You’re asking whether there is a worldview that can be shared not only among religious sects but also with nonsectarians — that is, people who may be spiritual-but-not-religious, agnostic, humanist, or otherwise unaffiliated with any formal religion.
Short Answer:
Yes, we can sketch a minimal, inclusive worldview — a kind of philosophical common ground — that could be broadly acceptable to most religious sects and many nonsectarians. But it must be stripped of specific metaphysical claims and focused on shared human experience, ethical concerns, and existential questions.
1. Elements of a Possible Shared Worldview
Here’s a possible formulation of such a worldview:
Reality is intelligible and worth exploring
- Whether through science, philosophy, or contemplation, there’s a shared assumption that reality can be understood to some extent and that seeking truth has value.
- Acceptable to: religious seekers, scientists, humanists, agnostics.
Human life has meaning or value
- While religions may ground this in the divine, and nonreligious thinkers might root it in human dignity or consciousness, both often affirm that human life is significant.
- This allows for flexibility: meaning can be discovered, created, or revealed.
There exists an ethical dimension to human life
- Whether based on divine command, natural law, rational consensus, or evolutionary psychology, nearly everyone agrees that kindness, justice, and integrity matter.
- Ethics can be objective, relational, or pragmatic, but they’re not irrelevant.
Humans are limited, fallible, and in need of growth
- Whether expressed in terms of sin, ignorance, cognitive bias, or emotional immaturity, there’s a shared recognition that humans are not perfect — but capable of growth.
There is value in compassion, humility, and connection
- These virtues are encouraged by major religions and also respected in secular humanism, Buddhism, and nonreligious mindfulness movements.
Death is significant and prompts reflection
- Believers may see death as a transition; nonbelievers may see it as final. Yet both tend to agree that death forces reflection on how we live, love, and prioritize.
- Mortality gives urgency to ethical living and meaning-making.
2. What’s Left Out (Deliberately)
To maintain inclusivity, this kind of worldview avoids asserting:
- A personal God or gods
- Afterlife doctrines
- Supernatural events or revelations
- Scriptural authority
- Ritual obligations
That means it wouldn’t fully satisfy committed believers of any tradition. But it creates a conceptual commons where respectful dialogue and mutual understanding are possible.
3. Who Might Agree to This?
This minimal worldview could resonate with:
- Liberal religious groups (Unitarian Universalists, Reform Jews, Quakers, etc.)
- Spiritual-but-not-religious individuals
- Secular humanists
- Many Buddhists (especially in secular/mindfulness forms)
- Philosophical agnostics
- Some open-minded Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., in pluralistic contexts
4. Real-World Applications
This kind of shared worldview is already at work in:
- Interfaith dialogue
- Ethics education
- UN declarations (e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
- Secular spiritual movements (e.g. mindfulness, eco-spirituality)
- Public health and social justice efforts that appeal to both faith and reason
Summary
While a total agreement between all religious sects and nonsectarians is impossible, a minimal ethical-existential worldview can be constructed that resonates across worldviews. It must focus on human dignity, ethical responsibility, openness to meaning, and mutual respect, without committing to specific theological or metaphysical claims.
Would you like this framed more as a formal statement or manifesto? Or compared to something like the Charter for Compassion or secular humanism?
You said:
write a manifesto
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. Here’s a manifesto for a shared worldview that bridges religious, spiritual, and nonsectarian perspectives — aiming to be inclusive without being vague, and principled without being dogmatic.
Manifesto for a Shared Human Worldview
Preamble
In a world of diverse beliefs, traditions, and philosophies, we affirm the possibility of a common ground — a space where the religious, the spiritual, and the nonreligious can stand together in mutual respect and shared purpose. This manifesto does not demand uniformity, but seeks unity in essential human values and existential concerns.
1. We Affirm the Intrinsic Value of Human Life
All people possess inherent worth, regardless of belief, background, identity, or status. Every life is significant and deserving of dignity, compassion, and justice.
