"Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum,
The root of religions as I have claimed are the ultimate and proximate causes within the brain and DNA. The proximate causes of religion is that subliminal terror of doom in the depth on the human psyche linked to fears and expressed as angst. [not normal conscious fears - a separate subject].
I don't quite understand the nature of your claim, what school of thought are you applying? Your claim seems physiological rather than psychosocial based upon what you say here. In my experience, religion is usually analysed through a psychosocial lens. If you're claiming that there's a physiological root cause for religious belief then I think your going to have to be very specific, and support your claim with some evidence. Reason alone isn't enough to confirm (or deny) what you're saying IMO, hence your claim seems unfalsifiable (I could be wrong though). There could be a physiological cause for religious beliefs, but without evidence we can't confirm it, however we can speculate. I think that “subliminal fears” (if they exist) could result in a number of reactions depending upon the individual. Also do subliminal fears exist? Aren't fears associated with the conscious mind? Perhaps a clear definition of the terms you're using would provide further clarification – what would you define as “subliminal terror of doom” and how is this expressed as angst? Also what level of consciousness are you dealing with and how does this relate to religious beliefs?
If we get rid of the proximate root causes of religion, then there will be no subliminal psychological angst to drive humans towards religion [theistic and non-theistic].

If the root cause of religion is “proximate causes within the brain and DNA” and you propose that we “get rid of it” by “managing and controlling all the neurons involved” I think this may be problematic for a couple of reasons at least. Firstly, there's no technology (I'm aware of) that would enable us to do so. So you'd (currently) be suggesting that we use psychological techniques to resolve a physiological problem – like trying to treat a cold with classical conditioning. Secondly, you seem to be ignoring (or downplaying the importance and depth) of some of the facts, such as religious beliefs being caused by psychosocial factors. As much as you claim that this is a “surface factor” I think that in-depth analysis of someone with religious beliefs, would reveal that psychosocial causes for religion exist all the way through to the subconscious mind. Once again, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I do question some of your reasoning and methodology. I agree that the fear of death can be a cause of religious beliefs, I don't think anyone would argue with you on that point, but it certainly isn't (IMO) the only cause of religious beliefs, and it is questionable if it is the primary cause of religious beliefs. Attempting to isolate the primary cause of religious beliefs is a very difficult prospect (nobel prize worthy!), I don't think that science could do such a thing (as it hasn't yet as far as I'm aware) and I don't think that a philosophical consensus could be reached on the question, as we're not dealing with a tangible entity.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:It is odd! You have reveled your definition of religion though as being built upon this "existential crisis". From there you extend it into fear of death.
....
Nah, not extending into fear of death.
I have explained before, the existential crisis [doom, etc.] is a culmination and resultant of a few variables, e.g. survival drive + avoidance of threats of premature death linking to subliminal fears + consciousness + etc.

The advent of organized religions arose when the drive of the existential crisis or doom combine with the human drive for social groupings and the need for greater efficiency of transmitting the message. Later the abuses and exploitation of the organized religion for personal, financial and political arose. These are the intermediary and secondary factors, they are not the proximate causes.

-- Updated Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:21 pm to add the following --

@Fanman
Fanman wrote:Your claim seems physiological rather than psychosocial based upon what you say here. In my experience, religion is usually analysed through a psychosocial lens. If you're claiming that there's a physiological root cause for religious belief then I think your going to have to be very specific, and support your claim with some evidence.

If the root cause of religion is “proximate causes within the brain and DNA” and you propose that we “get rid of it” by “managing and controlling all the neurons involved” I think this may be problematic for a couple of reasons at least. Firstly, there's no technology (I'm aware of) that would enable us to do so. So you'd (currently) be suggesting that we use psychological techniques to resolve a physiological problem – like trying to treat a cold with classical conditioning.
I claimed the basis of religion is physiological and psychosocial.
As mentioned above the resultant of the existential crisis, dilemma or doom is a culmination of a few variables which are conditioned upon the DNA and not based 'nurture' [e.g. social] factors.
What I implied is we must understand the involvement of the DNA but I did not suggest we tweak the DNA [not now, maybe in 200 years' time].
What I suggested is to develop inhibitors [like dams] to manage [impulse controls] the very powerful and terrible impulses of the existential crisis.
It is not difficult to cultivate impulse controls through consistent conditionings, e.g. hunger, sex, various addictions, urges, etc.
As for religion and theism we need to understand the machinery involve and developing the right and effective means to manage and modulate the religious and theistic drives.

I am merely touching on the tips of icebergs here [which is sufficient for this forum] and not getting into the complex details, that would take too much time.
Fanman wrote: Secondly, you seem to be ignoring (or downplaying the importance and depth) of some of the facts, such as religious beliefs being caused by psychosocial factors. As much as you claim that this is a “surface factor” I think that in-depth analysis of someone with religious beliefs, would reveal that psychosocial causes for religion exist all the way through to the subconscious mind. Once again, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I do question some of your reasoning and methodology. I agree that the fear of death can be a cause of religious beliefs, I don't think anyone would argue with you on that point, but it certainly isn't (IMO) the only cause of religious beliefs, and it is questionable if it is the primary cause of religious beliefs. Attempting to isolate the primary cause of religious beliefs is a very difficult prospect (nobel prize worthy!), I don't think that science could do such a thing (as it hasn't yet as far as I'm aware) and I don't think that a philosophical consensus could be reached on the question, as we're not dealing with a tangible entity.
In terms of psycho- factors there are two types, i.e.
  • 1. Neuro-psychological - Nature
    2. Psycho-social - Nurture
In terms of religions there are also two factors to consider, i.e.

