i think you miss the point Alamo-Girl was making, which i took to be: Precisely because, as an operational principle, Occam's razor is not in thrall to -- "has nothing to do with" -- metaphysical naturalism (or any other "ism" for that matter), anybody can use it to shore up his vision or version of reality. That is to say, Occam's razor is "agnostic" with respect to competing visions and worldviews, and even principles such as the Anthropic Principle. All it requires is that one "boil problems down" to their essential elements, casting out all the "dross" along the way. Perhaps when a metaphysical naturalist or some other thinker employs this tool, the "dross" he is casting away is the pith of the problem. Occam's razor is, in short, perhaps not entirely effective in such cases of restricted evidence.
Speaking of the Anthropic Principle, here is an interesting article:
http://reason.com/9907/fe.ks.is.shtml