Carl Sagan points out that if we ask how the cosmos came to be, and someone claims God created it, the next question is "And what created God?" If the answer is that God has always existed, then why not save a step and simply say, "The cosmos always has existed"?
I don’t think that the sacred necessarily has to do with the supernatural. In fact, the fact that we call the supernatural supernatural rather than sub-natural reveals our contempt for nature, reveals our lack of a sense of how sacred life is. What is science telling us? It is telling us that we live as part of thirteen and a half billion year continuity, that as Carl said so magnificently that we are star stuff…that every gene, bone, molecule of our physical reality, of ourselves, were formed in the hearts of distance stars. Science is revealing the oneness of all things, of life. It tells us in countless different ways. So for me, the natural is the thing we should hold highest. That’s one thing I learned from Carl. That nature is far more magnificent than anything we can imagine. If we had a spiritual approach to nature, which was grounded in nature, as opposed to the conventional religions, which are in so many ways not only not grounded in nature, but are contemptuous of what is natural, that might be why we are unable to awaken ourselves from the stupor we are in, in terms of the way we treat each other and the way we treat this planet.
"A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later such a religion will emerge."
Alex's comment: As if he were predicting the emergence of Religious Naturalism.