edsheppa got it right, i.e. I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.
Modern science has limited its inquiry by methodological naturalism. By definition, it doesn't look for - or (allegedly) form conclusions about - anything that is not knowable and predictable and thus can be explained as caused by something which is natural, material or physical.
Science excludes miracles by definition, i.e. every phenomenon must have a physical cause to fall within the reach of science. That does not mean ipso facto that everything has a physical cause though certainly some scientists think so (Dawkins, Lewontin, Singer, Pinker, et al.)
Divine revelations are beyond the boundaries of science. They are miracles per se. For those of us who have experienced a divine revelation, it is the most certain knowledge of all.
God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. Science can't "lay a glove" on Him.
I am amused by metaphysical naturalism. How arrogant of man to presume that if he cannot perceive it with his senses or mind, or put it to a test, it doesn't exist. [visions here of deep sea creatures having the same attitude, being astonished later on to discover there is life beyond the water...]
I bet miracles work by the same method, if we could but see it. And I think revelations and the fulfillments of visions/dreams are made of the same stuff - numbers in right sequence all down the line (: It hasn't been given to us to see or measure these, which is why it's called faith, for sure, but to my thinking it is not less "reasonable" than the math that is "measurable".
I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.
Why stop with divine revelation? When you reject science and the scientific method there are so many other sources of "knowledge" to choose from: magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, aching bunions, Ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, hoodoo, voodoo, and all sorts of other weird stuff.
And if you reject science, just what method are you going to use to differentiate between these sources of "knowledge?"
IMO there is no knowably certain knowledge (yes, I do recognize the amusing self application). But history shows we can aspire to increasingly reliable knowledge. Naturalistic methods have a very good track record of creating it, divine revelation a very bad one. You are foolish to trust it.