Science operates in many ways. Sometimes well and sometimes not so well. You operate with impossibly wide brushes and vague expressions of truth.
“Any “non-repeatable events” that happened in Christi’s life are not discarded because they fail to fit a naturalistic paradigm. They are discarded because they are not data at all, they are anecdote.”
That’s an interesting objection. Most of what we know of history is anecdotal. Do you discard all the rest of history as well, or just the parts that aren’t caught on film? Give us a hint of some history that isn’t based on anecdote.
“But let me be clear on my position (and this is supported by the writing of Jaki regarding Godel’s incompleteness theory and the “theory of everything”).
The only genuine tools we have for incrementally approaching truth are evidence and reason. Hume pointed out that inductive reasoning rested on an unprovable assumption and therefore could not itself be “proven.” Godel extended that inability to ever attain proof to deductive reasoning as well. The net result is fascinating if you are a philosopher, but of exactly zero pragmatic use to living human beings.”
A mildly interesting detour, albeit having little relevance to what Jaki says about Goedel. Jaki is interested in the implications of Goedel for attempts, as Hawking tried, of proving that the universe could define and create itself. Jaki says Goedel proves it’s not possible, something that reinforces theistic arguments for the universe and something that creates a problem for materialist explanations.
“So along with Andy you are arguing with a convenient caricature of naturalistic science, not with science as it actually operates. What was it you were saying about someone’s “knowledge of the subject [being] conventional and not very informed?””
I didn’t offer any view of naturalistic science, other than it’s misapplication as described by Hayak in what he calls ‘scientism’. You present an example of it with:
” Science does not reject any such phenomena out of hand... but it does expect them to be actually demonstrated to exist before they can be seriously considered.
Any “non-repeatable events” that happened in Christi’s life are not discarded because they fail to fit a naturalistic paradigm. They are discarded because they are not data at all, they are anecdote.”
The methodology of science isn’t applicable to the events of Christ’s life, the rules of evidence are. It’s a simple epistemological distinction, and one you fail to make.