Let me further clarify the concept of:
Religion necessarily places itself beyond the reach of a rational epistemology
A justified true belief can be summated as follows: A situation, reality or phenomenon which you believe to be true, and have plausible justifications for that same situation, reality, or phenomenon (Philosophically, this is inadequate, but if suffices for our purposes). In order to validate this
belief, one needs to reasonably present its existence through indexical reference points that succumb to the same system parameters - in other words, to claim 'Gravity' as a justified true belief, you must validate its existence by referencing objects in the natural world which succumb to the same governing laws: "Look at that rock, it's molecules are being kept together by some force, and I am being kept on the ground from floating away, and therefore I have a justified true belief that Gravity exists".
Now, the issue with Religion, is that as a function of faith-based reasoning, it
necessarily places itself beyond the governance of any external rational system, as means through which to internally validate itself at all costs (
circulus in probando - Circular Logic). Therefore, claiming to 'disprove' Religion vis-a-vis indexicals of your epistemology is simply ineffective. Let me use an analogy:
In the Hindu faith, Brahman-Atman is the dominant 'Absolute Reality' (not a deity in the Western Sense, but the transcendental 'real' reality) and cannot be known vis-a-vis knowledge, but only through direct experience. Following this, if you in fact found
the object which disproves the existence of Brahman-Atman and presented to a Hindu, they would scoff and say, "Brahman-Atman cannot be understood and known by the ordinary mind, intellect, and consciousness, and therefore your proof, as a function of your own false consciousness, is invalid". Now, one may protest and externally validate this 'object' through their own epistemology all they want, but it simply succumbs to the
internal logic of Religion - Circular Logic.
Therefore, if one assumes that a precept of holding any particular belief is to possess the adjunct possibility to validate it, and that external validation of the absence of God is impossible, than properly holding that belief is impossible as well. Hence, Deism.
.
