Methodological naturalism is historically contigent. This puts pressure on the distinction between natural and unnatural--this was the lesson of the 18th and 19th centuries in philosophy, in the 20th century for physics. In other words science ex facto is possible, but it has no pure fact to work with. The implications for politics and or the philosophy of law are profound.
What he said.
tortoise this is alludes to what happens when one goes too far with non-axiomatic reasoning,eh?
And of course, a dash of this post goes well with a good gob of these (you have read them haven't you? Oh. O-k, then.):
THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE WITHOUT DUALISM
Science's Big Query: What Can We Know, and What Can't We?