This, to me, is the mic-drop, season-ending, walk-off, stake-through-the-heart problem with the entire conversation. Stripped of all the not-very-convincing verbiage about explanation and intelligence and knowledge, the root of the discussion is a presumed distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural,’ and a view of what this means for gods. As a Christian, I found this deeply problematic, and fought hard against the implication that natural explanation eroded god’s majesty or power or whatever. Such a god is a joke. I concluded that discussions of MN, like this one, were never about science or its underpinnings but about the curious need for so many believers to have a god that does magic. These therefore are not questions for scientists, or even for philosophers, but for sociologists.