> > Or it could mean, as I'm sure you're meaning, mere "methodological
> > naturalism", i.e., for pragmatic reasons (though atheists will deem it
more
> > than pragmatic) natural science employs only natural forces and objects
in
> > its theoretical explanations -- anything else is beyond the reach of
science
> > as a technique, but not necessarily (so far as science is concerned,
anyway)
> > irrational or unreal.
> >
>
> Exactly.
I'd like to emend this meaning in one way, and I think you'll agree: change
"necessarily" to "therefore".
I don't want to give the false impression that non-scientific beliefs
are -presumptively-, but simply not -necessarily-, irrational or false.
In my view, to say that a belief is non-scientific is to say nothing one way
or the other about whether it's justified, warranted, or true. (-How- it's
justified, etc., yes; -whether-, no.)
John