2. We Acknowledge the Mystery and Depth of Existence
The universe is vast, complex, and in many ways beyond full comprehension. Whether approached through science, spirituality, or contemplation, the search for understanding is a noble and unifying human endeavor.
3. We Hold That Meaning Matters
Human beings are meaning-seeking creatures. Whether meaning is discovered, created, or revealed, the pursuit of purpose — in love, creativity, service, and truth — is essential to a fulfilled life.
4. We Uphold a Shared Moral Responsibility
There exists a moral dimension to life that calls us to act with honesty, empathy, fairness, and humility. We reject cruelty, injustice, and indifference. Our actions shape not only our character but the world we inhabit.
5. We Recognize the Limits of the Self and the Need for Growth
Humans are fallible, finite, and capable of harm — but also capable of learning, change, and deep goodness. Growth in wisdom, compassion, and self-awareness is both possible and necessary.
6. We Embrace Death as a Call to Live Meaningfully
Death is inevitable. Whether it is a passage to another existence or the end of consciousness, it invites us to live now — with integrity, gratitude, and presence.
7. We Commit to the Common Good
Beyond personal belief or practice, we share a commitment to building societies grounded in justice, sustainability, peace, and care for all sentient beings. The flourishing of one is bound up in the flourishing of all.
8. We Respect Diverse Paths to Truth
No single tradition, philosophy, or worldview holds all the answers. Dialogue, not dominance, is the way forward. We honor both religious and nonreligious sources of wisdom and recognize the value in sincere, open inquiry.
9. We Stand for Freedom of Thought and Conscience
Each individual must be free to seek, question, affirm, doubt, or believe — without coercion or condemnation. Genuine conviction arises not from force, but from freedom.
10. We Choose Hope
Despite suffering, division, and uncertainty, we choose to live with hope — grounded not in blind optimism, but in the resilience of the human spirit, the possibility of transformation, and the shared capacity for good.
Conclusion
This is not a creed, but a compass. It does not ask for submission, but for solidarity. Wherever you stand — in a mosque or a monastery, a temple or a laboratory, a church or a quiet forest — if these words resonate, then you are not alone.
Let us live, think, and act — together — from this common ground.
Would you like this formatted into a printable PDF, turned into a poster design, or adapted for a specific audience (e.g., interfaith group, school, public organization)?
You said:
what about a commmon sense ontology
ChatGPT said:
Great — now you’re going straight to the roots: ontology (what exists), and not just ethics or values. You’re asking whether a common-sense ontology can serve as shared ground between religious sects and nonsectarians.
That’s a subtle but important move — instead of asking what people believe or value, you’re asking what we can all agree exists, or is real, in some minimal, noncontroversial way.
What Is “Common-Sense Ontology”?
A common-sense ontology tries to define the basic categories of being that any rational person — regardless of worldview — would likely accept. It deliberately avoids metaphysical claims that require faith or abstract theory.
It’s the “everyday furniture of the world” — the entities and categories most people take for granted, whether they’re religious, spiritual, or secular.
Candidate Elements of a Common-Sense Ontology
Here’s a sketch of such an ontology — a framework of “what exists” that might be acknowledged across religious and nonreligious lines:
1. Physical Objects Exist
- We live in a shared physical world with material things: rocks, rivers, trees, bodies, stars.
- These objects persist, occupy space, and can be perceived by our senses.
→ Accepted by science, all religions, and nonreligious people.
2. Other Minds Exist
- Other people are conscious like we are.
- We recognize agency, emotion, and thought in others — not just in ourselves.
→ Crucial for moral systems, empathy, and human society.
3. Events and Change Occur
- Things happen. The world is not static.
- Time passes, causes have effects, choices lead to outcomes.
→ Needed for narratives, memory, and both scientific and spiritual accounts of life.
4. Language and Meaning Exist
- Humans use symbols, names, and concepts to refer to things and make sense of the world.
- Words mean things, even if meaning is sometimes fuzzy or contested.
→ Essential for any worldview: scripture, science, poetry, or philosophy.