1. Proto-religions
2. Modern organized religions.

Note my earlier post where I stated the advent of organized religion arose as a secondary factor to its primary proximate cause.

Analogy:
1. DNA wise, ALL humans has a natural fear [wariness] of the dark and ghosts.
2. A percentile [%] of humans [as individuals] have a very active fears and interests in the subject of ghosts.
3. In time these individuals with the above common active fears and interests will gather together and inevitably they will organized into separate groups or one large international group.
4. The above social phenomenon is very natural and occurs in all human interests & activities.
5. This social factor of getting into groups or organization is different from fear of ghosts.

In all human groupings and organization there is always one fundamental cause that drove them together, in the above analogy is the fear of ghosts.

It is the same for organized religions, there is a proximate cause that drove them into forming organizations and social activities. That proximate cause is that terrible existential crisis, doom that is pulsating subliminally from the deepest basement of the human psyche.

The emotion of fear [of various degrees] is felt at the level of the conscious mind. But there is a whole system of sub-systems of activities stretching deep into the subconscious mind that enable the conscious feeling of fears.

Nobel Prize? I wish so but this subject [not a novelty] has already been raised by many.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Burning ghost »

What we can see from "primitive" animistic tribes is that they understand things like "illnesses" as being given by "spirits". They respect the dead, but don't really go in depth talking about the dead and would rather forget them (out of "respect".)

I don't really think it is right to say they "fear ghosts/spirits", they simply accept that some times bad things happen and they attribute this to some "spirit". They don't attribute the term "spirit" as we do in our modern conception. For them, quite often, "spirits" only exist in a physical form through a "tree" an "animal" or such. There is also evidence to suggest they don't see their "spirit" as a bodily thing, to them the "spirit" is more like our modern concept of "nature". For many tribes the concept of "nature" doesn't exist, they are part of it. For our modern world view we see "view" nature, not literally as external to us, but by setting up the concept we achieve this in an abstract way (we abstract the nature from existence in a very bizarre way). In this sense "nature" if named becomes "other". This is something like the principle of these primitive tribes. Their reality makes no rigid conceptual distinction between the idea of say "a tree" and an actual "physical tree".

Religion has necessarily sprung forth from the separation of experience from thought through language, from here dualism was born and religious concepts with them.

Or if you're taking another philosophical approach you could argue that "dualism" has always existed. I don't see how this would work though considering it seems quite necessary to me to establish a reasonably intricate communal language with non-dualistic properties prior to revealing an idea of "dualism"? Could we really say that some "pre-lingual" concept of dualism existed? If so we are then saying something along the lines of belief and religion (in its base form) being an innate quality of humanity.

This is a tricky area and one many an anthropologist will warn against reading too much into. The term "spirit" has a very specific meaning in the modern world and for me, and all English speakers, is very much part of the English language with its "religious" background. For the primitive tribes people of the world, and pre-historic peoples, it may be more appropriate to view the concept of "spirit" as being used in a more everyday sense like when we talk about "spirit" meaning a general "attitude" or "feeling". We all understand what a "stressful atmosphere" and this could quite easily be interpreted by some alien culture as referring to some stress inducing entity.

Just to add there are good and bad "spirits". Not all "spirits" are by any means feared. This is the general modern day equivalent of the angel and the demon, and again in the not so recent past we can see these concepts as having a dualistic nature. The Hindu deities are quite clearly imbued with dualistic qualities both in physical form and in relation to ideas, such as "death". Death is a concept both feared and welcomed in many traditions. People generally understand that the good and the bad go hand in hand and that the means of use determines the outcome. If an outcome is good, it is a/in good "spirit", and if bad, it is a/in bad "spirit".

Tangent time (ignore if you wish I will, short of deleting!):

Ethically there is the issue of manipulating these very human feelings. Right now people are researching religious experiences and trying to find how to use this knowledge for good and bad.

I ahev had a certain "peak" experience and I can say quite clearly it is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. People in such a state are possibly open to extreme manipulation (we can see this obviously taken on in brainwashing mentally impoverished individuals into doing the most obscene acts of violence today.) The more we understand it I can pretty much guarantee that the more, not less, violence we'll see. That is unless we can protect youth from exposure (which we cannot without becoming that which we wish to destroy). Certainly not an modern problem in society, but, and this is the hopeful part, a more widely understood problem.

Looks like I've gone into tangentville ... sorry :P
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 15005
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Sy Borg »

An excellent and interesting tangent too, BG. I especially enjoyed the parsing of different cultures' ideas of what spirits are. If "spirit" is thought of as "a feeling" then I imagine there will be many people in the future who will evoke similar feelings in others to any of us. As such, we are in a sense all approximately reincarnated.

The particular "feelings" that we are and evoke will remain (approximate) potentials for as long as mass humanity continues. In that sense, reincarnation is not only logical but inevitable, but seemingly not this particular "I". Prospects for this particular self don't logically look bright. Still, it's clear that many humans retain the hope that there's still something essential going on with reality that we have not yet scientifically understood. It's far from an unreasonable hope.

