Does science actually explain away religion?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Maze Hatter
Posts: 19
Joined: October 5th, 2013, 1:00 am

Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Maze Hatter »

This seems like it could fit in every category here (epistemology, phil of science, phil of theism, ect) so general it is.

Hope you enjoy.

How the History of Religious Thinking Explains Away the Contemporary Perception of the Superiority of Scientific Thinking

Given two explanations of a phenomenon that have the same explanatory ability, we should choose the one with the fewest necessary assumptions. When that phenomenon is reality itself, it is common for us to be presented with two explanations, one which exists in Nature, and one which exists in God. In such a presentation, the naturalist claims their worldview and the processes that lead to it are fundamentally different from those of the theist. The truth of that claim is examined in this paper from a third perspective, that of the pantheist, which is found to be a more general worldview that explains away a great many of the claims and ideas associated with a scientific culture. This conclusion is reached after showing that the processes and worldview of a naturalist are not conceptually different from a theist's in a fundamental sense, but differ in the cultural labels applied to various parts of the worldviews and also in the available technologies used as metaphors in the explanations.

How ideas change in science versus religion has been stated many ways, the bluntest being "science changes when the evidence changes, and religion is dogmatic." Let's compare that claim to history. We have the benefit of learning about major revolutions in science a hundred years or more after the fact, so it might be tempting to think these things happen quickly. But that's not how it really happens. Quantum mechanics for example, did not win over the world by its opponents being won over with evidence, but, according to Max Planck, "rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." As for religion being static, religion continues to evolve to this day as new generations assimilate the knowledge passed down to them against the backdrop of their contemporary problems, including the influence of other cultures. The empirically accurate model for explaining how scientific and religious thinking changes over time is not that science achieves the ideal of objectivity while religion is confined to stone tablets, but that both follow a single theory known as memetics that views ideas and other units of culture as replicators subjected to selection.

As for the differences in worldviews of the theist and the naturalist, let's compare them side by side. The theist proposes God is the foundation of existence, it has no cause or creator, and everything we observe including ourselves is caused by God. The naturalist proposes Nature to be the foundation of existence, it needs no cause or creator, and everything we observe follows its unbreakable and inescapable laws. The pantheist says God or Nature, it's the same thing, although a naturalist would object to that. A prominent advocate of naturalism, Dr. Sean Carroll often defines naturalism as the worldview of one world that is empirically examined. One world does sound like fewer assumptions than the theists model. But Carroll also says the fundamental level of that world is different than the level of our everyday experience. He admits in many places the need for various levels. In Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics which Carroll prefers, the underlying wave function is the Multiverse and our empirical reality is a universe of measurements that happen within. Even ignoring the branching of the observer-states that causes many worlds, there are two distinct domains, a Multiverse and a universe, the wave function and an observer's records of measurements made of the wave function from within. The contemporary naturalist may aim to provide a worldview with less assumptions than is required by the theist's model, but the assumption that a new level is provided by an observer cannot be avoided. At no time in history has science ever actually produced or advocated a single level metaphysics that is profoundly different than theism, be it Newton's original absolute and relative natures, Einstein telling Bohr "God does not play dice" and Bohr responding "Don't tell God what to do!", or Everett attempting to derive the relative state of the model by placing modeled observers in it.

Since there are not actually two explanations to choose from, merely different sets of labels that apply to the same general picture, Occam's Razor is not needed to select between the naturalist and the theist. The conviction of advocates of naturalism that their labels are superior and should be used exclusively by all then can be explained away as routine memetic behavior evident in the history of religion instead of introducing special assumptions. Naturalists have not avoided the conflict classically attributed to religions over what the basis of existence is called; they are instead the latest culture in that battle to assert their labels as supreme. The broader conclusions are that whether one prefers to say a model is an approximation of Nature, or God, or Brahman, or Tao is really a connection for the individual to make to their cultural identity. The ultimate social benefits of naturalism and theism will only be achieved if we set a new standard, where we don't expect others to conform to our cultural preferences; where we spend less time debating what to call the fundamental level of reality, and more time collaborating on the well being of the things in it.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Maze Hatter wrote:Given two explanations of a phenomenon that have the same explanatory ability, we should choose the one with the fewest necessary assumptions. When that phenomenon is reality itself, it is common for us to be presented with two explanations, one which exists in Nature, and one which exists in God. [...] The theist proposes God is the foundation of existence, it has no cause or creator, and everything we observe including ourselves is caused by God. The naturalist proposes Nature to be the foundation of existence, it needs no cause or creator, and everything we observe follows its unbreakable and inescapable laws. The pantheist says God or Nature, it's the same thing, although a naturalist would object to that.
That seems like a false dichotomy fallacy. Moreover, the 'Naturalist' position you describe is not science, and those seems to be yet another fallacy if it is meant to relate to the titular question.

