Caveat: I may misuse the term Natural Philosophy in this. It’s a word that I found which seemed similar to what I believed, so it’s the label I use. I’m not trying to redefine it for someone else, just using the name as a convenient place holder.
The ultimate world view a person takes is strange. It’s the most fundamental part of ones philosophy, yet we rarely decide it for ourselves.
I’m probably no different, but I have confidence in my rationalizations. (and so does everybody else)
Take a functional approach to world view; what makes one more useful than another? We’re all living in the same world and there do seem to be things that remain fairly typical. So if a worldview helps you predict how the world will react, than it’s useful.
Observe your reality, make predictions, test them, and take the successful ones.
Yes, this is a lot like science; but not the same. Science has a set method and body of work. Natural Philosophy is simply a philosophy to base your other beliefs on. There may be deeper levels to reality, unknown realms of existence that tinker and toy with our universe. If they don’t affect us in anyway, than they don’t matter (practically speaking). If they do affect us, then you will see how in your observations.
Seems too simple. Simplicity isn’t a flaw, it means it’s self evident.