Playing devil's advocate, though, the question is whether a science-based worldview is sufficient or ultimately incoherent. When you turn to atheistic philosophy or metaphysics to ground science, do you end up with something vacuous, as per Hempel's dilemma? My challenge here was to show that naturalism is coherent and meaningful.

I agree, though, that when naturalism is instrumentalized, or understood pragmatically, God himself could be naturalized, so the completeness of naturalism becomes trivial. If God withstood all attempts at rational, objective understanding, God would be as good as nothing.