Theists believe that the ancients had greater intuition, abilities we moderns have lost. No doubt they did have more intuition than we do; in lieu of information, all one can do is intuit. Did they intuit a deity at the heart of reality that modern thinkers are too blinkered to perceive? Maybe.

Still, regarding the relationship between science and religion, it would be illogical to not take seriously the ever-shrinking "God of the gaps" over the last few hundred years. Each posited instance of God was found not to exist. So now we have a blend of "sophisticated theists" who take God to be an abstraction that is ostensibly safe from scientific debunking, eg. God is either love or the ground of existence. I find this pantheistic approach far preferable to those who embrace unreason, choosing to ignore the science completely and create their own communal ideological blocs. One could say that it was smart for unintelligent and unread people not to compete with their brighter peers on their own turf, but to create an arena where they could be influential and important. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

I suppose fundamentalists and literalists are saying that, for them, emotion is more valuable than reason. That is true too - in the short term and in projects of passion. Emotionality not tempered by logic and reason may be empowering as a form of intimidation, eg. prison bullies tend to avoid "mad dog" inmates, the fear evoked by the wild behaviour of Islamic fundamentalists.

However, embracing emotion and tradition over reason and advancement always finishes with endless incident handling and spiralling recriminations, without ever being logical and reasonable, and trying actually solve problems rather than continually "put out spot fires". That's why, as adults, we "leave behind childish things" and stop being slaves to our emotions. Ditto entire societies. Those cultures and subcultures that remain mired in immature emotionality at the expense of reason will fail to compete with the logical and reasonable, and will provide a far, far worse standard of living for their people.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:What we can see from "primitive" animistic tribes is that they understand things like "illnesses" as being given by "spirits". They respect the dead, but don't really go in depth talking about the dead and would rather forget them (out of "respect".)

I don't really think it is right to say they "fear ghosts/spirits", they simply accept that some times bad things happen and they attribute this to some "spirit". They don't attribute the term "spirit" as we do in our modern conception.
"Spirit" is another very loose term so context is critical.

My analogy of 'fearing ghost' is example of how a common experience can lead individuals [being social animals] to get together into groups and organization. The common experiences and subject can be sex, politics, hobbies, illnesses, etc.
My point is the organization element is secondary, what is primary is the common cause that bring them together.
So religious organizations are a secondary factor, the primary is that 'existential crisis' within that is common in the majority that lead them to form religious organization, sects, groups, etc.

Btw, I have highlighted in here http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 72#p288572
it is abnormal for people to be seriously conscious of death all or most the time. Such a person would need psychiatric help to deal with the THANATOPHOBIA.
Death is to be feared but fortunately nature has an algorithm in the brain to inhibit and suppress such an impulse.
Problem is nature as always is never perfect and thus there are leakages which combine with other neural programs to create an resultant existential crisis, dilemma or doom_ness.

Death with a fear factor is a big issue as proven by the very big pyramids and large tombs in many parts of the world that are link to thousands of years ago. These reflect the seriously of the afterlife and immortality.

-- Updated Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:31 am to add the following --

@Burning Ghost
Burning Ghost wrote:That aside I have seen no "Fear of Death", nor mention of death, in any Far Eastern text ..
...
The I Ching also doesn't mention death and although it is not exactly a religious text, it is a significant part of Eastern cultural traditions.
The same can be said of the Tao Te Ching too. It is not considered "religious" yet Daoism/Taoism and Confucianism are considered as "religions", albeit religions without any mention of an afterlife or of a deity. They are not "Theisms", any more than the modern religion of the Jedi is.
My thesis is the central motivator of all the MAJOR religions is related to death, the related existential crisis, its subliminal fear of death and the resulting angst.

By the 7 dimensions of Ninian Smart,
Confucianism is not a religion per-se but it is [wrongly] considered a religion by many.
Taoism is classified as a religion.
You doubted Taoism has any thing to do with death and its related fears, note this;
Daoism (or Taoism) is both a religion and a philosophy. The religion mixed magic, alchemy and shamanism with the search for immortality, while the philosophy was born with the collection of aphorisms, anecdotes and stories known as the Zhuangzi (Chuang-Tzu) in about 320BCE and the epigrammatic poem the Daode-jing (Tao Te Ching) – probably collectively authored but given the named authorship of Laozi (Lao Tzu) – around 250BCE. The two books are both literary masterpieces and well worth reading for the quality of their writing.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/27/Dea ... st_Thought
If you do further research on Taoism, you will note it does mention death in its various texts.
One of the major consolation of the fears related to mortality is the assurance that a practitioners of Taoism will merge with the Tao [return] and thus a hope of immortality.

I have done extensive research on the major religions and I know they are reducible to the proximate cause of the existential crisis culminating from primordial fears and other variables. It is the same for most of the cults and other smaller & older proto religions.
There are some very small groups which focus on fertility and sex, they are not significant and I would not consider them as religious.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Atreyu »

That is basically correct.

You could view the goal of all religions as being "attaining immortality", although immortality should not be taken as keeping the physical body functioning eternally. In the context of religion, "immortality" means the continuation of the psyche (a man's awareness, his thoughts and feelings, his identity) after the death of the physical body. The idea here being that a man's psyche can separate from the physical body at death intact, whole, and complete, just as it was when it was associated with the physical body....
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 15005
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Sy Borg »

Atreyu wrote:That is basically correct.

