The scientific method is not strictly sound from a logical perspective - it depends on the acceptance of an unproven prior axiom, namely that the universe works

The scientific method is not strictly sound from a logical perspective - it depends on the acceptance of an unproven prior axiom, namely that the universe works through repeatable rules and all knowledge about it can be acquired by performing controlled experiments. That axiom is not falsable, and therefore does not follow the scientific method; but as long as the results of this process are consistent - i.e. devoid from contradictions, we accept it for pragmatic reasons. Scientific religious people work from a slightly different set of axioms: there is God which defines how the universe behaves, and knowledge is acquired by a combination of empiric observation and introspection about your own and others' feelings. As long as the results of this process are also consistent, there is no logical difference between both philosophical approaches - either both are rational, or neither are. I would love that more atheists understood the philosophical problem of the Regress argument [1] - it would make science-religion debates much more friendly and respectful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument