Since nearly the field’s birth, religious studies has been plagued by the question of how to deal with claims concerning the supernatural. Strategies for addressing the issue typically take the form of one or another methodological axiom, typically either methodological atheism or methodological agnosticism. Although each axiom answers legitimate concerns about how to address supernatural claims, each is also vulnerable to substantial objections. I therefore argue that these approaches to solving religious studies’ central methodological dilemma is flawed. Eschewing the search for methodological axioms, I advocate that we return to a basic standard of academic work: public evidence. When paired with a distinction between the analytical tasks of interpretation and explanation, this approach resolves the central problems that have vexed both methodological atheism and methodological agnosticism, avoiding the theoretical pitfalls generated by each while providing the necessary guidance and discipline for research on religion.

中文翻译：

---

超越方法论公理

自从该领域几乎诞生以来，宗教研究就一直被如何处理有关超自然现象的主张所困扰。解决该问题的策略通常采用一种或另一种方法论公理的形式，通常是方法论无神论或方法论不可知论。尽管每个公理都回答了关于如何解决超自然主张的合理担忧，但每个公理也容易受到实质性反对。因此，我认为这些解决宗教研究中心方法论困境的方法是有缺陷的。避免寻找方法论公理，我主张我们回到学术工作的基本标准：公共证据。当与解释和解释的分析任务之间的区别配对时，