You could view the goal of all religions as being "attaining immortality", although immortality should not be taken as keeping the physical body functioning eternally. In the context of religion, "immortality" means the continuation of the psyche (a man's awareness, his thoughts and feelings, his identity) after the death of the physical body. The idea here being that a man's psyche can separate from the physical body at death intact, whole, and complete, just as it was when it was associated with the physical body....
It's an issue given that the "I" of today is not that of five years before, nor five years before that, and so on.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -
My thesis is the central motivator of all the MAJOR religions is related to death ...
It their modern forms, it is undeniable that death is topic of focus for religions. Empathy is also a major topic.

As for general existential crisis, what religion seems to do is cover up the problem rather than address it. People do often compare religious doctrines with philosophical doctrines. There is something in this. Both religion and philosophy attempt to approach and answer existential questions we employ. What religion does is not knowing about the future is regard it as existing under some rule or law of nature called god. Philosophy, employing logic, understands the flaw of such assumptions.

note: I don't buy that people in the East would attribute death as a major theme of Daoism.
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -
My thesis is the central motivator of all the MAJOR religions is related to death ...
It their modern forms, it is undeniable that death is topic of focus for religions. Empathy is also a major topic.

As for general existential crisis, what religion seems to do is cover up the problem rather than address it. People do often compare religious doctrines with philosophical doctrines. There is something in this. Both religion and philosophy attempt to approach and answer existential questions we employ. What religion does is not knowing about the future is regard it as existing under some rule or law of nature called god. Philosophy, employing logic, understands the flaw of such assumptions.

note: I don't buy that people in the East would attribute death as a major theme of Daoism.
You still miss my main points.

One of the main point is the most effective problem solving technique is to find out the proximate root cause and deal with at that level so as to avoid fire-fighting.

There are loads of terrible evils and problems relating to religions since they first emerged onto human consciousness and society.

My thesis is the central motivator [the proximate root cause] of all the MAJOR religions is related to death, i.e. the existential crisis.

Of course empathy in religion and anywhere is critical but empathy [for the majority] cannot be effective until the hindering proximate root causes for religious evils are uncovered and dealt with.
As for general existential crisis, what religion seems to do is cover up the problem rather than address it.
It is not religion that is deliberately covering up the problem of the existential crisis. It is rather that Nature MUST cover and suppress the existential crisis so that it does not hinder other human activities to preserve the species.
As I had said nature often do not do a perfect job and thus there are leakages and these leakages [angst, etc.] are dealt with by religions.

The problem is religions are double-edge tools and they have the side effects of generating terrible evils and violence.

Therefore to deal with this terrible evils and violence, humanity must trace them to its proximate root causes which is represented within my thesis subjected to be supported and proven.
Both religion and philosophy attempt to approach and answer existential questions we employ. What religion does is not knowing about the future is regard it as existing under some rule or law of nature called god. Philosophy, employing logic, understands the flaw of such assumptions.
The problem is some religions while dealing with the existential crisis exacerbated the problem by focusing to much of the fear factor.
I believe the most effective approach is to use Philosophy-Proper [relying on all sources of knowledge] to deal with this terrible problem.

So far I see Buddhism is most effective because it use the proximate root cause method, i.e. the Four Noble Truth and Noble 8 Fold Path which are very extensive and comprehensive.

The Four Noble Truth Problem Solving Technique;
  • 1. There is dukkha [existential crisis, evils, violence, etc. to be defined]
    2. There is the proximate root cause of dukkha
    3. There is a solution to the problem of dukkha
    4. The solution is the Noble 8 Fold Path
There is a control point to the above, i.e.
  • 5. Is dukkha reduced?
    6. If No, go to 1
see this: 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... ng#p105207

The above is a generic problem solving technique used by many to diagnose with intention to resolve the problem at the root level, note a medical diagnosis of an illness using the above model and cycling tru it.
So there a cycle of continuous improvement with the above model.
The outline of the model looks very simple but the details are very complex.

From this perspective Buddhism is more of a philosophy-proper than a religion. Buddhism is a religion at the very lay-Buddhist level and the present.

Your problem is somehow you just cannot understand the criticalness of solving problems at the proximate root cause level is more effective than fire-fighting the problem.
Any one else disagree/agree on this need for proximate root cause analysis?

Yes, the major theme of Taoism is not related to death. As I had said, the death factor must be suppressed at the conscious level. If it is not suppressed properly in a person it is actually a mental problem [thanotophobia] that require psychiatric help.
But the underlying proximate root cause of how Taoism emerged as a philosophy and also a religion is due the subliminal pulsating existential crisis as I had explained above.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -
One of the main point is the most effective problem solving technique is to find out the proximate root cause and deal with at that level so as to avoid fire-fighting.

...

My thesis is the central motivator [the proximate root cause] of all the MAJOR religions is related to death, i.e. the existential crisis.
I don't understand the first sentence.

If you are suggesting we have existential crisis because we fear death I openly refute this. I am thinking you may be equating existential crisis with death, which is simply a mistake on your part not mine.

From a philosophical perspective we don't tend to move onto evolutionary biology as philosophical means to deal with this question. We stick to philosophy and view the issue of dualism and the mind/body problem so commonly held up to modern focus. What is apparent here is that physical representation does not fulfill us with a sense of "meaning" and "purpose". Further more, if anything, I think we likely conclude that the question of "meaning" and "purpose" in regard to life is a very dangerous/irrational question. The value of life is subjective. What religion does, in a general sense, is covers over the gap that physical science avoids completely (necessarily so). The "feeling" is the realm of religious doctrine. Here the application of philosophical reason paves the way too and we can an obvious cross over and creative of political ideals (be they purely religious ideals or more socially focused). The "religious" apparatus we employ to deal with existential questions appeals to the subjective point of view, where the philosophical apparatus is more focus upon the inter-subjective relations.

