So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

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
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Steve3007

Strictly speaking, no. This of course depends on what we "mean" by "explain". I say no because evolution can't alone "explain" the group cooperation and altruism. This is for two reasons:
1. Science is an excellent tool in "explaining" or rather describing the mechanisms of "how" things work, where philosophy and logic is used to infer and deduce to explain "why" such mechanisms evolved.

2. The example with the fruit fly and homosexuality was meant to show the relevance of the philosophical debate between the "nature" vs "nurture" in respect to "conscious" living organisms. There is a difference in science "explaining" simple genetic inheritance patterns that generate the diversity of alleles within the population, where the outside environment may "select" for a specific "adaptation" in the process of survival of the fittest. However, evolution can't explain the inheritance patterns (homosexuality) that emerge from the "selective" force of "nurture" that is subject to the "conscious" selection of human psyche, ex: income or turn off the electricity for 3 weeks and observe the social cooperation and empathy. The TV show "The Walking Dead" is a good "dissertation" of the dynamics between "nature" vs "nurture".

Belindi

Sure, this is a seductive argument that any "choice" only "feels" as a "random" decision but in "reality" everything is per-determined by the collective chain of "events": experience, knowledge, and reasoning that led to the result in a specific "choice". This is true of course to some degree but this has nothing to do with the "random" experiment of me asking you do something "random" and you having a conscious "choice" to participate in that experiment or not. You see, the level of complexity in the "choice" can be raised to such level that even the most complex "computer" of human mind can't compute the outcome, which makes the "choice" free to the "random" "will". This I suppose requires some contemplation but without the "free will" and the "choice", our universe couldn't be able to exist at all. Matter and antimatter should annihilate in the early moments after the BB, before any laws of nature or laws of physics existed.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Ranvier wrote:
You see, the level of complexity in the "choice" can be raised to such level that even the most complex "computer" of human mind can't compute the outcome, which makes the "choice" free to the "random" "will".
Isn't true randomness the opposite of free? I'd rather think that a man's human freedom increases in proportion as his judgement and knowledge increases. If that man is chained in a prison cell , or if he has otherwise been deprived of physical ability through poverty or illness, his freedom is restricted. However all else being equal if he has fine judgement and much knowledge he is that more free.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Belindi

See, the argument of some thinkers is that there isn't any "consciousness" or "free will", where humans are nothing more but a biological machine walking around like a "zombie" collecting data in "memory" storage device of brain. They argue that based on that "memory", human only "reacts" to the external stimulus creating an "illusion" of consciousness", like any other animal or AI.

Of course you are right, we had evolved human brain to make complex computations based on enormous amount of data being processed at the same "time", where human knowledge and experience aids in making a "correct" decision. However, I'm attempting to show that there is "something" more beside the brain matter that is capable of such computation. A "little Emperor", as I adopted the "term" from conversations in another thread with another forum member "Socraeteeze", is the "being" itself or "I" that occupies the "drunken body" that doesn't always "obey" the "will" as intended. You see, a computer or AI given the excess of information to compute the data, will freeze in limbo of "indecision". Human consciousness on the other hand is "real" because of the "free will" that will make a decision, even in profoundly life altering situations that demand for a correct answer in computation. The premise is that that "free will" is part of the physical "subjective reality" but also "resides" in the... "true or objective reality" for lack of a better word.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Ranvier wrote:
You see, a computer or AI given the excess of information to compute the data, will freeze in limbo of "indecision". Human consciousness on the other hand is "real" because of the "free will" that will make a decision, even in profoundly life altering situations that demand for a correct answer in computation.
Thanks for that about what computers do in that situation . The contrast with what a man does in similar situation is useful.

I note that you call the extra which humans have the "little Emperor". Spinoza called it conatus that is the urge of a living organism to maintain its bodily integrity.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:Well, this is why my mechanisms of self-preservation are "kicking in" to reject such philosophy.
You may be sarcastic on this, but to me, this is exactly the fact, your mechanisms of self-preservation are being triggered "kicking in" because your system sensed a threat [at least subliminally] but it is only based on your own rhetorical philosophy.

There is no issue if you philosophize with philosophical-proper, rationality and wisdom.

Btw, you seem to be accusing me of adopting a ‘science is the only way’ attitude. Nope, I have always asserted I view Science as only an effective tool to support philosophy-proper.

