When assessing the rationality of naturalism and theism, one must take the relevant facts of human experience, assess which ‘facts’ one accepts and denies, and ask which worldview is more explanatory. While ‘explanatory power’ is not the only adjudicating criteria, it is a powerful source of justification for holding the worldview at all. Often, when I reflect on the rationality of theism and naturalism, I bring to mind what I take to be facts of human experience and thereafter assess my belief. While I do not always do this (unless some alleged defeater comes my way), theism seems, to me, much more intuitive. Take the following diagram:
Facts to be Explained Naturalism Theism The Beginning of the Universe Fine-Tuning of the Universe Free Will Intentional States of Consciousness Reliable Cognitive Faculties Mind Intrinsic Moral Worth of Persons The Origin of Life Miracles Consciousness Value Purpose Meaning Love Existence/Being Moral Values and Duties
Even on a Bayesian model
P(h/e.k)= _______ x P(h/k) (Bayes’ Probability Theorem)
I think theism is much more likely. Just given the plethora of natural theological arguments—or even that of reformed epistemology—I just find myself convinced. Perhaps one can think this irrational or somehow misguided; I do not see how this is so. When one is in a court of law, some evidence E is sometimes sufficient in and of itself because it is explanatory. Once the evidence ranges from E1…E40 , once just gets the impression that, generally, the evidence might point one way—maybe the right way? In the case of theism, I think prima facie and upon sustained philosophical argumentation theism seems to be the correct model, picture, worldview of human existence. Even if one wanted to deny many facts of experience, the ‘facts of experience’ left sit–in my view-very uncomfortably on naturalism.