By saying "religion" covers up the problem, I meant that it offers the "I don't understand, therefore aliens!" method of explanation. This is no explanation at all, merely a covering up of a certain ignorance/confusion. These of course present themselves elsewhere in religious ideas through contradictions in texts and beliefs, which are again satisfied by the same "covering up" by accepting ignorance or lack of intellectual capacity to deal with the perceived problem/s. It is this technique that is used in eastern mysticism too. The main difference being they tend to not place the answer within some deity, but instead refer to some "force", something physically intangible yet presumed just beyond the horizon of human understanding.

In the above I think I've done a reasonable job of framing the case for "understanding" "knowledge" as being more contingent to existential crisis than merely some fear of death or contemplation of death. After all we first have to contemplate death and to understand our existence in that sense before we come to fear it. Children do not fear death. They are simply unaware of the concept and when presented with it they may be fearful of the idea. Prior to this children are presented with many other basic fears such as "pain". We avoid pain, we don't seek it out without understanding of some other benefit involved (as a simple example, working out at the gym) Religious doctrines certainly teach a certain fear of death, by presenting the idea of an after life being one of punishment or reward. What we see here is the idea of reward at any cost, being part of fundamental religious groups. They are imbued with the ideology of committing religious "sin" for some over all "reward". These are the basic components of learning, teaching and coming to understand the world. We act to our own detriment if we believe the rewards out weigh the costs. As the physical world has no means of literally weighing the cost and value of life, the religious person acts upon their own subjective principles and those cast upon them by the religious institutions. The religious institutions "cover up" the unknown and in its stead place the fountainhead of "Godhood" and "omnipotence", which lies outside human comprehension yet is taken on as direct knowledge. They place belief in something they know they cannot know exists, and yet tell themselves they do know by taking on physicalistic ideals and applying them to insubstantial, non-measureable subjective views. The touch stone for the religious person is safe in its own subjective space, but the flaw is in its extension to others. The touch stone of religious thought is immanent and subjective. The issue is in the extension of subjective into objectivity (which is an easy enough fault to make given that objectivity is basically inter-subjectivity.)

The above is a philosophical investigation of religious structure and thought. Your approach seems to lack simple philosophical grounding by jumping into the assumption of "death" as some fear inducing principle tied into religious ideals as the prime motivator. It looks very much like a mistake of what "existential crisis" means from my position? Is existentialism in general a big motivator for religious thought? Abso-f'in-lutely! From there you have a starting position and it may just be that you have not presented where you move from that position, but I see hints (note all this is me making the assumption you have not done this because I only get to see hints and bots and pieces so ignore if need be) ...
The problem is some religions while dealing with the existential crisis exacerbated the problem by focusing to much of the fear factor.
Yes, as it seems you are by saying the prime motivator is this "fear factor"? This is why I am confused. You present the question of "religion", but also say "some" and then go on to say these "some" somehow represent all that religion is? It makes no sense. The problem is people ask a question about something they don't know and try to explain it. These things are simple and physical at first, such as how to catch dinner, where to go, who is the best mate. After this we begin to ask "Why am I doing all this?", the hedonistic approach to life doesn't to seem to answer all our questions although it is certainly good to enjoy life. What becomes apparent is the need to balance wants and needs of others with our own, look for mutual benefits and common goals. (note: none of this about striving AWAY from death or FEAR, it is about figuring out some idea that is applicable to life, not some fear of death or basic instinct to survive and breed.) If you enjoy something the first thing you do is share it with someone. They may then help you find new pleasure and understanding in the matter, or on the flip side they may lead you down a dark path! The motivation is most certainly not "fear" in this case. What may happen is your curiosity could uncover threats to your understanding and this presents itself as fear. This is something you see as a common exchange between some religious fundamentalists and others. For example you've no doubt heard religious people say things like "how can you not believe in anything? you see no meaning in life? when you die you stop existing? how can you go on living?" These are all views they hold dear and they literally cannot understand because for them to strip away their idealized view of the world would unravel a huge existential crisis. They fear not being able to cope with the big questions, because they view them as the most important questions in life. So much so they even pity the non-believer. They do not see themselves as "ignorant" or "irrational", but rather their subjective "truth" extends into the inter-subjective world, it surpasses and supplants reason because it has a fountainhead of "godhood" or "omnipotence". They have effectively never come to understand The World as an objective reality and only see their beliefs mirrored in society because they lack knowledge.

We know this to be true because we cannot say a physicist would one day deny the use and means of the physical world even if they had some "personal experience" that confounded their general view of the world. On the flip side the religious person can come to deny the use of religious doctrine by learning about the physical nature of the world and the proper application of logic.

The motivator for religious institutions is to focus on subjectivity, to give an "as if" reality to irrational and abstract ideas. The fundamental goal is to frame The World in understanding.