In addition, I am not into a solely “reductionist" approach. One of my basis is ‘complementarity’ of the opposites, e.g. like in Yin & Yang. Thus my approach is always complementing the micro [reductionist] and the macro [the big picture - holistic].

I agree the basic mechanisms of self-preservation can lead to the worst evil, i.e. genocide [it has happened] if the impulses of basic self-preservation are not modulated. On the theistic side it can even lead to a father willing to kill his own son for his own self interests and salvation [note Abraham], the spreading of terror, violence and errors by SOME believers.
However evolution has also imputed human beings with a faculty to progress optimally and this is driven by philosophy-proper.
Postulate: let us consider a premise that life according to the theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest, perpetuated mechanisms that allow life to adopt to changes in the environment, as an illusion of instinct for "self preservation".
Note evolution is not solely about survival of the fittest. The strongest strength of a chain is its weakest link, and this principle is applicable [adaptive] to some degree within living things surviving in groups.

The concept of self-preservation is a fact that is supported by load of empirical evidences and even one’s own impulse to survive is the most critical.
If self-preservation is an illusion [as you have intelligently and wisely discovered], why don’t you be reckless, indifferent to living and just die?
As I had claimed, we can clearly infer from empirical evidence and personal experiences survival [except the suicidal and other exceptions] is very critical to all living things. Thus the premises 'the purpose of all living things are to survive'

Since human beings has evolved with a faculty to progress optimally as driven by philosophy-proper, there is potential for continuous improvements in morality and all other aspects of humanity. This is evident with a positive trend in the improvement in morality [‘OUGHTs’] within humanity, note the progress of the elimination of slavery [‘IS’] around the world since 100 years ago and without help from theistic ideologies [some which condone slavery within their holy texts].

Your points above are too narrow. You rhetorically link self-preservation with genocides, thus end of story.
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: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

Spectrum wrote: .....Thus the premises 'the purpose of all living things are to survive.
Survival is not a purpose. Living things must survive in order to fulfill their purpose. And eventually, they must die, also to fulfill their purpose.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Renvier #376:
Strictly speaking, no. This of course depends on what we "mean" by "explain".
Yes, I agree I should really have used the word "describe" as I generally have done in the past when discussing what science does. To emphasize the whole "finding patterns in our observations/shut up and calculate" thing.
1. Science is an excellent tool in "explaining" or rather describing the mechanisms of "how" things work, where philosophy and logic is used to infer and deduce to explain "why" such mechanisms evolved.
This goes back to the problem that's been discussed before of identifying exactly what we mean when we claim that something else that we might call philosophy can find a "why" that is fundamentally different from the "how" word that we used to encapsulate the descriptions of science. And that it is more than simply a statement of personal taste.
2. The example with the fruit fly and homosexuality was meant to show the relevance of the philosophical debate between the "nature" vs "nurture" in respect to "conscious" living organisms. There is a difference in science "explaining" simple genetic inheritance patterns that generate the diversity of alleles within the population, where the outside environment may "select" for a specific "adaptation" in the process of survival of the fittest. However, evolution can't explain the inheritance patterns (homosexuality) that emerge from the "selective" force of "nurture" that is subject to the "conscious" selection of human psyche, ex: income or turn off the electricity for 3 weeks and observe the social cooperation and empathy. The TV show "The Walking Dead" is a good "dissertation" of the dynamics between "nature" vs "nurture".
Your point here, as I understand it, is that various activities that a living thing does during his/her/its lifetime affect inheritance patterns. But, in humans at least, those activities don't just arise from relatively easily understood instinctive behaviours. They are a complex product of our psyches. i.e. they are the decisions resulting from the free-will of a conscious mind.

Your other, peripheral, point seems to be that if we suddenly and discontinuously change a very important aspect of the environment in which we live (like turning off the electricity) then we will probably not adapt very successfully. Because adaptation happens best if gradual. The complex web of human society is a thin layer. The supermarket shelves would be empty instantly and we'd be fighting each other for food. True enough, no doubt.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
note the progress of the elimination of slavery [‘IS’] around the world since 100 years ago and without help from theistic ideologies [some which condone slavery within their holy texts].
I don't deny that some holy texts condone slavery. There is a lot more than holy texts that condone slavery. Much right wing politics condones slavery usually without explicitly doing so.

There is no guarantee that slavery is eliminated. Apart from the advent of modern slavery, there is a huge amount of slave -consciousness in the USA which surfaced when people voted for Donald Trump. It may be that slavery is an undying threat to civil liberty. The devil does not die.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Spectrum:
Since you mentioned metaphor a few times, have you read,
Metaphors We Live By
GEORGE LAKOFF AND MARK JOHNSON
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/boo ... 37992.html
The claim 'metaphors' are fundamental to our cognitions and thus influenced a major part of our understanding of reality.
I haven't read it. Sounds interesting. It is indeed interesting how much of our language is metaphor. So much that we often don't even notice when we're using metaphors. Perhaps it reflects the fact that language is, by definition, symbolic. The words on this page aren't actually equal to the concepts that they represent. So I guess metaphor is just an extension of that.

(Looking for any metaphors I used in the above passage without realizing it: I used the word "reflects" when I wasn't actually discussing mirrors.)
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Metaphors We Live By is available at Amazon dealer from £6.97 plus £2.80 p and p
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:
note the progress of the elimination of slavery [‘IS’] around the world since 100 years ago and without help from theistic ideologies [some which condone slavery within their holy texts].
I don't deny that some holy texts condone slavery. There is a lot more than holy texts that condone slavery. Much right wing politics condones slavery usually without explicitly doing so.
I understand there are many forms of slavery, I was referring to 'slavery' in the strictest sense where people are owned like chattels and/or traded openly.

My original point was to counter Ranvier's thinking that theism is in a way more superior in terms of morality over non-theism which he claimed as aimless.

My claim is the universal consensus within all governments to ban slavery [OUGHT] throughout the world is a secular move and not a theistic features as some holy texts condone slavery.
This move re 'slavery' demonstrate humanity has an inherent propensity towards absolute moral standards [OUGHTs] and humanity is moving towards establishing other 'OUGHTs.'
Obviously an 'OUGHT' cannot be "IS" [Hume], there will be abuses and deviation from 'ought' in the practical world, and humanity will take steps to reduce or eliminate abuses.
There is no guarantee that slavery is eliminated. Apart from the advent of modern slavery, there is a huge amount of slave -consciousness in the USA which surfaced when people voted for Donald Trump. It may be that slavery is an undying threat to civil liberty. The devil does not die.
As mentioned above, my point is about 'slavery' in the strictest sense.
Because an 'ought' cannot be an 'is', we cannot guarantee slavery will be eliminated totally at present, but humanity [IS] is naturally moving closer and closer to the impossible to achieve ideal [OUGHTs].

My point is there is an inherent and natural moral drive within humanity to establish absolute moral standards and improve on its moral values as explained above. This is to counter the theistic's view ONLY a God can install moral standards for believers in holy texts to adhere to.
Thus non-theism is not aimless nor purposeful but actually is more ideal than theism [relying on an illusory God].

-- Updated Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:58 pm to add the following --
[b]Steve3007[/b] wrote:Spectrum:
Since you mentioned metaphor a few times, have you read,
Metaphors We Live By
GEORGE LAKOFF AND MARK JOHNSON
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/boo ... 37992.html
The claim 'metaphors' are fundamental to our cognitions and thus influenced a major part of our understanding of reality.
I haven't read it. Sounds interesting. It is indeed interesting how much of our language is metaphor. So much that we often don't even notice when we're using metaphors. Perhaps it reflects the fact that language is, by definition, symbolic. The words on this page aren't actually equal to the concepts that they represent. So I guess metaphor is just an extension of that.

(Looking for any metaphors I used in the above passage without realizing it: I used the word "reflects" when I wasn't actually discussing mirrors.)
One interesting fundamental metaphor is the 'container' metaphor which 'reflect' either 'inside' or 'outside' as living things and humans experienced various 'container' concepts throughout its evolution.
This is extended to the 'inner' and 'outer' world then to 'internal' and 'external' independent world which is a dichotomy leading to various philosophical controversies.

This 'container' metaphor lead Philosophical Realists to insist there is some reality inside us and an independent external world out there. This is also where theists to be driven by the container metaphor to view God as existing "out there" and not "in here."

