Schools of thought are defined by the sources that they trust.
For example, consider:
(H.1) The Bible is the undistorted word of God.
The propositions of Christianity for the most part follow from (H.1). (H.1) is therefore a “cornerstone proposition.” Accept (H.1), and most of Christianity comes along with it. It provides footing for all of the other propositions of Christianity.
It is possible to formulate a similar cornerstone proposition for the Ra material:
(H.2) The Ra material was communicated by an entity with nearly perfect knowledge of the universe, and this entity did not tell any lies.
(H.1) and (H.2), besides being cornerstone propositions, are also “trust propositions.” They say, in effect, “I trust X.”
We can give further examples of cornerstone trust propositions:
(H.3) The propositions of mathematics are sound.
(H.4) The Buddha was a witness to the true nature of things.
(H.5) String theory is on the right track.
There are also trust propositions which are not cornerstone propositions. An example of such a proposition would be, “I trust my friend Dave.”
There are also cornerstone propositions which are not trust propositions. Mathematical axioms are such propositions.
I suggest that most schools of thought are defined by characteristic cornerstone trust propositions. Each school of thought is defined by one or more sources upon which it uniquely draws, and upon which it bases its characteristic beliefs. I now suggest pairings of schools of thought with sources:
Science : reason and sense data
Philosophy : reason
Christianity : Jesus Christ
Islam : Mohammed
Hinduism : the holy men of India
Buddhism : the Buddha
It may be that many of our differences in beliefs can be accounted for by differences in our cornerstone trust propositions. In other words, we differ in what we believe because we differ in the sources that we trust.