Very well stated.
What is astounding to me is the extents at which folks go to deny there our nature.
Please forgive my very poorly written comment.
If naturalism (methodological, metaphysical) is true, there is no God, it becomes impossible to account for any invarient, abstract, universal entity. What shall stormer answer,...No, the brain does not have operate normatively in order for cognitive functions to be reliable. If yes, then the physicalist must explain how that might occur. If, no, then there is an admission that normative cognitive function is not required to analyze for truth, the observations of the universe....and therefore we have no reason to rely on any observation and analyze for truth. Darwin said natural selection only selects for behaviors, not beliefs. If that is true, can any belief held, such as, 'we rely on logic and reason to implement scientific method'. Under those circumstances, any finding by scientific method are arbitrary and caprcious and there is no reason be believe that the applied logic can be trusted. No, the scientist has presuppositional committments just as the theist does. The difference is the theist can account for those metaphysical entities and those abstract entities which have a sort of metaphysical quality about it. The physicalist, naturalist, Darwinist can not begin to offer an epistemic explaination for anything. He must rely on his faith in his presuppositional committements to explain himself. When pressed, he claims the highest road of what Gould called the 'scientific magisterium' and said a theistic magesterium would be allowed to exist,but never shall the twain meet. It was sort of a claim of leaving the left-overs to the theists world. And having made such claims, they close the door, proclaim ignorance of the theist and declare victory. But, these questions still hang in the air unanswered, and we keep asking for their explaination and explain themselves regarding these questions. As I read the thread the explaination, when asked the abiotic origin of life, make a declarative statement that origin of life has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Of course, the second organism would never have evolved if the first had not, they say. So making a claim of that subject being off limits, they set their sights on homogies, embryological similarities, biogeographical distribution, the declarations of rudimentary organs, they then set out to make their case, having gerrymandered uncomfortable juxaposed subject matter. Once their ground rules are declared they proceed to try to make their case using logic, reason, and rational thought, even though they cannot account for logic, reason, and rational thought. These volitional declarations are unscientific presuppositions and boil down to opinion, not science.
Naturalism is dead. We simply need to give time to the metaphysical naturalist to come to terms with its defeat. Or, defend it.