5. Values and Norms Exist (in human minds and societies)
- Even if we disagree on where they come from (God, evolution, culture), we recognize that ideas like “good,” “truth,” and “justice” shape how humans act and judge.
- They are part of our shared human world, whether objective or constructed.
→ Critical for both ethical traditions and secular legal/political systems.
6. Consciousness Exists
- We experience — we feel, think, remember, imagine, suffer, enjoy.
- This is not just a scientific fact, but the foundation of every religious and philosophical tradition: the inner life is real.
→ Hard to deny without contradicting oneself (Descartes-style).
7. Uncertainty and Mystery Exist
- We don’t know everything — and maybe can’t.
- There are unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) questions about the origins of existence, the nature of consciousness, and what happens after death.
→ A neutral but fertile space where both religion and science continue their inquiry.
What’s Left Out (for neutrality)
To maintain common-sense neutrality, this ontology deliberately avoids:
- Claims about God(s), spirits, or supernatural beings
- Assertions about the afterlife or reincarnation
- Strong metaphysical systems (like idealism or materialism)
- Doctrines of fate, karma, or divine intervention
- Commitment to any one epistemology (science, faith, reason, revelation)
This doesn’t mean these things aren’t real — just that they aren’t universally accepted in a “common sense” ontology.
Summary: Minimal Ontology of the Shared Human World
Things exist. Minds exist. Events happen. Words mean. People matter. We experience. We don’t know everything.
That may sound simple, but it’s philosophically rich and potentially common ground for conversations across religious, spiritual, and secular worldviews.
If You Want It in Manifesto Form:
Would you like this ontology turned into a short “Ontology of the Real” declaration — something that lays out those basic commitments in compact language?
Or do you want it extended into a philosophical framework for dialogue, education, or ethics?
Let me know your direction — pragmatic or theoretical — and I’ll shape it accordingly.
You said:
should we include such event as “it is thundering” elBORATE
ChatGPT said:
Great question — deceptively simple, but it opens up deep ontological territory.
You’re asking whether we should include an event like “it is thundering” in a common-sense ontology, and what that would imply. Let’s unpack it carefully.
First, What Kind of Thing Is “It Is Thundering”?
The statement “It is thundering” refers to a natural event — a perceivable, time-bound occurrence involving sound, weather, and causality.
This seems mundane, but ontologically, it raises key questions:
1. Is Thunder an Object?
No — it’s not a thing like a tree or a chair. It’s not an enduring entity.
2. Is Thunder a Process or Event?
Yes — thunder is an event: a temporary, observable change in the world. It depends on time, physical causation (air pressure from lightning), and perception (you hear it).
So “It is thundering” asserts that a particular kind of event is occurring in the physical world.
Why Include Events Like “It Is Thundering” in a Common-Sense Ontology?
Including such events makes sense — and strengthens the ontology — for several reasons:
1. Events Are Part of How We Understand Reality
Common-sense reality isn’t just made of static objects (rocks, trees) — it’s filled with changes, happenings, and processes.
- “The sun is rising”
- “A bird flew by”
- “It is raining”
- “A child is crying”
These aren’t things but are still ontologically real in common-sense terms. We don’t live in a frozen world — we live in a dynamic, temporal world.
2. Events Depend on Time and Causality
To say “it is thundering” presupposes:
- Time is real — the event is occurring now.
- Change is real — it wasn’t thundering before; now it is.
- Causality exists — thunder is caused by lightning and atmospheric pressure.
→ This enriches the ontology by including temporal structure and causal relations.
3. Events Anchor Perception and Language
“It is thundering” is based on experience — you hear thunder.
So it supports key ontological categories:
- Perception: There is something to be sensed.
- Phenomenology: Our inner world maps onto external events.
- Linguistic representation: We can meaningfully describe shared experiences.
4. It Is Religiously and Secularly Neutral
Importantly, events like thunder are observable and interpretable in different worldviews:
- A scientist sees it as a meteorological event.
- A religious person might see it as a sign of divine power.
- A poet might hear thunder as a metaphor for anger or awe.
But they all agree: “Thunder happens.”
