Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


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.
#450525
Lagayscienza wrote: November 30th, 2023, 6:20 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: November 30th, 2023, 3:43 pm
A religion is a "binding", a system of dogma that binds people to adhere and belong. It not only tells people what to think, but what to do, how to behave, who to sleep with, what to wear. If spirituality means anything I think it ought to mean something about free thinking, not accepting the dogma of a priestly class.
I think that’s right. So, I’m wondering whether there is a way for an atheist to be “spiritual”. What would that mean?
Simply enough for this to be an issue any definition of "spiritual" would have to include belief in God, and I do not think that is warrented.

As I see it, an atheist is not making any positive claim such as “god(s) don’t exist. An atheist just finds that, given the lack of evidence for god(s), and good arguments for why god(s) don’t exist, there is no reason to believe in god(s) or in religions based on belief in god(s). Then there is all the negative baggage that comes with religion that the atheist wishes to avoid. However, the lack of belief in god(s) and religion does not seem to preclude some other way of being “spiritual” if such a way exits. Maybe “spiritual” can refer to something other than god(s) and religion.
I would agree were your definition of "spiritual" to include delusional factors. To my mind whatever it is when people feel spiritual is so often confused with supernatural phenomona and their preconeption of god that it would give rise to the OP question.
However... I regard that feeling as perfectly natural. From my studies in anthroplogy such behaviours are widespread if not universal. I would go so far as to say that even animals can be included.
The San people without a single reference to god practice the health dance in which they dance in circls and call up healing power through trance states. Now their world does have "spirits", but from a Christian perpective they are essentially atheistic, though they have some personifications when they think through their spirit world. This is not theism.
That ability to go to trance does not require a belief in god, and such practices are forbidden and often dismissed as "witchcraft" by religions.

It’s this “other than gods and religion” that is the question of the OP. Can spirituality be god-free and non-religious? Does anyone have any ideas on this?
Hyponosis, Mesmerism and other mind bending practices work without god.
And you can put a chicken into a trance if you need to.

When my dog rolls on her back and receiving a tummy rub can go into an ecstatic state. Is this not "spiritual"?
And when I get that feeling of wonder by looking under a rock, or looking at the stars - what is that?
#450526
Lagayscienza wrote: November 30th, 2023, 6:20 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: November 30th, 2023, 3:43 pm
A religion is a "binding", a system of dogma that binds people to adhere and belong. It not only tells people what to think, but what to do, how to behave, who to sleep with, what to wear. If spirituality means anything I think it ought to mean something about free thinking, not accepting the dogma of a priestly class.
I think that’s right. So, I’m wondering whether there is a way for an atheist to be “spiritual”. What would that mean?

As I see it, an atheist is not making any positive claim such as “god(s) don’t exist. An atheist just finds that, given the lack of evidence for god(s), and good arguments for why god(s) don’t exist, there is no reason to believe in god(s) or in religions based on belief in god(s). Then there is all the negative baggage that comes with religion that the atheist wishes to avoid. However, the lack of belief in god(s) and religion does not seem to preclude some other way of being “spiritual” if such a way exits. