Which is more intellectually satisfying: theism or atheistic naturalism?
I suppose that, on both theism and atheistic naturalism, all inquiry will ultimately terminate at certain brute facts--including contingent brute facts.
So why prefer theism over atheistic naturalism? Well, I suppose there are different kinds of reasons you could whip up. But, if we narrow our view to the matter of contingent brute facts, does theism fare better than atheistic naturalism?
Presumably the atheist will say something like this:
Postulating God is extremely costly--God would be an extremely complex being and so God too would require an explanation. And we should always postulate as few entities as possible. So, if we can get away with it, we must refrain from postulating God. We can get away with not postulating God, so we must refrain from postulating God. Essentially, the contingent brute fact of God personally deciding to do this rather than that, is very intellectually unsatisfying.
But I say that theism is more elegant, parsimonious and otherwise intellectually satisfying than atheistic naturalism.
Why?
(1) One contingent brute fact is more intellectually satisfying than many. I presume that, on atheistic naturalism, all inquiry will ultimately arrive at more than one contingent brute fact. [WARNING: I might be wrong about this, and I presently have no argument for it. But, on the face of it, it seems right.]
Suppose the physicists and cosmologists finally achieve the "unified theory of everything" that they've been searching for. Presumably this unified theory will be elegant and beautiful and parsimonious and all the rest. But presumably it will contain more than one contingent brute fact. [Again, perhaps I am wrong about this?] But, on theism, there'll be one ultimate contingent brute fact: God's personal decision. So theism is more intellectually satisfying than atheistic naturalism.
(2) A personal decision is, in itself, the most intellectually satisfying kind of explanation we can give. Suppose you ask why your lamp is on the ground in pieces. Consider these two explanations:
(i) I hate the lamp, and so I picked it up and threw down, smashing it. Case closed.
(ii) The wind blew the curtains which in turn knocked the lamp off the table. But why did the wind blow the way it did? This kind of questioning will go on and on. Each explanation will in turn call out for another. The case never seems to close, does it?
Only a personal decision type of explanation brings inquiry to a satisfying end. Remember, we're considering ultimate contingent brute facts--which are the unexplainable ultimate ends to inquiry. Personal decision explanations are very intellectually satisfying ends to inquiries. {Full disclosure: there might be some problems with this.}
(3) God is simple and elegant and beautiful. God isn't this good rather than that. God isn't this mighty rather than that. God isn't this wise rather than that. God is goodness. God is wisdom. God is might. God does not have a certain measure of goodness--not even an infinite measure of goodness (in the sense of an infinite number of measures of goodness added on top of each other one by one). God is goodness, and whatever else is good is good in terms of God's goodness.
If God was this mighty, rather than that mighty, this would call out for an explanation--in the same way that the several contingent brute facts of atheistic naturalism call out for an explanation. But God is might itself, not a measure of might, and so God's might doesn't call out for an explanation.
And, in a technical sense, God does not have several properties like goodness, might, wisdom, etc. In a technical sense, goodness, might, and wisdom (etc.) are just different perspectives on the one simple God. God's goodness is mighty and wise. God's wisdom is good and mighty. God's might is good and wise.
So, properly understood, God doesn't call out for explanation. Properly understood, God's personal decision resolves all inquiry in a way that satisfies our deep seeded intellectual passions. God is simple and elegant and beautiful.