Okay, physics or metaphysics (reality or ideality), but you can have them merely together. It is not possible for humans to have one of them without the other. And if someone dictates to beleive in only one of the two, then all those who do not believe in that one are going to be killed or live in prison or in madhouses - the same procedure as every time. Do you not have a better idea?
Why yes, I do agree with you on the unification of physics and metaphysics. However, what I am talking of is that Truth is to be truly found by individual means, which gets back to my point that trying to come up with the ‘sycretic religion’ will result really in more conflicts, concerning ideas of what it may be.
Then again, perhaps this conflict is what will bring the collective to the Truth; perhaps just as long as there are truly seeking individuals willing to keep peace rather than sustain differences. I’m just considering the possibility of mob mentallity here, and how that functions as part of conflicts and seeking dominance over earnest seeking of Truth.
Yes, probably the syncretistic religion will result really in more conflicts. We have three main possibilities: (1) the tradition, (2) the mix or syncretetism, (3) a new kind of religion or spiritual exercises. The other “possibilities” are merely a part of the three main possibilities.
Do you have any idea or suggestion?
Should the question read: will we get “one” unified syncretistic religion?
The original question cannot be voted on as we already have many.
Here’s are some ideas.
- Belief in the Absolute
- Belief in the universal morals
- The openess to have freedom to think for oneself
Depends who ‘we’ is. But most people already have a syncretistic religion. They mix physicalism, dualism, ideas with transcendent features with monisms that preclude this, strange contradictory mixtures of ideas of the self - which can be seen in changes during the day in how the self is constituted through language. Most religious people in the west have incorporated ideas from psychology and science and are even influenced by other religions via ideas entering the mainstream from these and filtering back through ‘common sense’ and pop psychology and so on into their habits.
Would you mind adding words to your illustration?
B.t.w.: Happy new year, James!
I was kind of hoping that the pictures would be sufficient.
And Happy New Years to thee as well. 
Basically, the picts are depicting (not through any scientific statistical analysis) that with each new religion, a period of cooperation and social gathering arises but then peaks. As that religion becomes less hope inspiring, a new religion springs up. For a short period there is strong contention between them that fades down but still adds to the next religion. Through time, the total amount of contention keeps growing simply because the degree of entropic particlisation is always increasing (the old doesn’t go away but merely becomes a contentious smaller portion of the whole = entropy).
That situation must continue until someone finally properly/accurately resolves the entire issue of contention. That is what I refer to as the “Right Religion”, “RR”.
But the way of homosapian is that agreement (aka. cooperation) is not sought or revered until substantially yearn for due to excessive contention. Thus the contention must become an extreme (eg. “dooms day”, “apocalypse”) before the answer to proper cooperation and the RR is ever truly sought by enough people to solidify it as a religion.
Once that event occurs, like all before it, the RR contends with all prior religions (including Science) simultaneously, bringing the contention to that extreme. But because it actually does handle contention properly, conversion is inherent, the other religions cannot compete with such extreme contention, the other religions fade away, and the contention then fades out once and for all.
It’s simple.
The pictures are sufficient, yes. But sometimes one has to make sure something.
Let’s have an interim result for the question: „Will we get a syncretistic religion?
We have 67% for „yes“, 22% for „no“, and 11% for „I don’t know“.
Please vote!
I cannot vote as we already have many. This option was not available.
Oh, yes, that option is available. It is the option “no”, because the option “no” also means (for example): “no, we will not get a syncretistic religion because we already have many”. Another point is that the question “will we get” a syncretistic religion?" means: “will we all get one syncretistic religion?”. So I don’t mean merely the Occidental humans but all humans, and I don’t mean a syncretistic religion among other syncretistic religions but only one syncretistic religion, although it is - of course - possible to have also other syncretistic religions included.
So again, Jr Wells: Will we ( as all humans) get one (and only one - thus: regardless, whether there are more syncretistic religions or not) syncretistic religion?
In that case, I voted no.
Brahmanism /Hinduisms, Buddhism, Jainism and others are syncretistic religions or metaphysics (philosophies); and Judaism, Christianity, Islam are - more or less - also syncretiistic religions: Judaism because of the Babylonian / Persian (cp. Parsee, Zoroastrianism), Egyptian, and Ancient Greek (cp. especially Platonism and Stoicism) forms, Christianity because of Judaism (see there), Manichaeism which is also Persian (see there), and Neoplatonism which is also Ancient Greek (sse there), Islam because of Judaism (see there) and Christianity (see there). Beside this famous religions we have also not so famous religions which are also - more or less - syncretistic religions. So you are right when you say that “we already have many” syncretistic religions. But if we consider all aspects, we have to say that they are also not syncretistic religions, because they have developed their own forms too. And in some cases we have to say that all religions are syncretistic religions, because they all trace back to one primeval religion (primitive religion), the first religion.
“Will we get a syncretistic religion?” as the title of this thread postulates “singly” religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not; so the question means whether all this “singly” religions will lead to merely one syncretistic religion.
So all we need is one non believer and the answer becomes no.
No. The answer is “no”, if somebody says that we will not get a syncretistic religion. So the “no”-sayer does not have to be a non-believer. Both “yes”-sayers and “no”-sayers have only to have plausible arguments. 
I mean, in say 1 million years time, when we have one religion left and all 3 Bazingallion humans on Earth and Mars believe in it… Except one (he believes in something else). Then we don’t have a syncretistic religion.
I know what you mean. But what does that have to do with the question as title of this thread? It postulates „singly“ religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not! If someone believes in something else, then that does not necessarily mean that this one can prevent that the other believers will not get a syncretistic religion. This single, and probably lonely, one believer does not represent a religious community. You know what I mean?
Okay, instead of “we all” I should have said “most of us”. But therefore I have a counterquestion: Would you avoid the words “manhood”, “mankind”, “humankind”, “humanity” just because of the fact that there are some people who do not believe in “manhood”, “mankind”, “humankind”, “humanity”?
Q: Is there allowed to be non-believers in a syncretistic religion?
A: Yes, but “most” need to be believers in that religion for it to be syncretistic.
Q: Can we have more than one syncretistic religion?
A: No it must be one and only one
There will always be people who deviate from the norm.
This deviation will not allow “perfect” syncretistic religions to form as these people will be excluded.