God is Real: a dialogue

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
Papus79
Posts: 1792
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Papus79 »

Fanman wrote: September 24th, 2020, 9:58 am Having been a theist for most of my life, then around 5 years ago becoming agnostic. I can say without doubt, that anywhere or anything in which I perceived God, can be explained by how I interpreted things. For example, when I was young, I was pretty good at football. Some of things I used to pull-off, caused me to believe that God had blessed me with an innate ability for the game, as I never used to practice that much. But that opinion, whether there was any truth to it or not, is my interpretation. I could not observe any empirical “thing” outside of myself and point to an unequivocal basis for that interpretation.
I've actually been interested in analyzing similar things, particularly psychological and computational resilience in my case. I've heard of, for examples, situations where people who are running or training for athletic events can hit 'the wall' where they're jogging along, everything goes slack, they fall flat on their face and need to be rushed to the hospital for broken bones and stitches - ie. they hit a hard limit in some particular cycle that their body needs to power that activity. Typically it seems like the body has so many overflow cycles that a person can do a fair amount of difficult work, have a crap diet that's significantly vitamin-deficient, and get by for quite a long time never even worrying about supplementation if they don't have any sort of neurological issues that would be exacerbated relatively early into that.

What I've found with the limits of human psychological and motivational endurance - it seems like a lot in our lives is underwritten by our sex drives - ie. some kind of engagement or sublimation of that process keeps us 'in the black' and if we get pushed too hard too fast or lose hope in our objectives at the sexual level then we can start drifting into the red and feel like we're racking up damage. It makes sense - we're biological organisms with biological purposes that we're largely, as far as we do society, yoking and transforming for alternate purposes like building careers, companies, inventing things, making art, etc.. It's also really coming to hit me just how much people do need encouragement or faith that if they're doing their best and doing good work that the system they're in will acknowledge them favorably, when that process breaks down society starts breaking down and people start falling into less helpful coping mechanisms and even atavism and shadow.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Fanman »

Hey Stevo. Thank you :) .



Papus79,

You sound around my age (42) solid opinion, but still open-minded and enquiring.
I've actually been interested in analyzing similar things, particularly psychological and computational resilience in my case. I've heard of, for examples, situations where people who are running or training for athletic events can hit 'the wall' where they're jogging along, everything goes slack, they fall flat on their face and need to be rushed to the hospital for broken bones and stitches - ie. they hit a hard limit in some particular cycle that their body needs to power that activity. Typically it seems like the body has so many overflow cycles that a person can do a fair amount of difficult work, have a crap diet that's significantly vitamin-deficient, and get by for quite a long time never even worrying about supplementation if they don't have any sort of neurological issues that would be exacerbated relatively early into that.
Well, we know that body has limits. Depending on what we put into it and how we treat it, we can push those limits, but there will always be a breaking point, where the body just says “no, I’ve had enough” and quits on us. That threshold is different in different people, and I think, dependant upon age.
What I've found with the limits of human psychological and motivational endurance - it seems like a lot in our lives is underwritten by our sex drives - ie. some kind of engagement or sublimation of that process keeps us 'in the black' and if we get pushed too hard too fast or lose hope in our objectives at the sexual level then we can start drifting into the red and feel like we're racking up damage. It makes sense - we're biological organisms with biological purposes that we're largely, as far as we do society, yoking and transforming for alternate purposes like building careers, companies, inventing things, making art, etc.. It's also really coming to hit me just how much people do need encouragement or faith that if they're doing their best and doing good work that the system they're in will acknowledge them favorably, when that process breaks down society starts breaking down and people start falling into less helpful coping mechanisms and even atavism and shadow.
I think that people can overcompensate in one area if they feel that they are lacking in another. So an unfulfilled sex drive, may push us into another area of life where we can attain fulfilment. I have long thought that people are reward-based animals. If you want to get the best out of us, offer us what seems most desirable, make it believable and everybody wants in. Religion makes these kinds of promises, that play on our universal fears, anxieties and greatest desires. And it provides a lot of the positive reinforcement that can be alleviating to the examples you discuss. I believe that God, for a lot of people, fulfils a drive for spiritual longings they may have, or put another way, the need for there to be more to life that they can empirically experience. Its all about what appealing to what we wished were true.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7914
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by LuckyR »

Fanman wrote: September 24th, 2020, 9:58 am Long time people. Hope all is well.

My thoughts on this topic:

Having been a theist for most of my life, then around 5 years ago becoming agnostic. I can say without doubt, that anywhere or anything in which I perceived God, can be explained by how I interpreted things. For example, when I was young, I was pretty good at football. Some of things I used to pull-off, caused me to believe that God had blessed me with an innate ability for the game, as I never used to practice that much. But that opinion, whether there was any truth to it or not, is my interpretation. I could not observe any empirical “thing” outside of myself and point to an unequivocal basis for that interpretation.

So what I am saying, is that perhaps by rule, any and all claims of God come from interpretation, not any evident empirical facts. God is not seen, it is intuited. Which is why I will always respect the sceptics viewpoint.
To my eye your reinterpretation of your youthful assumptions is completely logical, yet is not inconsistent with the existence of gods. The old, tired dialog typically goes something like this:

A) There is a God.
B) Where's any empiric proof of your god?
A) You don't understand, God is so powerful, he can escape human detection, yet still exist.

The two cannot bridge this gap on the plane of logic or the physical. However, if they agree that gods exist on the plane of faith or the metaphysical, then their two views, while not similar, are compatible.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1792
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Papus79 »

Fanman wrote: September 24th, 2020, 11:10 am Hey Stevo. Thank you :) .



Papus79,

You sound around my age (42) solid opinion, but still open-minded and enquiring.
Yep! Celebrating 41 in a couple months.

Fanman wrote: September 24th, 2020, 11:10 amI think that people can overcompensate in one area if they feel that they are lacking in another. So an unfulfilled sex drive, may push us into another area of life where we can attain fulfilment. I have long thought that people are reward-based animals. If you want to get the best out of us, offer us what seems most desirable, make it believable and everybody wants in. Religion makes these kinds of promises, that play on our universal fears, anxieties and greatest desires. And it provides a lot of the positive reinforcement that can be alleviating to the examples you discuss. I believe that God, for a lot of people, fulfils a drive for spiritual longings they may have, or put another way, the need for there to be more to life that they can empirically experience. Its all about what appealing to what we wished were true.
I'm increasingly finding myself in agreement with a lot of people who see religion as a group selection or lineage selection toolkit. I also think, because of the needs it fills, it would be extremely difficult for it to properly map to reality, the worst it could do is hang as much of a coat rack as needed to weave a productive and 'playable' game or social contract. Even if we don't live in a reductive materialist universe (which is where I tend) it's also too much of a void space to be doing much with and there's no Mommy or Daddy figure that's going to hold one's hand let alone be Santa, it's more likely to pull your chain, confuse, and manipulate you than anything else. There's also the whole range of psychological and motive activity ranging from subconscious to conscious and you see where the conscious self - for a lot of people - is a press secretary that tries to put a pleasant spin on things while their deeper operating system does the dirty and pragmatic stuff, quite often very delicately separating the real meaning of its activity from their conscious awareness precisely so that they can believe a more pleasant lie about what their values actually are. I've really enjoyed John Gray's analysis of society on that level but I also like the degree to which Daniel Schmachtenberger has been getting into mapping the landscape of where we're at with larger scale problems while awash in game theory and arms races.