It is for this reason I see that religions are usually taking two distinct paths yet they are so socially entwined that the followers cannot see the distinction clearly enough. These two paths are the application of thought (seen in quite distinct uses of philosophical and logical thought in the texts to cover ethics and morality), and application of opinion/feeling (seen as the subjective view of the world applied as if it possesses objective certainty. It is to believe in a larger certainty than even the rational person would assert.)
I believe the most effective approach is to use Philosophy-Proper [relying on all sources of knowledge] to deal with this terrible problem.
Now you are dealing with a "terrible problem"? My point is that this may not be much of a problem at all and that your "root cause" is making the assumption of some "terrible problem" before you've started looking. If you assume a problem you'll find one.

The problem how I see it is that some people don't understand much about anything and are open to believe anything told to them. This is a problem I guess. What can we do? improve education and rational thought in society, improve empathy and encourage people not to jump to conclusions about X or Y, not to assume too much, but be willing to engage in discussion and force themselves to ask deep and searching questions. Generally I believe people should stare the existential crisis in the face and be bold ... then again if someone is not prepared for this it could go badly wrong and spawn some terrible religious doctrine in the face of this fearful engagement. It is here I agree with you. Sadly the solution seems to be the cause! haha!

What we can take from this is at least a better understanding of the complexity of the problem and then some day someone will present a more workable idea and apply it. At the moment we happen to be living in a time still very much enveloped in the politics of fear. The current clash of developing countries with the technological achievements of the western world has led to an inevitable cultural conflict. I think the west has achieved a very obvious "progression" in the quality of human life and human freedom.

Short of global nuclear war I don't see us entering another dark age anytime soon. I think enough humans are informed enough to muddle through. As always the human concern is only ever going to be with dealing with its own sense of ignorance and knowledge. In this regard I see "religion" in general as being mostly a hindrance to knowledge and as a necessary counter to overt arrogance.

Anyway, continue the good work :) I don't think there is a solution because we are simply incapable of framing any particular problem well enough. All we can do is create an abstract and fumble for a solution, that may or may not even stand half a chance of holding up to the reality of the world stage. I believe we should keep at it though and necessarily we will fumble onward with optimism and hope.

My opinion is based on the principle that humans are learning machines. That is all and that is enough for me. The "meaning" or "purpose" of this is simply an overextension. A rock sitting on the side of a mountain is a rock sitting on the side of a mountain. It doesn't have the privilege of thought to ask itself about its purpose of being there. In this sense I am just fascinated, confounded and stupefied by the absurdity of life. It is not hard for me to understand people embracing the idea of "meaning" and "purpose" on a universal scale, but that is not to say I completely find it at fault, and to complicate things it is a useful fault and only a "fault" if left as one. Now I am sounding like a mystic! haha!

My rule is don't blame your actions on GOD (unless you consider yourself a GOD - in a non-omnipotent sense!)

I kind of view the beginnings of most social movements as being one person saying something wise and meaningful and others extrapolating from it to suit their own views and ideals. The wisest write nothing down knowing the folly of the general human populace. They guard against their words being taken out of context. Stupid people like me and you continue to ramble on ever ignorant and hopeful of resolution. Maybe we'll get lucky though? XD haha!
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -
One of the main point is the most effective problem solving technique is to find out the proximate root cause and deal with at that level so as to avoid fire-fighting.

...

My thesis is the central motivator [the proximate root cause] of all the MAJOR religions is related to death, i.e. the existential crisis.
I don't understand the first sentence.
That is the problem.
The effective of dealing with root cause rather than fire-fighting is very basic and a common thing. Not sure why this is not within your radar. Perhaps you should do some research on this. Note this and read the article to get an idea.
However, most front line supervisors spend all their time fire-fighting unexpected problems with temporary solutions. They spend day after day dealing with the same problems: missing supplies, incorrect order specifications, employee absenteeism -- the list goes on. If they were to spend the same amount of effort addressing the underlying issues that cause these "fires" to keep reoccurring, the problems would be solved permanently. Why don't they do this?
http://www.industryweek.com/corporate-c ... ng-culture
If you are suggesting we have existential crisis because we fear death I openly refute this. I am thinking you may be equating existential crisis with death, which is simply a mistake on your part not mine.
I have said many times, fear is an emotional feeling felt on the surface but it is a resultant of many elements deep within the brain and mind.
I suggest you do some research on 'fear' along the following elements like this one;
Fear is a multifaceted term that can be explained anatomically, biologically, and psychologically. This course begins by illustrating the cause and effects of fear on an anatomical and functional level, followed by demonstrating the physiological, psychological, and evolutionary aspects. Several theories and concepts behind unconsciousness, perception, and emotion are introduced in order to facilitate discussions covering fear in everyday life, as well as fear as a component of dysfunctional behaviors.
https://disabroad.org/copenhagen/course ... e-of-fear/
Note this in my last post:
Spectrum wrote:As I had said, the death factor must be suppressed at the conscious level. If it is not suppressed properly in a person it is actually a mental problem [thanotophobia] that require psychiatric help.
I have stated above the conscious fear of death in the extreme is a psychiatric problem [i.e. thanatophobia].
So my point is not that we have an existential crisis because we fear death at the conscious level [as you have misunderstood].

