For all naturalists and humanists who have a religious or spiritual inclination,
Thanks for letting me in. The difference between religious naturalism and natural religion may be a play on words, however I think the implications are important. The former implies making a religion out of nature and the latter implies making a religion from nature. My knowledge of history, psychology, physics, and neuroscience indicates an important function and need not only for recognition of mystery, awe, and reverence, but also for both belief and doubt in something transcendent to our known existence independent of scripture, revelation, or intuition (dogma). Science recognizes that there is more than currently seen (maybe “alternate realities”), so that nature may even include deity. I am looking for information about this, either pro or con, and it is treated by the RN and IRAS nets. I find IRAS net long on philosophy and short on information, and would like to also monitor RN net.