[Stultis]

But the metaphysical naturalists take the problem one step further into absurdity: For they claim that the "natural" is ultimately completely reduceable to the material.

Naturalism (even "metaphysical" naturalism) hasn't been materialistic for centuries. Get over your shallow "new age" strawmen.

Jeepers. Talk about "stacking the deck!" And then having the temerity to call it a "method!"

Jeepers. Talk about equivocation. The folks you're criticizing consistently distinguish between "metaphysical" (or philosophical) naturalism and "methodological" naturalism.

[Stultis]

To further clarify:

The contention is that methodological naturalism does NOT implication philosophical naturalism. The former does not assert that only natural factors exist, but rather assumes that only natural factors are relevant for the restricted purpose of doing science.

You are entitled to argue that this distinction is flawed, or disingenuous, or whatever, but you're not entitled to pretend through equivocation that it has not been made.

[betty boop]

The folks you're criticizing consistently distinguish between "metaphysical" (or philosophical) naturalism and "methodological" naturalism.

The person I'm criticizing is Dawkins, et al. I don't think he makes that distinction at all. His "method" tells him what is legitimate for him to be concerned with, and how he is to think about it. What the method does not cover does not exist for him.