Thread questions...
Are there really such things as truths that can only be demonstrated to be truths by uniquely religious means?
If so, what are those means? On what grounds do they have epistemic validity?
......
My opinion (if anyone happens to be interested)...
Seems to me when people speak of "uniquely religious truths", they are most often clueless as to how those truths can be established apart from what in the end boils down to some method that is indistinguishable from mere whim.
Again, I fail to see how uniquely religious truths are any more a real thing than uniquely male truths, or uniquely Tory truths, or uniquely scientific truths, or uniquely stray dog truths. Either a thing is true or it is not true. The statement, "There is snow on the ground", is either true or it is not true. That is, there is one and only one set of means, procedures, techniques, etc for establishing whether the statement is true or false. There are not multiple sets with one set being "secular" and another set being "religious" and a third set being "female" and a fourth set being "feral kittens". What works to establish truth and falsehood, works universally to establish truth and falsehood.
_______________________
"Truth" in the context of this OP is being defined according to a modified version of the
Correspondence Theory. For those of you to whom it matters. Also, No Surrender to Deflationism! Death before Dishonor!