<p>Most contemporary philosophers are naturalists. A great deal of contention centers around the definition and implications of naturalism. Nina Emery argues that naturalists should also be methodological naturalists and borrow principles of reasoning from scientists. Extending this project means identifying those principles and applying them to debates in metaphysics. This paper carries on this work by considering the evidence for the fine-tuning of the cosmos for life in light of Emery’s “pattern explanation principle,” roughly, the idea that we should not leave patterns in nature unexplained—even if it leads us to affirm the existence of perplexing entities. I argue that, given this principle, fine-tuning for life constitutes a pattern that deserves a robust explanation. Appealing to the pattern of fine-tuning for life undercuts the way many naturalistic philosophers and scientists dismiss or object to fine-tuning inferences.</p>