In contrast to the false dichotomy, a different position and one that might most likely be held by those who adhere to the scientific method and Occam's razor would be to conclude that observable parts of nature exist but that one does not know with the same certainty what caused them to exist or whether they have a cause.

That's really the whole point of Occam's razor: to be willing to say "I don't know" about as much as possible and only allow our belief-system and conclusions to assert as little as they need based on the evidence. In other words, if the truth of X vs -X is not indicated either way by the evidence, then Occam's razor says it isn't to be included in our explanation of such evidence if it can be reasonably avoided.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Syamsu
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Syamsu »

Maze Hatter wrote: The conviction of advocates of naturalism that their labels are superior and should be used exclusively by all then can be explained away as routine memetic behavior evident in the history of religion instead of introducing special assumptions. Naturalists have not avoided the conflict classically attributed to religions over what the basis of existence is called; they are instead the latest culture in that battle to assert their labels as supreme. The broader conclusions are that whether one prefers to say a model is an approximation of Nature, or God, or Brahman, or Tao is really a connection for the individual to make to their cultural identity. The ultimate social benefits of naturalism and theism will only be achieved if we set a new standard, where we don't expect others to conform to our cultural preferences; where we spend less time debating what to call the fundamental level of reality, and more time collaborating on the well being of the things in it.
...don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. What scientists / naturalists have, obviously, are facts. What they don't have is opinions.

Naturalists are right to demand that for issues of fact there is only a single correct answer possible, which answer is an exhaustive model of what is evidenced. And generally more or less they have the best answers on issues of fact.

That is entirely different from opinions. With opinions both the answers "the painting is beautiful" and "the painting is ugly" are logically valid. The logical validity of an opinion depends upon that the conclusion is chosen, there must be at least 2 alternatives to choose from in order to form an opinion.

And with horrific ignorance, atheists commonly compete fact against opinion, to the complete destruction of all emotion, enter mr Spock, instead of just accepting both fact and opinion as valid but distinct.

We must just be kind of reasonable which issue is put into the matter of opinion category, and which is put in the matter of fact category. Love, hate, emotions, God, the soul, obviously they all do the job of choosing, and therefore they all belong to the matter of opinion category. Stones, planets, the body and brain, obviously they are all chosen, and therefore belong to the matter of fact category.

Ofcourse we can see that since the universe is created, it could be destroyed and gone too. Then we are left solely with the spiritual domain, the domain that contains all what chooses. No facts whatsoever, only opinion, applies to that scenario. So it is shown that the creation is subservient to the creator.
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Neznac »

Maze Hatter wrote: The broader conclusions are that whether one prefers to say a model is an approximation of Nature, or God, or Brahman, or Tao is really a connection for the individual to make to their cultural identity. The ultimate social benefits of naturalism and theism will only be achieved if we set a new standard, where we don't expect others to conform to our cultural preferences; where we spend less time debating what to call the fundamental level of reality, and more time collaborating on the well being of the things in it.
OK, you seem to be saying that it's all about diffrent narratives, but that no narrative should have a privileged position amongst the alternatives? Have we then learned nothing over the last 300 years? Are we just housing our experiences in different linguistic clothing, but essentially we are just spinning our collective wheels on the hamster-wheel of language?

It seems to me that technology is the proof of the best narrative structure, although admitting that for all intents and purposes there can exist no truly "objective knowledge." I would have to conclude that on some human accomplishments (not saying whether it is a positive or negative result for the species as such) our ability to fly to the moon would certainly never have happened if we relied solely on our prayers to Jehovah. As a species, we could have collectively prayed for thousands of years and would never have actually gotten off the ground. Now if you wish to recast Newton's discoveries concerning motion as "different types of prayer" and to recast Einstein's physics as "a variety of prayer" - then you are essentially destroying the distinctions between narratives, and spinning your tires on a different hamster-wheel?
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Alias »

I have a big problem with the all-too-frequent phrase "explain away". One can explain what is, according to symptomology or body of evidence or experimental data or statistical figures. None of these bases for explanation will make the described phenomenon go away - though they might render other claims regarding that phenomenon less credible.

