PHILOSOPHY IS KING

Do I consult the microwave manual for how to opererate Windows XP? No! (well not yet )There are specific boundaries around different tools we might use. This applies to intellectual tools as well. You're wording is so far off base. It is not 'pre-programmed' it is "as defined". The method of arriving at an understanding that science uses is specifically limited. No one has claimed otherwise. (well, "scientism" as you note might be over stating what the scientific approach can do )You talk about submitting your claims to "our methods of discovery" as if that was some kind of fault. If you want to use my bathroom scale as a way of measuring the mass of a helium filled balloon who is at fault when the scale turns out to be unsuitable for the purpose?If you don't want your claims of devinity scrutinized by methodological naturalism then do not submit them to it. All you will get told, as you have been over and over, is that the tool is not suitable for that purpose.Now if you do want to submit your claims as literalists seem to, you have no room to complain when the results are either null (can't say one way or the other) or negative (there is no "god stuff" detected here).Most of use recognize that methodological naturalism is not an open ended method for determining all things. I do anyway. However, for answering questions about the natural world I have yet to see a better one proposed.