This question can inspire levels of fury beyond my understanding, which is why I couldn’t have casually posed it on Reddit. This seems like a more good faith kind of crowd so I’ll ask it here.
This is a question I’ve put a lot of thought into for myself since 2020. I’m interested in my ideas being criticized and perhaps to criticize the ideas of others (Note: Not criticizing people or their character. Only ideas). I’m going to post my own answer in the comments.
That particular Kuhn work is one that I often come back to in snippets even though I haven’t read it through yet. It definitely made me aware how much the era I’m living in informs what others and myself consider to be fact. Especially in studying History I find many decisions which people really made completely baffling in a contemporary context, but norms were fundamentally different according to that place and time.
My worldview is not fundamentally different than the Christian worldview you described. Although I have a strong preference for Empiricism, I understand that it’s mostly a subjective preference of mine rather than the ultimate method of epistemology. According to empircal data, application of empirical reasoning has yielded the most consistent with reality conclusions which we have currently made. Every aspect of the previous sentence is loaded and some elements may not be strictly true, but it would require a different method of reasoning to determine that which may not even be compatible. This makes me sympathetic to scientific anarchy even though I have my personal bias towards empiricism above other methodologies. It does make me curious as to what truths I myself am incapable of appreciating due to my practical adherence to material reality and preference for evidence and scientific consensus.