The fact is that it is you that is anti-science, attempting to turn your religion of naturalism into science.
Stay within your limits, read, and learn. Stop your absurd pretense of understanding of what doesn’t even exist, and learn what does exist. Empty-headed psuedo-science groupies just make noise and look foolish.
What you call natural is imaginary, and what is real is beyond your comprehension.
I have now instructed you in the correct understanding of terms like "methodological naturalism", but, of course I understand that some people are just slow learners -- especially people with vested interests in denying the truth.
But I am patient, and will try again: some, but not all, scientists are atheists.
Atheists adopt not only "methodological" naturalism, but also "philosophical" naturalism.
It's an important distinction.
Scientists who are also believers can accept everything you might tell us about the super-natural realm.
Regardless, their scientific work only involves the natural realm for which they are required to seek natural explanations for natural processes.
By definition, if they wander-off beyond the natural realm, then their work is no longer considered "science".
Yes, I see where you are attempting to claim that, really, there is no "natural realm", but that's a useless argument -- since nature is where scientists work, and generally there's no difficulty understanding what the term "nature" means.
Bottom line: scientific work does require an assumption of naturalism, but certainly not a religion of naturalism.
Scientists are free to, and many do, hold whatever religious beliefs they wish.
editor-surveyor: "Stop your absurd pretense of understanding of what doesn’t even exist, and learn what does exist.
Empty-headed psuedo-science groupies just make noise and look foolish."
I'd say your absurd pretenses are as empty-headed and foolish noise as can be found, and obviously, my opinion on these matters carries far more weight than yours, FRiend. ;-)
editor-surveyor: "What you call natural is imaginary, and what is real is beyond your comprehension."
Doubtless that's true, in a sense.
But it's irrelevant to the definition of the word "science", since science only works in the natural world -- regardless of how "imaginary" you claim "nature" may or may not be.
People who work on the super-natural, or we might say super-real world, are called philosophers, or theologians, or mystics, saints, deeply religious or, just as often: lunatics.
Regardless, it's a different realm than the science of nature -- a sharp distinction that real scientists insist on, and so should you, FRiend.