[Pelham]

“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.

[EnderWiggins]

"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."

Well... you have now rather dramatically changed the subject, haven't you? I was speaking of science, and you suddenly are switching to history. But that's okay... having identified and been explicit regarding this particular feat of verbal legerdemain, let's talk about history.

In the first place, only certain periods of history come down to us as anecdotes. Some are exclusively data, particularly when we are speaking "prehistory" (understood as prior to writing). But even the most anecdotally rich periods of history also provide us with data. I (for example) collect Roman Republican coins and weapons. The excavations at Herculaneum and Pompeii provide a wide assortment of relevant artifacts and remains. Even the documentary evidence provides us with multiple independent sources that can be used to check and cross check accounts in the effort to reach some sort of confidence regarding the probable truth.

And in the process, yes, we discard a vast amount of historical anecdote as false, unlikely, tendentious or impossible. See how that works?

" 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."

And of course Jaki reached that intended conclusion precisely because he inserted that desired outcome into his assumptions. It is a classic example of the circulum in probando. The universe is no more obviously created than God is obviously created. So the very premise of anybody (let alone the universe itself) creating the universe has already assumed facts not in evidence.

But it is necessary for Jaki, lest his arguments find no evidence for his faith.

"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."

The methodology of science is applicable to everything. Some applications are just harder than others.