Science and religion are not two different narratives; they are two different methods of thought; two different ways of apprehending, and relating to, the world.

Science doesn't explain religion. Some sciences shed light on the functioning of the human brain; other sciences describe, quantify and systematize interactions actions of the material universe. No science exists to study religion or any of its realms.

Some religious persons [not religion itself!] have attacked science, considering it an enemy of spirituality or a threat to the power of religious leaders. Their arguments (of which I have read and heard many) tend to be logically unsound and factually incomplete. Some scientists [not science itself!] have taken issue with the power of faith to lead people into irrational, often destructive, activity. Their arguments tend to be closely-reasoned and factual but irrelevant to the stuff of faith. Neither is in any way capable of explaining the other away.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13822
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Belinda »

"No science exists to study religion or any of its realms" wrote Alias. But social anthropology deals with human religious behaviour including beliefs. Psychology and parapsychology deal with human religious attitudes and any evidence that paranormal experiences are veridical. Medicine deals with the pathological fallout of certain religious or magical practices. Art crlticism deals with depictions of religious sentiments. Economics deals with the costs and benefits of religious provision for populations. History which straddles arts and science deals with man's religious past.
Socialist
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Spectrum »

For this purpose, I take religion to be restricted to Abrahamic religions.

A. Science can only explain anything that is empirically possible and within its range & scope of the scientific method & framework. Science will not assure anyone that it can explain away anything but limits its explanatory power to whatever it can observes and tests.

B. The ground of the Abrahamic religions, i.e. god is not observable and testable. Therefore theistic religions are beyond the scope of science. The transcendental idea of 'God' is illusory and thus an impossibility as real knowledge. The most theists can use the idea of God is as an assumption for whatever the purpose.

One will note that it is philosophy-proper that is explaining away Science and Religion by leaving them as inevitably and unavoidably without final answers.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Alias »

Belinda wrote:"No science exists to study religion or any of its realms" wrote Alias. But social anthropology deals with human religious behaviour including beliefs. Psychology and parapsychology deal with human religious attitudes and any evidence that paranormal experiences are veridical. Medicine deals with the pathological fallout of certain religious or magical practices. Art crlticism deals with depictions of religious sentiments. Economics deals with the costs and benefits of religious provision for populations. History which straddles arts and science deals with man's religious past.
Some sciences - well, one might question whether some of those mentioned are sciences at all! (I don't see medicine as dealing with religion when it treats particular injuries or symptoms: medicine deals with the effect, not the motivation. Neurological research is coming close now, but still only in locating the portion of the brain responsible for supernatural belief.) Let's say, rather, that soft sciences describe religious practices and belief systems, or measure the impact tat religious practice has on other aspects of society, as a component of human behaviour. None of them is dedicated to the study of religion as a phenomenon, nor to the specific contents of religious beliefs. The hard sciences don't touch religious issues even peripherally.

In no case has the study of religious practice explained any of it away, nor diminished it by one jot or tittle.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
LogicReasonEvidence
Posts: 33
Joined: November 9th, 2014, 7:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dan Dennett
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by LogicReasonEvidence »

This is pretty simple to address really. Science deals with verifiable assertions, assertions which do not pretend to be 'the final word' or 'above criticism' -merely 'that which can be independently verified'. Nothing more nothing less. Religion on the other hand deals exclusively with claims which cannot be independently verified. Now admittedly that doesn't mean it could not be true, it simply means it deals with assertions which are unprovable. But there lies the problem: If an idea is unprovable, regardless of however many people may believe it, it's virtually worthless because it inhabits a space which cannot be accessed in any useful way.

For example, Christians assert Jesus Christ was the son of their god & is the only means of attaining salvation but Muslims do not believe this & neither do Jews. So who -if anyone, is right? There is absolutely no reliable way to find out while you are alive. Yes there certainly are ways of feeling as if you know the claim is true: by faith for example, but faith in a different religion can & does produce certainty in the minds of Muslims & Jews who also feel sure this is not the case so ultimately nothing better than opinion is generated in diametrically opposing camps, both of whom claim to know the other is wrong.

So does science 'explain away' religion? Well if you expect science to pretend to be all knowing somehow, no it doesn't. It simply deals with areas where it can give demonstrable, testable answers. But religion explains nothing at all, it merely claims to do so without any inclination to feel obliged to offer independently verifiable evidence. As Christopher Hitchens rightly said: "arguments that explain everything...explain nothing."
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Quotidian »

Maze Hatter wrote:The naturalist proposes Nature to be the foundation of existence, it needs no cause or creator, and everything we observe follows its unbreakable and inescapable laws.
However, naturalism doesn't explain what 'natural laws' are or why they exist. Indeed, it doesn't have to explain them; it assumes them, which is why it is called 'naturalism'.

