "all there is"). Basing your judgement of the validity of this frame on observations is then the circular part.
As long as we both accept the premise of the argument (A -> B) and the empirical observation (~B), there is nothing in principle that stops us from concluding ~A.
But the whole point in the scientific epistemology is that the empirical observation must be something that has something to do with any premise of ontology. If you do not start with that, you cannot apply your logical argument, and that's exactly what certain religious epistemologies take as a starting point. What you observe is just god X's will. What "happens" is just god Y's will. If you take *that* as a starting point, then the scientific epistemology looks circular.
The starting point: "what I feel/observe is just god X's will" should be confronted to "what I feel/observe is the logical consequence of some or other modellisable objective reality, which is all that is".
Now (being an atheist myself), I find the second approach much more interesting, but only because of the fact that it seems to work practically! One seems to be able to devise certain models, and deduce from it, without invoking any divinity, certain of my subjective feelings/observations. But that's nothing else (to me) but a small miracle! It didn't have to be that way. Gods, unicorns, and ghosts could, as far as I'm concerned, just as well "exist". Only, I find personally that I can't do much with that. It doesn't seem to work very well in making practical stuff. I can't get my hands on it. This is why I prefer, personally, the scientific epistemology: it seems *useful* to me. I seem to be able to understand it (partly). I seem to be getting the hang of it.
But I can perfectly well understand the attitude that one prefers a totally different epistemological frame. If one doesn't mind any practical applicability (because in that frame, practical applicability is not estimated a high "value"), then one can perfectly well remain in an epistemological frame of religious nature. The success of the scientific frame is then just, at most, a "game offered by the gods", or at worst, a "temptation offered by the gods". The observational reality becomes, in this frame, a matter of secondary importance.
What happens when one of those axioms is scientifically disproven? What happens if we agree on the axioms and the method for inference and the result is the negation of something supernatural?
You cannot disprove scientifically a mathematical axiom. You can at best show that a certain set of axioms is internally inconsistent within a certain inference scheme (logic).
Apart from the fact that religious epistemic standards are per definition self-refuting, it is possible to build a consistent, natural epistemology that disproves that argument.
This is what I think, is impossible.
We can note how supernaturalistic methods cannot separate from, say a true revelation from a false one. Since supernaturalistic epistemic standards are self-refuting, all we are left with is nature.
This is because you think that there should be a *method* that separates "true revelations" from "false revelations". But that assumption (that there exists some kind of method that can tell true from false - and, implicitly, a kind of "objective" method) is part of the scientific doctrine! You can just as well say that "what I feel in my bones to be right is the true revelation because I'm the Prophet of religion X". Well, here you have your "method". And how do I know that I'm the Prophet of religion X ? Well, because I feel it in my bones, and that's exactly what constitutes true revelations.
It's a way as any other to set up an epistemological framework.
The scientist then says: yes but why YOU and not ME ? Why are you the Prophet and not me ? But he's already using HIS frameset here: he's using some kind of assumption of objectivity, which should be symmetrical amongst individuals. In my framework, I can say something of the kind "because I am what is" or some other obscurely sounding phrase. This is nonsense in the frame of the scientist, and perfectly coherent in my religious frame. Instead of "what I feel in my bones", I can replace this with "what's written in THIS book" or any other source of revelation.
No, since science is a method with demonstrated success. Religious epistemic standards are self-refuting. The result is obvious.
The problem is that science is a method which has demonstrated success within its OWN frame of reference, which is "modelisable objective reality as causal agent for subjective observation". In a religious doctrine, that aspect is usually of very low value. That you can "predict the position of Jupiter in the sky" is an amazing feat for a scientist, and a totally irrelevant curiosity to the religious, who's more concerned with what his/her favorite deity thinks of his/her mindset as confronted with a certain subjective impression (which might, or might not have anything to do with a real existing world), and will punish/reward him/her for that after his/her death. In other words, your experiences and observations, in this frame, are not deduced from any kind of modellisable reality, but are just stimuli that the deity in question sends to you in order to test your mindset (faith?). What counts, with observations, is how you react to them within the imposed ruleset, and NOT as a way to learn about any kind of eventual reality.
So the success of science is not of a nature to impress anyone with an inherently religious frameset. It can eventually be seen as a practical tool in daily life, or as a "temptation by the devil" or whatever to guide you away from the mindset that will get you some kind of reward in the afterlife.
)
