Let’s put naturalism and theism to the “background test” by asking: Which worldview best explains various features of the universe and human experience phenomena? Is naturalism or theism the least surprising context given these features? We can go down a fairly hefty checklist and say, “God … God … God.” The origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the emergence of first-life and of consciousness, the existence of human rights/dignity, objective moral values, free will, rationality, beauty, and even the existence of evil, the existence of a powerful, intelligent, good Creator makes the best sense.
Ask: which scenario is more plausible — that consciousness came from nonconscious matter or from a supremely self-aware Being? Or that personhood emerged through impersonal processes or by way of a personal Creator? Or that free will emerged from deterministic processes or from a Being who freely chose to create? Or that a finite time ago the universe just popped into existence, uncaused out of nothing or that a powerful Being brought it into existence? Naturalism does not really help us here. At least we can say that “something’s out there,” a reality beyond nature — something we ought to explore seriously.
This is an excerpt from a good artcle by Paul Copan at the enrichmentjournal.org website. It’s titled: Is Naturalism a Simpler Explanation Than Theism? and it has an excellent chart about half-way through that goes further with his “which scenario is more plausible” question. You should definitely check it out.
Salvo‘s own Regis Nicoll adressed this very thing in an article he wrote for the Spring ’08 issue. His article was titled Sci-fi Apologetics: Who’s Really Brighter: the Naturalist or the Supernaturalist and he lists a number of explanations of naturalism that must simply be assumed.