Well, I do think it is critical to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. That’s one reason why I find it so sad that Paganism is turning in the direction of hard theism, like most of Christianity, because when I joined Paganism I thought it was a really truly radical, progressive religion that would not replace one unprovable faith-based deity with another. Not so, I’m finding. Not so.

Christian-bashing does little good, but I think it is vital that we take care not to become “like” Christians in certain ways. Specifically, the ways that it is no longer functional and fulfilling in our modern context and lives.

– exactly!

Sacredness can be such a vague word. Sacredness as I understand it in its original context was that which in someway belonged to the gods. Any object, space or activity which was dedicated to the gods would be considered sacred and also any exceptionally beautiful, majestic, powerful, or otherwise unusual places would also likely be considered sacred, as naturally belonging to a god. That which was sacred was to be respected, revered, and kept free from pollution, but IMO sacredness in its original context did not imply perfection or unquestionable, unchangeable truth. The Bible is considered by some Christians to be inerrant not because it is sacred, but because they believe it was actually written by God through man. IMO the motivation for this claim has more to do with politics than any inherent characteristic of religion.

If Big History is the narrative core of religious naturalism than it is that which is sacred because it is at the heart of the religion. But I do think we need to remember that what is “truly sacred” is not our current understanding of Big History or any particular telling of it but the Universe itself and its/our journey to becoming, Perhaps we should make a distinction between that which is sacred and that which is divine. We might say that those objects, spaces, or activities dedicated to religion are sacred and should be respected and “set apart” from the secular, but these are not that which is divine. It is Nature herself in all her multifaceted forms that is divine.

I think our current understanding of Big History is solid enough that we can confidently develop new religious traditions based on it. But I still think it is important as you say to remember the “provisional nature of science”, to remember that we are human and that our understanding and our ability to communicate this understanding will always be incomplete and to some extent flawed. I really like what you said here: “No matter how much we learn about the universe, there is always so much more we don’t know – it remains infinitely beyond us. Mystery in this sense is no longer “hands off” so much as it is “impossible to lay hands on.” When we perceive that about the universe, we tend to fall silent and move with measured care, much as we instinctively do when we enter a temple.”