The Explanatory Layers of a Cosmology - their

normative
impetus
1)
theoretical
cosmolog
y, includes the descriptive sciences
2)
mythological
cosmology
, includes
a)
meta-
mythic
cosmology, e.g.
epic of evolution mythos
and
emergentist heuristic
b)
meta-
physical
cosmology, e.g. metaphysics or root metaphors
c)
meta-
narrative
cosmology, e.g. primary myths
Theoretic and meta-mythic cosmologies, properly conceived and robustly
probabilistic, enjoy normative impetus morally and juridically.
Meta-physical and meta-narrative cosmologies, properly conceived and weakly
plausibilistic, remain morally and juridically inert.
This is not to suggest that meta-physical and meta-narrative cosmologies are not
otherwise
existentially actionable
, and eminently so, for example, informing
certain evaluative dispositions, cultivating certain affective attunements and serving
as, more or less, valuable heuristic devices. Such interpretive heuristics can be
variously abductively facile, hypothetically consonant, interdisciplinarily consilient,
internally coherent, externally congruent, ontologically parsimonious, speculatively
fecund, evaluatively dispositive, affectively attuning and a host of other epistemic
virtues. Such virtues best inform our dyadic inferential cycling of
abductive
hypothesizing
and
deductive clarifying
, even when our heuristics are not afforded, for
whatever reason, the benefit of
inductive testing
, triadically.
Religious Naturalism
Derived within the above context, I consider myself a
religious naturalist
in that I
believe that the scientific community's account of our
cosmos
as currently on offer
provides humanity's essential
theoretical cosmology.
When combined with an
emergentist heuristic
and
epic of evolution
mythos
, this
account, in my view, then provides the essential
meta-mythic frame
for any viable
mythological cosmology.

This
cosmic-mythic
frame remains - not only necessary but - sufficient, evaluatively,
to inspire our affective attunements to the world, to others and even to self. Likewise,
normatively, it's --- not just indispensable, but --- suffices, as we reason together
regarding moral and juridical realities. Interpretively, it simply must inform
humanity's common sense, common sensibilities and common law.
It may be that this form of Religious Naturalism refers to a
methodological stance
[RN^m] as distinct from RN as a
worldview
[RN^w], analogous to the time-honored
distinction between
methodological
and
philosophical naturalism
. In that sense,
RN^m remains an interpretive stance one may well choose to go
beyond,
mythologically, but dare not choose to go
without
.
There have always been creedal stances that have affirmed that moral realities
remain transparent to human reason without the benefit of special revelation and
that acknowledge that all can live upright, moral and good lives without an explicit
creedal faith. For any who've affirmed such
inclusivisms,
perhaps questions have
begged regarding precisely how this may be so?
RN^m, in my view, provides such answers.
Both RN^m and RN^w deserve a place among the
wisdom traditions
, the former as a
shared orthodoxic, meta-mythic frame, the latter, polydoxically, as a defensible way
of life (as well as an hygienic, apophatic, nontheological critique).
cosmology, theoretical cosmology, mythological cosmology, meta-mythic cosmology,
meta-physical cosmology, meta-narrative cosmology, abductive hypothesizing,
deductively clarifying, inductive testing, epistemic virtue, existentially actionable,
normative impetus, moral impetus, juridical impetus, primary myths, root
metaphors, emergentist heuristic, epic of evolution mythos, religious naturalism,
orthodoxy, polydoxy, methodological naturalism, philosophical naturalism,
soteriological inclusivism, wisdom traditions