I have explained many times how the existential crisis emerged, i.e. based on the combinations of the following;
  • 1. Survival drives
    2. Avoidance of threat premature death
    3. The root elements of fears [not fear of death at the conscious level].
    4. Self-consciousness
    5. Other elements.
One hindrance is you are too tangential and thus the critical points got drowned in your floods of side points.
From a philosophical perspective we don't tend to move onto evolutionary biology as philosophical means to deal with this question. We stick to philosophy and view the issue of dualism and the mind/body problem so commonly held up to modern focus.
This is not academic philosophy. We are solving problems within humanity where we rely on Philosophy-proper, and in this perspective we never limit our sources of knowledge. Thus we rely on whatever the source of knowledge is necessary to understand and resolve the problem.
One of the most critical requirement is 'Know Thyself.' How are we to do this if we do not take into account biology, psychology, physiology, neuroscience, consciousness and other elements that involved the mental and physical self.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Burning ghost »

I still don't understand your sentence. English isn't your first language though so I can accept mistakes. The issue was I had no idea what the analogy was regarding "fire fighting" given the grammar in that sentence was jumbled and barely readable. That is all.

If you are writing something to back a political claim say so. Don't make out it is philosophical. I also pointed this out much earlier and you replied it was a philosophical thesis. Philosophy doesn't rely on scientific data to back it up. That is not to say it ignores it either. I presented a basic philosophical approach to the theme of the OP and never needed to bring in psychological, neuroscientific or social studies data.

Your suggestions assume I have not already done such a thing. The point is spewing out neurological data to support philosophical arguments only goes so far.

Your points 1-5 are poor and simplistic and I contest that you'd have a hard time finding a neurological model that would outline something akin to what you propose. Again though, you professed this was a philosophical approach not a neurological one.

The root elements of "fear" meaning what? At a physiological "feeling" level, a level of conscious awareness, and/or a neurobiological level?

to quote from Elizabeth A. Phelps "The Human Amygdala and Awareness : Interactions Between Emotion and Cognition"

in part of the conclusion:
Learning through fear conditioning seems to depend on the amygdala, with little influence from cognition and awareness. However, cognition and awareness influence the amygdala in a number of ways. Fear learning symbolic means (verbal communication) can alter amygdala function, and the expression of this learning depends on the amygdala. This relationship illustrates that the amygdala plays a role in the expression of fears that are generated through imagination.
In your steps you lead step one into step two by making the assumption that all survival drives avoid premature death. This is clearly not only false, but a one-way approach without taking into consideration the complexity of cybernetic systems. We are driven to consume sugar, salt and fat when we come across it. Given that now the environment has changed and these things are readily available these driven, literally drive us, into an early grave. That is but one very simplistic and well known biological mechanism. We assume that once these things were less available so the body naturally craved them to keep functioning. Now this is not the case we have to override this basic survival instinct. What often progresses survival and increased life spans is not some base survival instinct, it is cognitive fear of early death, and/or ill-health. In this case the survival instinct is a threat to survival. Fear itself may cause death as easily as not. Fear may not even be justified as a means for survival either. I think you noted the specific frequency of sounds that causes a feeling of unease in people (or am I referring to a different forum/thread?). This is merely a coincidence of physiology as far as we can tell (unless there are some predators out there that are prone to make this frequency of sound that causes fear-like reactions in human physiology?

The root elements of fears? I cannot fear something I have no knowledge or experience of. I can, and do, fear things that are either confusing or generally irregular. In this respect attention is focused and we engage with curiosity as much as caution. In some circumstances either one may or may not kill us. We are not driven we fear or not to fear something. We are driven to assess and from that point memory devotes itself.

As Ninian famously said (to paraphrase, "If I see a coiled rope and think it is a snake then I act toward it as if it is a snake. I do not act toward it as if it looks like a snake." This is recognition of context. If I am in a jungle I am more likely to take a coil of rope to be a snake than if I was in a rope store purposely out to buy rope. In different circumstances different instinctual fears are unconsciously sitting more unright than in others. Whether or not they breakthrough into conscious attention is another matter. We know for a fact that conscious decisions can most defrinetly be influenced (strongly) by prompts that are not immediate to consocious perception. Then there are neurocognitive phenomena such as "inhibition of return", which seem to be similar to this "unconscious" priming which bring about physiological fear reactions even though they are not held in conscious perception at all.

These and many other reasons lead me to say your 5 steps are not fleshed out and don't even seem to form a skeleton of an idea yet.

I don't possess the latest edition of "The Cognitive Neurosciences", by Michael Gazzaniga, but I have read large sections of what are most likely the previous two editions? You can download some of the older editions online for free (I know I did.) I am sure you'll find some useful stuff in them.

Survival drive is better called a homeostatic function. The fact that lifeforms and conscoiusn beings need to employ biological homeostasis has nothing to do with "survival". It just happens because that is how th elaws of the universe (if there are any) play out. Refer to Douglas Adams "puddle" analogy if you don't understand what I mean, or the psychological term "fixedness".

Hey maybe you're right. Maybe all religion exists and functions because of basic human fear of the unknown. I would still have to ask what part of human experience doesn't involve an approach into the unknown? It is here we begin to fringe around the areas of nihilism and absurdity, and it is human disatification that may very well be the reason for religious attitudes springing into existence and the very concept of knowledge.

"Incapable of refine the real, thought pauses to mimic it." - Camus ... Such "thought" is probably that equating itself with the concept of "God". The mistake of believing understanding can be complete.

I have stated above the conscious fear of death in the extreme is a psychiatric problem [i.e. thanatophobia].
So my point is not that we have an existential crisis because we fear death at the conscious level [as you have misunderstood].
I didn't misunderstand. Fear is felt CONSCIOUSLY not unconsciously. I may not be conscious of why I feel fear, but I feel it, I am consciously fearful not "unconsciously fearful". Phobia I something different.