Philosophical anti-realists somehow see through and discard this subliminal 'container' metaphor and disregard the 'in' and 'outside' container concepts thus viewing the subject and external world as complementary with each other.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Ranvier »

Spectrum

I refer you to what Steve succinctly picked up upon in my previous post, which is the fact that we "evolved" our human civilization too fast relative to our genetic evolution. This is complicated greatly by the fact that our "consciousness" plays an integral role upon which genes are "positively" selected. Notice for instance in your own empirical observation that the low IQ individuals and people with low education level have much greater "chances" to propagate their genetic material within the population. From the evolutionary point of view, it's not "wise" to be "smart". This of course becomes a much longer polemic about the human "omnivorous" nature and the evolutionary "drive" towards "numbers" vs "quality" as a mode of survival but in essence humanity hasn't achieved yet the evolutionary stage for a much wider "intellectual" capacity for "empathy" beyond kinship of small groups. In other words, we're not meant to live in large cities in our evolutionary "design", where "morality" and "Ought's" extend only to the nuclear family and a small support group of people we know directly on a personal level. Wars are not the result of group dynamic but a much larger "cultural" aggregate of people in a dynamic of "us" vs "them", where religion has changed from polytheistic to a monotheistic "practicality" for the purpose of much larger group "morality" in divine law. The secular law or justice has no basis without the underlying "state" religion of "in God we trust". I think that this historical perspective is often misinterpreted or intentionally misconstrued by the contemporary thinkers. Fortunately, we live in the age of "enlightenment" marked by an advent of the "internet", where not only knowledge is universally accessible to everyone on a global scale but also "it" offers a means and the platform to form a much wider group dynamic in direct contact with people outside of the immediate physical reality. If wars were to ever stop, it's because of these relationships between the "regular" people forging relationships that transcend the political landscape. However, this is still probably decades away to formulate an effective group collaboration on a global scale. We have achieved so much in our technological and scientific advances but we're still a relatively young species that is very fragile, especially in the dependency on that very technology. In that respect we are centuries away in achieving the "Star Trek" global consciousness and maturity.

As for the very thing you argue "against", religion, namely Christianity was a prominent "force" involved in the abolition of slavery.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

Ranvier wrote: I refer you to what Steve succinctly picked up upon in my previous post, which is the fact that we "evolved" our human civilization too fast relative to our genetic evolution.
That's right. And the practical (or rather, impractical) result of this is that Man has way more knowledge than he can assimilate pragmatically. His knowledge (we "evolved"....) has run way ahead of his being (our genetic evolution).
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Spectrum
One interesting fundamental metaphor is the 'container' metaphor which 'reflect' either 'inside' or 'outside' as living things and humans experienced various 'container' concepts throughout its evolution...
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. But possibly you're talking about our general tendency to manage the complexity of the world by compartmentalizing? Breaking the world up into bite-sized chunks which have well defined interfaces to the other chunks but which, for simplicity, we assume that we can deal with individually. Reductionism.

Or possibly you're referring to our tendency to think of observer and observed as two different thing? To believe that we can watch something without affecting it?

-- Updated Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:23 am to add the following --

Atreyu (following on from Ranvier):
That's right. And the practical (or rather, impractical) result of this is that Man has way more knowledge than he can assimilate pragmatically. His knowledge (we "evolved"....) has run way ahead of his being (our genetic evolution).
Perhaps a good example of the fact that evolution is not forward-looking? Traits evolve because they are beneficial to survival there and then. They're not created in anticipation of solving a future problem. Our mental abilities have clearly been spectacularly successful in propagating our species all over the planet - in spreading our genes - but, combined with our tribal instincts, they may lead to our downfall. Although, in practice, I suspect they won't lead to our absolute extinction. Just cycles of boom and bust.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:Spectrum

I refer you to what Steve succinctly picked up upon in my previous post, which is the fact that we "evolved" our human civilization too fast relative to our genetic evolution. This is complicated greatly by the fact that our "consciousness" plays an integral role upon which genes are "positively" selected. Notice for instance in your own empirical observation that the low IQ individuals and people with low education level have much greater "chances" to propagate their genetic material within the population. From the evolutionary point of view, it's not "wise" to be "smart".
Again this is merely your opinion from a shallow base.

As I had claimed the central force is individual's survival and therefrom preservation of the species [as inferred from the empirical] and the basic approach to this is based on the the higher probabilities of large numbers, in the case of humans we have 7 billion and increasing. At present, it is those with lower education levels that supply the numbers. As far as the species is concerned, 'wise' or 'smart' are not the priority but rather evolutionary forces ensure there is the critical number to sustain the species.

