(Sorry this is cut off: my HTML skills are not l33t)This Venn diagram is what I use to categorize and systematically explore various philosophies. In particular, it helps explain the way I see the world around me. Keep in mind that this diagram, like all Venn diagrams, is purely schematic. There is no quantitative relationship between the size of a set as represented and its importance or actual size under any objective metric.
The fundamental conjecture underlying this diagram is that the entire universe can be partitioned into two sets: the world seen and the world unseen. The former encompasses everything that can be possibly be objectively measured. That is, not only what we can actually measure now, but anything we will be able to objectively measure in the future. It is the rational part of reality. The world unseen deals with things that exist but cannot be objectively measured. For example, how much a person feels any particular emotion is clearly not something that is objectively quantifiable. Personally, I believe there is a spiritual component to reality, and this falls into the world unseen. Even this first division allows some classification because some believe the set of the world unseen is void. As a side note, I further believe that the seen and unseen are coexistent and can influence each other, though not in a measurable manner (consistent with the definition of the unseen set).
Science is the systematic quantification of measurable quantities and therefore rules the world seen. Consistent with Gödel's Theorem, science can never span the entire set. That is, the difference set (seen)-(science) can never be void. Now, it is certainly possible that the contents of the minimum difference set are irrelevant, but this consideration is unimportant for the rest of this discussion. The world seen is extremely important because it comprises the vast majority of our day-to-day life. Rationality is critical for understanding the physical world and its importance cannot be overstated. Without reasoning and critical thought one drifts though life like a derelict ship without a rudder. Even those whose psyches are more emotion-based must in the majority of their lives make good decisions, and by construction, the rational is always the most reasonable (and virtually always the best decision in any given circumstance).
Religion deals primarily with the world unseen, but must inevitably overlap with the world seen at some point. Philosophies in which religion stays completely in the world unseen are extraordinarily unreliable because they are by definition arbitrary. As soon as religion specifies what should actually be done in the world seen, it has crossed the partitioning. Once the overlap with the world seen occurs, one is faced with three possibilities: (i) science is assumed correct and overrules religion where there is a disagreement, (ii) even if science and religion contradict, both are correct, and (iii) religion is assumed correct and overrules science. The second possibility is clearly unacceptable because it intentionally introduces a logical inconsistency in worldview. Thus, every viewpoint I have heard boils down to (i) or (iii). I argue that in case of contradiction, science must prevail. Science is self-correcting and always reflects the current state of knowledge about our world. To me, this implies that only religions consistent with reality within our observable purview can possibly be correct. Exploiting symmetry suggests that religion serves in the world unseen what science serves in the world seen. Indeed, the science/religion overlap suggests that religion can be viewed as an extension of science into a completely different realm unaccessable to pure science.
When we actually make decisions, we are nearly always caught between the two worlds. Religion can assist rationality by narrowing or eliminating variables to be considered. For example, Machiavellian ethics will certainly allow personal advancement, in accordance with a purely selfish rationality. However, we know the morals about not burning bridges and treating others fairly, etc. At some point the Machiavellian adherent will make a mistake and suffer the karma he has accumulated. It can be argued that he failed to consider all the possibilities and weight them appropriately and the outcome could have been logically predicted. Religion helps encode generations of experience into a moral sense that, had this person taken heed, could have foreseen the likely outcome and readjusted his strategy. Consider also the case of eugenics. Practitioners believed they were justified by science, at least as it was understood at the time, but we now know their error. Had they considered the principle of the worth of all humans they could have avoided the resulting horrors.
I have intentionally been rather vague as to what religion precisely I endorse. In fact, this is completely beside the point. In my own life I have taken Christianity as a basis and try constantly to test and refine what I believe. I believe there exists a kernel of truth. Very nearly everything has some truth in it, and my sworn duty is to separate the gold from the dross, accumulating as much of the former as I possibly can. But that process is reserved for a later post.