And despite the best efforts of naturalism, nature does not seem self-explanatory in any easy or obvious way; that is to say, naturalism hasn't found anything which seems to serve as an explanation for all of the variety of phenomena in the Universe, in a way analogous to the notion of 'God'. At one stage 'the atom' was presumed to be that, but it has to all intents been dissolved. Now in physical cosmology, there is a crisis, or many crises, with some physicists advocating Everett's 'many world's' thesis, or the so-called 'cosmic landscape' which speculates about the existence of 10500 universes which can't even in principle ever be perceived. (Take that, Occam!) You seem to acknowledge these problems only to brush them off.

The problem is that many advocates of naturalism have little insight into what they're criticizing - they understand 'God' as a kind of failed scientific hypothesis, a theory that didn't work out. Maybe there are some religious believers who understand it that way also, but I think they're in a minority. The notion of 'God' is not an explanation at all, in the naturalistic sense; that whole line of thought came about from medieval scientists who tried to relate their discoveries to 'God's handiwork'. In fact, history will show you that Christian philosophy had a seminal role in the development of scientific naturalism; but the notion that nature's laws directly prove or establish God's existence, is a misconception (which is described in detail in Karen Armstrong's 2009 A Case for God, not, incidentally, a book of apologetics.)

And finally your conclusion has no relationship to your premisses.

But, your grammar and syntax are fine.

I'll leave you with another quote from Max Planck:
Max Planck wrote:As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
From Wiki Quotes.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Theophane »

Yes, but only after becoming what it seeks to explain away. Unless it becomes an irrational, dogmatic worldview in and of itself, science cannot do this completely.

-- Updated November 15th, 2014, 12:14 pm to add the following --

Yes, but only after becoming what it seeks to explain away. Unless it becomes an irrational, dogmatic worldview in and of itself, science cannot do this completely.
User avatar
Wolf-J-kom
Posts: 44
Joined: October 19th, 2014, 8:24 pm

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Wolf-J-kom »

Stripping religious philosophy to its bare essentials; religions and the existence of God, or gods is based on the innate sense of the subconscious/superconscious mind. As humanity got to know more and more about itself and the universe, the importance of religion decreased. Both religion and science possess an immense amount quantum or spiritual energy; whichever you prefer. As science and knowledge increase, there is a relative decrease of need for gods.
User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Quotidian »

The other thing that bugs me about 'naturalism' is the lurking idea that 'whatever it is that is real, it must be something which us white-coated experts can fathom'; it has to make sense regarding such-and-such a 'scientific theory'. Even though scientists say they are open to new ideas, there are many ideas which are considered 'pseudo-science' or 'anti-science' even before they are considered at any length. Basically it will always comes down to the insistance that sense-experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of data obtained by sense-experience, provides the exclusive source of all authentic knowledge.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan
Logicus
Posts: 865
Joined: September 20th, 2012, 10:22 pm

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by Logicus »

Actually, as I understand it, those who espoused the physical world and its perceived laws as the only source of authentic knowledge were called "naturalists", and their philosophy "naturalism". The definition of naturalism is in no way different than the definition of science:

Naturalism is "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe; that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

Those we used to call naturalists are now called scientists. The term naturalist now seems to refer to those who study the biological aspects of the world. Yet naturalism, as a philosophy, retains its original meaning. Just a point of interest.

Science is a method of examining the world and attempting to describe it universal terms. It is not a belief system, and is not concerned with religious matters. The idea that scientists have not found God anywhere they have looked, and therefore He does not exist, is a fundamentalist atheist view - and that is a belief system. It should be noted that not all scientists are atheists, but all atheists invoke science as an anti-religious doctrine. I have a book somewhere by David Berlinski called "The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions". It's an entertaining read.
AB1OB
Posts: 244
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: Does science actually explain away religion?

Post by AB1OB »

Religion stated out as a explanation for existence. Since in man's mind, everything has a cause. As other methods of exploration pointed out inconsistencies with religions, they refused to change, unless forced...so over time there became a chasm between the 2.

Religion doesn't understand God (as the interconnected totality of existence). Not personal enough.

Science doesn't recognize God (as the interconnected totality of existence). Not objective enough.

They are both wrong.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021