Another feature of evolution for humanity is that of 'progress' [as evident] from its present stage. This is supported by the increasing capacity of intelligence, reason, other competences and higher self-awareness within a certain percentile of human beings.

The striving to preserve the species face a wide range of threats up to a large enough meteorite heading Earth's way to destroy the human species.

Thus it is noticeable, 'nature' has a two prong strategy to ensure survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species, i.e.
  • 1. The lower educated to support a greater base of numbers
    2. A percentile of intelligent, rational and self-awareness to expedite progress forward to deal the greater range of threats to humanity.
Note another point related to above.
'Nature is such that the majority will be risk-adverse while a small % will be naturally risk- takers. These risk takers are not so sensitive to fear of premature death and thus has the courage to explore for new land and whatever opportunities for humanity to be more secure.

You will note, you always focus on two variables rhetorically or some straw-man and conclude 'end of story.'

This of course becomes a much longer polemic about the human "omnivorous" nature and the evolutionary "drive" towards "numbers" vs "quality" as a mode of survival but in essence humanity hasn't achieved yet the evolutionary stage for a much wider "intellectual" capacity for "empathy" beyond kinship of small groups.
In other words, we're not meant to live in large cities in our evolutionary "design", where "morality" and "Ought's" extend only to the nuclear family and a small support group of people we know directly on a personal level. Wars are not the result of group dynamic but a much larger "cultural" aggregate of people in a dynamic of "us" vs "them", where religion has changed from polytheistic to a monotheistic "practicality" for the purpose of much larger group "morality" in divine law. The secular law or justice has no basis without the underlying "state" religion of "in God we trust". I think that this historical perspective is often misinterpreted or intentionally misconstrued by the contemporary thinkers. Fortunately, we live in the age of "enlightenment" marked by an advent of the "internet", where not only knowledge is universally accessible to everyone on a global scale but also "it" offers a means and the platform to form a much wider group dynamic in direct contact with people outside of the immediate physical reality. If wars were to ever stop, it's because of these relationships between the "regular" people forging relationships that transcend the political landscape. However, this is still probably decades away to formulate an effective group collaboration on a global scale. We have achieved so much in our technological and scientific advances but we're still a relatively young species that is very fragile, especially in the dependency on that very technology. In that respect we are centuries away in achieving the "Star Trek" global consciousness and maturity.
As I had stated humanity [collectively] has evolved with an inherent drive to progress from its current stage on a continual improvement basis [this is evident from the past to the present].
So the point is whatever negative criticisms you pick, e.g. large cities, etc. humanity will always progress forward on a net positive basis [together with its inevitable negative baggage].
At every phase of humanity, there were condemnations the human species will suffer, but note despite all those fears and condemnations what we get is a net positive progress, i.e. computer, Internet, advance medicines, progress into neurosciences, genomics, etc.
As for the very thing you argue "against", religion, namely Christianity was a prominent "force" involved in the abolition of slavery.
Is is inherent in Christianity, i.e. where the New Testament condone slavery. If any Christians were involved in the abolishment of slavery they were driven by generic human values and not by the NT.
If Christianity, i.e. the NT stated unequivocally "Slavery is not permissible - no ifs and no buts" then I agree, Christianity is anti-slavery.

OTOH, it is the secular community that establish the absolute moral standard;
'Slavery is not permissible - no ifs and no buts"

In addition, the secular is slowly introducing other absolute moral laws for consensus without the need from any religious authority. The inherent moral quotient of the average human is also increasing.
The latest being Saudi Arabia which will enact laws to enable their women to drive. Then we have threats from the theists [some Muslims] threatening to kill women drivers in Saudi when the laws come into force.

-- Updated Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:12 am to add the following --
[b]Steve3007[/b] wrote:I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. But possibly you're talking about our general tendency to manage the complexity of the world by compartmentalizing? Breaking the world up into bite-sized chunks which have well defined interfaces to the other chunks but which, for simplicity, we assume that we can deal with individually. Reductionism.

Or possibly you're referring to our tendency to think of observer and observed as two different thing? To believe that we can watch something without affecting it?
My point is human beings has evolved with metaphors embedded deep in the brain which they are not aware of.
Thus an understanding of these inherent metaphors may help them to understand why they take a certain philosophical stance.
Have a read of the book 'Metaphors we live by' or read the various reviews, it is definitely a new philosophical vista and as usual has its share of critics.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
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