Fear of death can present in many ways. Fear of being dead is phobia, but fear of the process of dying is a normal fear. We know pain and fear it. We don't know death, so fear of being dead is more akin to fear of the unknown (which is a useful thing that keeps us from jumping of an edge before looking where we are jumping.) At least in the physical world we have a pretty good idea of what could happen if we don't look before jumping. If we'd gone through life never looking before jumping we'd jump without fear over any old edge, in fact we'd most likely not even conceptualize "the edge".

You've said:
My thesis is the central motivator [the proximate root cause] of all the MAJOR religions is related to death, i.e. the existential crisis.
I have explained many times how the existential crisis emerged, i.e. based on the combinations of the following;

1. Survival drives
2. Avoidance of threat premature death
3. The root elements of fears [not fear of death at the conscious level].
4. Self-consciousness
5. Other elements.
This is not by any stretch of the imagination an explanation. Asserting a logical method you are using is not an explanation either. The existential crisis is what? (I ask because I don't have faith in your exposition. I am fighting for solidity and grounding constantly.) Tell us this before you explain how and then do so thoroughly.
AKA badgerjelly
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Fan of Science »

This is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, and last I checked, if memory serves me right, this is not true. If fear of death were the prime motivator for religion, then as people age, we would see a significant increase in people becoming religious, but we don't. We would also see a significant increase in people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness turning to religion, and we don't see that either. Obviously, some people do turn to religion as they age or get a terminal diagnosis, but, there is not a statistically significant difference.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Spectrum »

@Burning Ghost
Yes, the grammar is very bad. I do read my posts before posting but one constraint is I cannot do any further editing after posting.

I will deal with this point which is critical to the OP.
Burning Ghost wrote:The root elements of fears? I cannot fear something I have no knowledge or experience of.
As I had said many times, DNA wise the brain and mind has a neural algorithm [sub-system] to activate the emotion of fear.
This sub-system stretches across the subconscious and conscious levels of the mind.

At the subconscious level the emotion of fear [and others] can be triggered without the need for knowledge or experience. It is instinctual and can be triggered by whatever source that activate the neural triggers. Note

Note Electrical brain stimulation [see wiki]
EBS could elicit the ritualistic, motor responses of sham rage in cats by stimulation of the anterior hypothalamus, as well as more complex emotional and behavioral components of "true rage" in both experimental animals by stimulaton of the lateral hypothalamus, and in human subjects by stimulating various deep areas of the brain. -wiki
Therefore emotions [fear in this case] can be triggered by any thing that activate its triggering points within its neural sub-system.
For example those who had bad LSD trips experienced terrible primal fears. This resulting fear is not due to knowledge of past experience of fears.

In the case of the existential crisis, the fear factor is triggered by indirectly by empirical knowledge of mortality. It is not so much by conscious knowledge except those with thanatophobia. Yes, people do fear dying [periodically] but this is naturally [nature] suppressed [it goes away after a while], else it would be thanatophobia.

As I had stated many times, the suppressed conscious fear of death create reverberations and 'vibrations' that triggers the fear sub-system at the deeper root level to generate the resultant existential crisis, dilemma or dissonance. This is the proximate root cause that drives religions.

I bet [ignoring side effects] if we can deactivate this fear-sub-system people will not be religious as defined and practice as it is at present.

-- Updated Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:29 pm to add the following --

@Fan of Science
Fan of Science wrote:This is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, and last I checked, if memory serves me right, this is not true. If fear of death were the prime motivator for religion, then as people age, we would see a significant increase in people becoming religious, but we don't. We would also see a significant increase in people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness turning to religion, and we don't see that either. Obviously, some people do turn to religion as they age or get a terminal diagnosis, but, there is not a statistically significant difference.
As I had stated 'Philosophy' is not academic philosophy. Philosophy-proper relate to 'wisdom' to optimize the well being of the individual and thus humanity. Wisdom cannot be obtained by reason alone but need empirical elements.

Your memory?? If you want to state credible views you must do very extensive research and read very widely.
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
There are no actual statistics but I have personally seen proofs [kins, friends, etc.] of the above. I have also read of many conversion cases.

Another point is the majority of people [appx 90%] are already theists so you would have less chance of coming across atheists turning to theists.

Here is one good example to prove the point.
There is the case of Anthony Flew who was once the World's most notable atheist. However at 81 he turned to God, i.e. a deist.
For much of his career [Anthony] Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces.
He also criticised the idea of life after death,[4] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[5] In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.[6]
However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God. see wiki -Anthony Flew
The empirical logic is this;
As I one grows older the neurons atrophize. In this case the inhibiting neurons that held back the forces of the existential crisis gave way and drove him to believe in God. I bet he was not aware of what was going on inside his brain.

Are you an atheist? If so, don't be too confident you will not be a theist as you grow older if your inhibiting neurons [brakes] atrophize and give way.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: "Fear of Death" a Primary Motivator of Religions?

Post by Fan of Science »

Philosophy does not address empirical questions, that's what we have other disciplines for. I stand by my earlier statement, there is no empirical evidence showing an increase in theism among the terminally ill or elderly, which is evidence that is inconsistent with the idea that religion is based on a fear of death. We also have religions, like Judaism, which did not dwell on an afterlife, and others, like the Ancient Greeks, that had a horrible vision for the afterlife.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

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