One simple question

[Purple Rabbit]

If some religious individuals deal in absolutes, they still have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate what this information is, how it is an absolute truth, and why it is at all relevant to subjective perceptions within reality. Assertions aren't demonstrations.

True, but that is your opinion. The claim of some religious is, that there is another way of knowing that does not need these "demonstrations". For them demonstrations only are needed in debate with others not to undergird their belief.

However I think that "self examination" won't bring you any nearer to truth and it is not a part of the scientific method.

Testing your hypothesis is definitely part of the scientific method, including any null or alternative hypotheses you may have. This, in essence, is self-examination and demands that you review your own methodology in such a way that it is consistently demonstrable and relatively free of bias. In order to preserve the accuracy of the method, you must examine and assess the way in which you use it.

Self-examination for me has a different meaning, I guess you meant critical re-examination, but let's forget about the semantics. Critical re-examination is part of the scientific method, bymeans of peer review for instance.

The point is that if the mind in a jar is true but we don't have access to that truth at all, meaning that it doesn't show up in our perception of reality at all, that it would not render empirical observations meaningless because it is the only type of meaning we would be able to constitute. But I agree that we rely on assumptions.

I don't quite understand that at all. The magic of science is that is a method of discovery and explanation above all else. Our limited scope is expanding daily, and the only thing guiding this is doubt and a need for observable, testable examples of the world around us. I wouldn't say the mind in a jar isabsolutely false and will always be false, but I will say that I haven't been shown any evidence or reasoning to suggest that there is a mind in the jar. This lack of evidence leads me to say that in practice, I can regard the jar as being devoid of a disembodied mind within my understanding of reality, as it has zero impact or relevance of my understanding of the entity in question. For all intents and purposes, there is no demonstrable mind in the jar.

When I said "render empirical observations meaningless", I was replying to the illusion you cited. if this is all an illusion, nothing we can ever discover will ever be relevant to anything of merit, as it is deceptive by nature.

Reread that a couple of times but can't detect any disagreement here. When the mind in a jar has zero impact on my understanding of reality than all empirical observations I do within my understanding of reality are meaningfull within that reality and it will be all meaning that I will ever have.

That's a normative statement. IMO some if not all religious do claim absolute truth, so it already is involved into this kind of discussion.

Yes, but a claim is not a demonstration. Saying something is absolutely true is meaningless because it holds no merit without credible evidence, at least not if you want to persuade someone with such an argument.

That also is a normative statement since it your opinion that a claim is in need for some public demonstration. I cannot stress enough that I agree with you on this but it still is opinion not fact.