[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
So all you are really saying, in the end, is that any truth claims concerning God are not "actually meaningful" in that they are not derived (at least directly) from empirical observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

More specifically, because God claims do not have any empirically falsifiable relation to observable reality. Rather, God claims are INTERPRETATIONS of subjectively meaningful neuropsychical phenomena. Which leads us to:

[ QUOTE ]
Could you offer a defense of methodological naturalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see methodological naturalism as needing any defense beyond Occam's Razor. Of course it cannot be "proven" as a systematic metaphysics (lol Vienna Circle), but it is the rational consequence of repudiating all idealisms.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have asserted that it is the only reasonable view at the present time--why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing observed in empirical reality suggests that non-naturalistic categories exist. Provisionally, it seems unlikely new observations will change this.