Narrativium and Occam's razor

One thing which keeps me trusting in the gospel is that Christianity has huge explanatory scope - it really does make sense of life. Every aspect of human experience seems to me to be well-explained by conservative biblical theology, and those aspects which cause problems (eg - predestination-free will) are sufficiently addressed in the bible to the extent where I would be able to trust the God who knows the answers that we don't know. I'm just a little bit confused as to whether this is a good reason to trust.

The post-modern says "Christianity is a crutch, it makes you feel significant, it's a fictional metanarrative that means that you're not just a random collection of atoms" and in some ways there's a lot of truth in that. Christianity does make sense of life - the writer of Ecclesiastes says that God has set eternity in the heart of man, and all of us long for meaning and purpose. Of course, the Dawkins-ish atheist point of view is that this is just an artefact of being human - looking for the big picture in a situation is what makes us intelligent, sentient, but we also tend to find big pictures where there are none. Terry Pratchett of all people puts this point of view across very eloquently in his book Discworld Science. He explains that Discworld runs on narrativium, that is, stories, but as the scientists of the Discworld Unseen University inspect our universe they are horrified to realise that there is not a trace of narrativium in the universe they've made. Anyway... that's a bit of a pointless aside.

Amy Orr-Ewing (bethinking again), who works for the Zacharias Trust, which produces high quality apologetics materials/speakers/training, says that she believes Christianity to be true because it is both "intellectually robust and existentially satisfying". Intellectually robust - well, I'm working on it. Freshers' week provided lots of opportunities to talk to non-Christians about Christianity and it has to be said that by God's grace as I was giving the defences of Christianity that I've been reading over the past few weeks, they did seem reasonably compelling... But I'm still a bit stuck with the assumptions-conclusions step outlined before. Existentially satisfying - yes, yes, yes. Everything in me longs for a Father God, who will uphold justice and righteousness whilst extending mercy, and promise me a future where there will be no more sin, sickness, injustice, pain or death. I'm terrible at following him, I reject him and belittle him in my actions and thoughts every day, but when push comes to shove it's such a privilege to be able to run back to him and know that there is forgiveness.

I guess with term starting I've had less time to think and read in depth, though I'm enjoying studying the gospel accounts (more on that another day), but one thing I have been able to do is to put my faith into practice in evangelism and in the general circuit of Christian meetings that is OICCU/Ebbes student life. And it makes sense. It fits with most things anyway. So I guess the question is what Phil was getting at in his comment - do you trust because the impossible option just rings true? Is this an ideal opportunity to use Occam's razor and say "Jesus resurrection is the simplest answer, therefore it's the best answer". I guess it depends what the objections are, and how serious they are... I'm not quite sure what the objections are, other than "it's impossible!" so I think that's where this blog is headed next. Are there serious objections?