At the beginning of this thread, I asked people to use the Socratic method of inquiry, when replying. I understand that people can use whatever they like, but what results is a closing of the conversation. If you want to use Socrates' technique, simply interlace your replies with tentative answers and questions. No true philosophical argument can be firm, end-all, bottom line. As Socrates once said, famously, "I only know that I don't know anything."
The meaning of philos is love, though it has to be considered that love has many different meanings in Greek; and sophy means knowledge. Philosophy is about seeking knowledge, and, if truth did not come into play, there would not be so many different approaches, and such an open atmosphere, when it comes to the creation of new ones. It's also contradictory to claim that philosophy is about seeking out one unified way of thinking and then also claim that philosophy is about critical thinking. The truth is that there are lots of approaches, taken by different philosophers.
As for philosophy and spirituality, there are a number of different schools, and a number of different thinkers, that are involved in spiritual inquiry, including many Christian philosophers: Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Francis of Assissi, and many others, that argue for proof of God's existence or discuss God's nature. Most religions, in fact, involve some sort of philosophy, a way of looking at things: they say love is like that, man is like that, parents, women, animals, etc. I know that JWs always harp on about philosophy being negative, without even knowing what it means, but it's actually healthy to think critically, not that all philosophers do (most don't), as opposed to what's unhealthy: thinking cynically.
