religion, philosophy, reality, unificationWe live in a world.
The world is one way or the other.
It is “known” who exactly was Jesus and what exactly he did. There is no doubt. If you could travel back in time, you could witness it with your own eyes. You would know everything.
It is also “known” whether there is God or not and what exactly is he up to. You personally might not know it, but the reality is all around you, and the God either is there or isn’t (or something in between).
(By “known” I mean, “although there might be no person who knows this, it is an objective fact that something”.)
Realizing that the world around us is, and all these answers are out there, what is the point of arguing? The only thing that can happen is that you are either right, or wrong, but that does not change anything about how the world actually is. As atheits argue, God laughs at them. As religious folks invoke God, the nothingness gapes back.
I would say that this philosophy is simultaneously non-theistic and theistic. It is not the most useful one (hard to argue with it, hard to derive false conclusions from it), but it sounds both quite spiritual and scientific. I do not think it is agnosticism, as it claims neither that the answer is unknown or unknowable - it just says that you personally do not know right now, although you live right in the middle of a an actual answer - the reality. You deeply believe with all your heart - in something. If somebody tells you about their world view, you disagree with them.
Is there a name for this?
This sounds an awful lot like Pragmatism: there are truths about the universe, and whether they are known or not, they continue to be present, so the practical thing is to do what is…practical, even if it’s incorrect. However, I’d argue that it’s not actually possible to assert with full confidence that there are in fact any truths about the universe (at least for a naive, deterministic definition of truth) so the truly pragmatic stance is to say that there might be truths about the universe, and that it’s practical to assume that there are.
There is; and her name is Agnosticism.
But seriously, no. There can’t be a unifying philosophy. There can only be a unifying method. The scientific method.
Philosophy is how you deal with the untestable. It has wiggle room. There can be no objective definition of things like morality and justice.
NO, really…. because of the definition itself!
“Is there an all-encompassing philosophy that could unify all religions/non-religions?”
#definition#
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, magic, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word “Philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally means “love of wisdom”
You can not combine Philosophy with Myth it is incompatible by definition. (Myths, such as creation myths, good god versus bad god etc… are part of most religions). Religion is 100% not compatible with philosophy and its children the sciences.
#What does Philosophy Lead to?#
So.. myths, magic, mysticism are only present because the full lifecycle of that what will come forth out of the evolution of interconnecting everything real time is not done yet.
In the meanwhile schools and universities are the gatekeepers and temples of philosophy. By definition an incompatible world for myths, magic, religions and even religion 2.0 (the secret, paranormal mumbo jumbo and oprah)
p.s. off-topic: the definition comes from wikipedia but religious 1.0 and 2.0 vandals keep changing pages on many topics like this because they are referenced from discussion forums e.g. check the wikipedia history of acupuncture.
Yes, there are philosophies that can suit both religious people (at least the moderate, or deists) and atheists. Things like humanism, for example. As long as the philosophy does not invoke any supernatural forces or entities, but deals with human welfare, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t fit, other than for whom it violates the holy scripture that one holds as the sole truth.
The one ‘philosophy’ (in it’s most broad sense) should be “The Golden Rule”. Whether it could is another story.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.