If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer us? If we united religion, science and philosophy, what would it offer us? What would if offer us as a speciess? It may provide us with a means of coming to a consensus regarding what it is we believe we are and why it is we believe we exist. It was Carl Sagan who best expressed it when he said: "We are privileged to influence and perhaps control our future. I believe we have an obligation to fight for others, who came before us, and to whom we are all beholden and for all those who, if we are wise enough, will come after. There is no cause more urgent, no dedication more fitting then to protect the future of our speciess. Nearly all our problems are made by humans and can be solved by humans. No social convention, no political system, no economic hypothesis, no religious dogma is more important." The means of developing such a consensus is through the development of a concept defined by Stephen Hawking as a 'universal philosophy.' This 'universal philosophy' could be achieved by using a process developed by Husserl: using 'bracketing' and applying the process of 'reduction' as outlined by Husserl. 'Bracketing' is the process of eliminating any superfluous and irrelevant perceptions that are a part of our everyday lives until one is left with life's primary essentials. 'Reduction' is the process of examining what remains, the primary essentials - to make sense of ones 'intentionality'. In short, it is Husserl's development of process that helps us to develop Hawking's concept of a 'universal philosophy'. It is the process of 'bracketing' and 'reduction' that helps us to formulate answers to the three basic questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? In essence, it is Husserl who has defined the process and Hawking who has named the product of that process. A search for purpose is in essence a search for a 'universal philosophy' based upon 'truths'. This 'universal philosophy' - this means of modeling a 'universal ethic' upon which we and all life throughout the universe can agree - needs to be found in order to resolve the many socially divisive issues we confront as a speciess. Perhaps more importantly, we need to develop this understanding, this model, before we confront other life forms with which we may have decidedly differing views. If our speciess does not put such a consensus in place, we may once again find ourselves divided and in conflict. As history has shown over and over again, we will find ourselves at war with each other. We will be a divided speciess attempting to cully favor with differing intellectual life forms which we will undoubtedly encounter as we push the limits of our presence beyond our earth, to the far reaches of our solar system, our galaxy, and to the very edge of the universe itself. To prevent this, we need to develop a 'universal philosophy' capable of supporting and embracing all religions, scientific thought, variety of philosophies, and perceptions that we as a speciess have so uniquely developed. Once we have developed such a philosophy, we will need to test it. ... We need to be sure it unilaterally encourages the concept of creative thought and freedom of action. For if a model of a universal philosophy does not take on this characteristic of free action and thinking, it can never be considered 'universal'. Once a model of a 'universal philosophy' has been developed, it can be tested in terms of its validity as a universal philosophy by observing the degree of constraint it imposes upon God. The less constraining the model, the more universal it will be. This process of building a model of a 'universal philosophy' - that will act as a foundation for our present perceptions - is in essence a search for truth. Perceptions are concepts we form regarding what we understand to be 'truths'. As a speciess, we appear to have three means of forming what we bel
About the Author: Mathematics/Science Undergraduate degree - University of Michigan Master's degree in Physical Science - Eastern Michigan University 30 years teaching mathematics & science 20 years science and/or mathematics department chair I'm not sure if I became a philosophical thinker because I was a depressant or if I became a depressant because I was a philosophical thinker. Whichever the case, I am both. To make matters even stranger I am an optimistic depressant philosophical thinker. Actually it might be more accurate of me to state that I am an optimistic depressant philosophical thinking metaphysicist. But how did metaphysics enter the picture? During my early teens I began questioning what was 'out there beyond ...' Over time this thinking sequentially lead to 'beyond the stars', 'beyond the galaxy', 'beyond time and space' until I came to the end of the physical universe itself. Once I had reached this 'outer wall' of the physical universe. I could not help but mentally poke a hole in this wall. Having created a hole in the outer wall of the physical, I peered through the hole only to see nothing. At this point I was mesmerized with questions that forever haunted me: What is this nothingness on the 'outside' of the physical universe? What is the physical universe immersed within? What is out there? What are the characteristics of this existence outside the universe? What does this outside of the universe have to do with us, with myself, with God Itself? The questions became cruelly unrelenting and overpoweringly dominating of my very psyche. With time and the use of humanity's four perceptual tools (observation - science, universal teachings - religions, rational dialectics - philosophy and universal language - mathematics) the answers began to reveal themselves. The answers came not in terms of a bias on the part of one tool as opposed to another but in terms of all four tools agreeing with each other. The biggest hurdles to the work came in the form of cynicism, skepticism, closed minds and most of all in the form of the words, 'can't', 'its impossible to know', 'humankind is not intended to understand', 'prove it'. In all good conscience, it must be stated, 'We cannot prove anything beyond all doubt ...' Having stated the obvious, we can then move on to state: '... but we can 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt.' So it is a new model of reality emerged capable of leading our species into the new age of the third millennium.