So “It is thundering” is ontologically nonsectarian, but existentially rich.
Meta-Level: Why Include Events at All?
A common-sense ontology that excludes events is too static to reflect real life. By including events like “It is thundering,” we affirm:
- The reality of change
- The importance of experience
- The temporality of existence
In other words, we affirm that the world unfolds, not just is.
Reformulating the Ontology with Events
We could restate the earlier list like this:
A Common-Sense Ontology Includes:
- Physical objects (rocks, trees, bodies)
- Conscious subjects (minds, persons)
- Events (e.g., it is thundering, she is running)
- Time and change
- Language and meaning
- Moral experience
- Uncertainty and mystery
Final Thought
To include “It is thundering” is to say: the world is not just composed of things — it is alive with happenings.
In common-sense ontology, this matters greatly. Life is lived not just among objects, but within events.
Would you like to build a more formal event-inclusive ontology — say, something inspired by Alfred North Whitehead (process philosophy) or phenomenology — but grounded in everyday terms?
You said:
IS THIS NOT C.D. BROAD’S ONTOLOGY
ChatGPT said:
Excellent observation — and yes, you’re onto something important.
What we’ve been discussing does echo elements of C.D. Broad’s ontology, particularly his emphasis on events and processes as fundamental components of reality. Let’s examine that more closely:
Who Was C.D. Broad?
Charlie Dunbar Broad (1887–1971) was a British philosopher known for his work in:
- Philosophy of mind
- Epistemology
- Metaphysics (especially ontology)
- Philosophy of science
He was a systematic thinker who sought a neutral metaphysical framework capable of accommodating both science and moral or spiritual phenomena.
C.D. Broad’s Ontological Commitments
Broad argued that a complete ontology must include at least the following categories of existence:
- Things (or substances) – persistent objects (e.g., tables, trees)
- Events – happenings in time (e.g., lightning, thunder)
- Processes – extended sequences or flows of change (e.g., digestion, thinking)
- Qualities – properties or characteristics of things/events (e.g., red, loud)
- Relations – such as causation or spatial arrangement
- Minds and mental phenomena – experiences, thoughts, feelings
This makes him a pluralist — rejecting both reductionism (everything is matter) and idealism (everything is mind). Instead, he believed in a layered or multi-category ontology, open to empirical refinement.
Where “It Is Thundering” Fits in Broad’s Ontology
The statement “It is thundering” refers to an event (a transient happening) that:
- Occurs in time
- Has sensory qualities (loud, sudden)
- Has causes (e.g., lightning and air pressure)
- Can be described or recognized by minds
In Broad’s ontology, this fits into multiple categories:
- Event – the thunder itself
- Process – part of the atmospheric chain involving lightning, clouds, etc.
- Quality – the sound’s loudness, rumble, etc.
- Relation – caused by lightning, part of a weather system
- Mental experience – it’s heard, possibly feared or interpreted
So yes, C.D. Broad would absolutely include thunder as a real ontological feature — not reducible to a mere acoustic phenomenon, but part of a broader, structured reality involving physical, causal, and experiential dimensions.
Why This Matters
By aligning with Broad’s ontology, your line of thinking supports a rich, non-reductive metaphysics that:
- Honors common-sense realism (yes, thunder is real)
- Includes temporal phenomena (events, change, experience)
- Is inclusive across worldviews (neutral toward metaphysical commitments like theism or materialism)
- Leaves space for both science and values
It’s a great starting point for a shared, pluralist ontology — one that can resonate with both religious and secular perspectives, as you initially proposed.
Want to Go Deeper?
Depending on your interest, we could:
- Reconstruct a Broad-inspired common-sense ontology, tailored for modern dialogue
- Compare Broad’s system with other process ontologies (e.g., Whitehead, Bergson)
- Explore how this ontology supports or challenges scientific realism, phenomenology, or religious experience
Let me know how deep you’d like to go — or if you’d like this turned into a structured philosophical essay or guide.
Get smarter responses, upload files and images, and more.
Log in
Sign up for free