Most of our governing structures have to deal with a world where half of the people have IQ's under 100, and for as much controversy as there is over how much IQ as a measure actually means - you can see that a great many people have their entire identities rendered by something approximating pure imitation and as few cerebral or first-principles manual adjustments, people almost seem to look for signs of such manual adjustments as signs of poor genetic health and the more of them that show in your demeanor the lower one tends to be rated on the social ladder (unless you really can force your way to the top by getting an economic foothold). It's a world that, to the best I can tell, puts Darwinian game theory first and this is part of why it's so confusing as a child, especially when you have above average intelligence and are under 10 watching adults speech blatant gibberish on TV. It seems like what it comes down to - power generally has a way of mangling and destroying truth, or I'd at least say human needs are their own form of physics and veridical truth or what ultimate cosmic coat-hangers we can map reality from generally are too distant and seemingly cold or alien for most people's needs.

I think my last thought - I notice a lot of people, including Gray and also Jonathan Haidt, go back to Durkheim to gather an understanding of just how broad an umbrella 'religion is', and they've highlighted just how close a cousin politics is (and it quite often can be religion in everything but name). It's a vector of human activity we really need to understand better because the more we reliably miss the content and what we're actually trying to do with it subconsciously the more likely we are to just keep repeating history - even set ourselves up for near extinction events, dark ages, etc., accelerating technology with this sort of - seemingly willful - ignorance of our own fundamental character and intensions doesn't bode well for our ability survive if we let it persist.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Fanman »

LuckyR,
The two cannot bridge this gap on the plane of logic or the physical. However, if they agree that gods exist on the plane of faith or the metaphysical, then their two views, while not similar, are compatible.
That’s right. There will always be a remit for God’s existence, when the believer refers to “faith” and what goes along with it. When all other avenues make it seem as though God is not real, metaphysics and faith accommodate his presence. Because of things that we can’t currently explain empirically, or events that seem weird or outside of what seems possible. God assumed to be the cause of them. I’ve never seen a miracle. I’ve seen things that make me think “wow, there could be more than luck or talent to that?!” But I have never seen the natural physical order broken or changed, as is portrayed in religious scripture.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Fanman »

Papus79,

The "79" was the giveaway :lol:
It seems like what it comes down to - power generally has a way of mangling and destroying truth, or I'd at least say human needs are their own form of physics and veridical truth or what ultimate cosmic coat-hangers we can map reality from generally are too distant and seemingly cold or alien for most people's needs.
Socio-political power, in my view, is the one of worst concepts or machinations mankind has inherited. I have never seen the powerful do anything good with it, no matter the form it comes in. They always exploit it, maybe not all of it, but parts of it. I think that anyone, or institution that has power, maps their reality from that point. Establishing what they can do with it, and how to extend it. It builds societal structures, but inhibits, or maybe even prohibits integration.
I think my last thought - I notice a lot of people, including Gray and also Jonathan Haidt, go back to Durkheim to gather an understanding of just how broad an umbrella 'religion is', and they've highlighted just how close a cousin politics is (and it quite often can be religion in everything but name). It's a vector of human activity we really need to understand better because the more we reliably miss the content and what we're actually trying to do with it subconsciously the more likely we are to just keep repeating history - even set ourselves up for near extinction events, dark ages, etc., accelerating technology with this sort of - seemingly willful - ignorance of our own fundamental character and intensions doesn't bode well for our ability survive if we let it persist.
So true.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

So, you ask about the ontology of knowledge, and I say this question assumes, against your avowed nominalism, the existence of propositions. You claim it doesn't assume the existence of propositions, and I ask what makes a knowledge claim true if not an extra-mental universal object of belief, namely a proposition?
Terrapin Station wrote: September 21st, 2020, 12:38 pm
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 21st, 2020, 11:25 am \And whence the truth of these sentences if not the universal extra-mental propositions they express, the states of affairs or facts embodied by the propositions?
Truth value is a(n individual) judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else. The something else depends on the truth theory the individual is using on the occasion in question (it could be correspondence, coherence, etc.) There is no such thing as "universal extramental propositions." The idea of that is nonsense. Propositions are particular mental states in individuals' brains.
So your first sentence appears to acknowledge the existence of propositions, and your last sentence identifies propositions as mental states.
But if the bearer of truth and falsity is a mental state, then as the truth and falsity of knowledge claims do not involve shareable objects, your last sentence has abandoned the truth-bearing nature of knowledge The proposition [There are mountains on earth] would, on your account, be true in virtue of a mental state, but this proposition was and is true in the absence of all mental states.
Image
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Terrapin Station »

Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 24th, 2020, 12:32 pm So your first sentence appears to acknowledge the existence of propositions, and your last sentence identifies propositions as mental states.
Correct.
But if the bearer of truth and falsity is a mental state, then as the truth and falsity of knowledge claims do not involve shareable objects,
Correct.
your last sentence has abandoned the truth-bearing nature of knowledge
Incorrect. It's just that the "truth-bearing nature of knowledge" isn't what you think it is, or doesn't work in the way you think it does.
The proposition [There are mountains on earth] would, on your account, be true in virtue of a mental state,
Correct. As I wrote, truth value is a judgment that an individual makes.
but this proposition was and is true in the absence of all mental states.
Incorrect. There are no propositions and no truth values in the absence of mental states.
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 24th, 2020, 4:58 pm
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 24th, 2020, 12:32 pm So your first sentence appears to acknowledge the existence of propositions, and your last sentence identifies propositions as mental states.
Correct.
But if the bearer of truth and falsity is a mental state, then as the truth and falsity of knowledge claims do not involve shareable objects,
Correct.
your last sentence has abandoned the truth-bearing nature of knowledge
Incorrect. It's just that the "truth-bearing nature of knowledge" isn't what you think it is, or doesn't work in the way you think it does.
The proposition [There are mountains on earth] would, on your account, be true in virtue of a mental state,
Correct. As I wrote, truth value is a judgment that an individual makes.
but this proposition was and is true in the absence of all mental states.
Incorrect. There are no propositions and no truth values in the absence of mental states.
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth in the absence of mental states?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are mountains on earth is true?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are no mountains on earth is false?
Image
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Sculptor1 »

Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 25th, 2020, 3:01 am
Terrapin Station wrote: September 24th, 2020, 4:58 pm
Correct.


Correct.


Incorrect. It's just that the "truth-bearing nature of knowledge" isn't what you think it is, or doesn't work in the way you think it does.


Correct. As I wrote, truth value is a judgment that an individual makes.


Incorrect. There are no propositions and no truth values in the absence of mental states.
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth in the absence of mental states?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are mountains on earth is true?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are no mountains on earth is false?
The universe abides regardless of the mental construct of "mountain".
Tell where exactly doe the mountain end and the rest of the earth begin?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Belindi »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 5:17 am
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 25th, 2020, 3:01 am
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth in the absence of mental states?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are mountains on earth is true?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are no mountains on earth is false?
The universe abides regardless of the mental construct of "mountain".
Tell where exactly doe the mountain end and the rest of the earth begin?
Tell where exactly doe the mountain end and the rest of the earth begin?
From the point of view of a whale?
From the point of view of a shepherd?
From the point of view of an eagle
From the point of view of God?
From the point of view of a man with heart failure as compared with a fit mountaineer?
From the point of view of a mapmaker?
From the point of view of an artist?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Sculptor1 »

Belindi wrote: September 25th, 2020, 5:37 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 5:17 am
The universe abides regardless of the mental construct of "mountain".
Tell where exactly doe the mountain end and the rest of the earth begin?
Tell where exactly doe the mountain end and the rest of the earth begin?
From the point of view of a whale?
From the point of view of a shepherd?
From the point of view of an eagle
From the point of view of God?
From the point of view of a man with heart failure as compared with a fit mountaineer?
From the point of view of a mapmaker?
From the point of view of an artist?
Indeed.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Terrapin Station »

Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 25th, 2020, 3:01 am Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth in the absence of mental states?
Yes. We're talking about facts there. We're not talking about propositions. (We're simply using propositions to talk about facts.) Truth is different than facts. Facts are states of affairs. Truth is a judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else (such as (beliefs about) states of affairs--or in other words, beliefs about facts--if we're using correspondence theory).
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are mountains on earth is true?
I judge it to be true, sure. In the absence of mental states, though, there are no beliefs, there are no propositions, and there are no (judgments about) semantic relations between propositions and other things.
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are no mountains on earth is false?
And likewise for judging that false.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Thomyum2 »

Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 4:15 am Yes, you get it. Yes, the tree falls in the forest out of earshot. Does it fall in silence?
In this regard we could talk about color as well as beauty, I think.
What constitutes silence? Without hearing, could it be said that there even are such things as sounds or silence? From an evolutionary viewpoint, organisms developed the ability to hear because of the value – because it is pragmatic to be able to distinguish sound from silence.
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 4:15 am
To think that the tree falls in silence contradicts common sense. It also contradicts a basic scientific assumption about the world.
I mean, the absurdity is easily illustrated by giving our tree conundrum another turn: if a tree falls in a forest out of eyeshot, does it fall?
I don’t think it contradicts science, as science is only concerned with what is observed, not with what is not or cannot be observed.

But yes, it does contradict a basic assumption. I think the ‘tree falls’ question is one of the most revealing, and gets at one of the core ideas of philosophy, precisely because how we answer it does reveal our underlying assumptions. The assumption here being that certain things exist, and events happen, independent of whether or not we observe them. But we only assume this because we value it; we call it true because we find it useful to us to understand what changes or what remains the same when we are not observing. Value drives what we assume, not the other way around.
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 4:15 am However, your idea of the priority of value is too interesting not to explore further. As I understand your view, value is prior -- logically and temporally prior -- to both the subjective and the objective elements of a particular experience. Have I read you aright? Do I get your point?
I’m glad you find it interesting and yes I think you’ve understood, although I wouldn’t say ‘logically’ or ‘temporally’ prior (which is why I put ‘precede’ in quotes, since that word normally has a temporal sense). Rather I might say ‘existentially’ prior. To continue on with our tree falling example, valuing a distinction between sound and silence – growing or learning or becoming able to make this distinction – brings these concepts into existence, and this occurs apart from time. When we come to be able to distinguish something, and our awareness of it may extend into past, present and future.
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 23rd, 2020, 4:15 am
If I do get it, would you kindly say a few words on how value priority might work out in the God Question?
Yes, although it’s not an easy idea to capture in a few words. But perhaps a good starting point for further discussion.

If we say that value, or beauty, or God, is in the object, that its reality is based on something that is ‘out there’, separate and apart from us, then God becomes an empirical object – something that we find or discover in the world that we perceive and experience. In which case, God is just another aspect or component of this material world that surrounds us and which we are calling ‘real’, and as such becomes dependent upon our experience of it. God’s reality, in other words, stands or falls depending on what we observe in the world.

On the other hand, if value, or beauty, or God, is not part of this world but is simply ‘in the eye of the beholder’ and a matter of each individual’s judgment, then these live or die with each individual’s interpretations and experiences, and the reality of God is dependent upon and becomes a matter of each person’s judgments or reasoning or whims.

God, by most definitions and in most faith traditions is neither of these things. Rather, we know God through faith, through an act of trust and by free choice, and not through logical deduction or empirical observations, because those truths always depend upon and require some other prior or superior truth. As I see it, this is the meaning of the first commandment, or of the Islamic Shahada. The reality of God (and Truth, Beauty and Love – in other words, Value – being aspects of God) is the primary assumption, the one truth that the person of faith takes as given and that is held as primary above all others, above all subjective and objective human subject or objective ‘truths’. What we accept in faith, we do not require proof, as doing so would subordinate God to some other ideal, effectively turning ‘God’ into ‘a god’ – a one among many.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: God is Real: a dialogue

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 5:17 am
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 25th, 2020, 3:01 am
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that there are mountains on earth in the absence of mental states?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are mountains on earth is true?
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the belief that there are no mountains on earth is false?
The universe abides regardless of the mental construct of "mountain".
Tell where exactly doe the mountain end and the rest of the earth begin?
Irrelevant.
Image
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