The Manifold Failures of Naturalism. There are four questions that need answering.
The first is why there is anything (or at least anything concrete and contingent) at all. This is an intelligible question but there is no good naturalist answer to it. The physicist Lawrence Krauss recently made a fool of himself over this question as I demonstrated in earlier posts. The second question is how life arose from inanimate matter. Life has to have arisen before natural selection can go to work upon random mutations. The third is how consciousness arose in some living organisms, and the fourth is how self-consciousness, conscience, reason and all related phenomena arose.
There are many, many questions here, but it is widely accepted that naturalism has failed to give adequate answers to them. Naturalists give answers all right, but they are no good.
My two cents
I always like it when I can find quotes like this to counter the assertions from advocates of philosophical naturalism. I think there are too many times when Christians (or anyone who’s open to supernaturalism) plays intellectual surrender. Although it doesn’t necessarily fit the tenor of the quote, I’m glad that fideism can counter evidentialism. I think a lot of this comes about from realising that naturalism is a type of philosophy (with methodological naturalism being a manifestation of it)—but I feel like I’m surrounded by people who don’t realise.
It would be interesting to be alive 100 years from now and see if the quote has the same resilience as it does now.
Vallicella, B. (2012). Religious Belief and What Inclines Me to It. Available: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/10/the-pragmatics-of-religious-belief.html. Last accessed 1st Dec 2012.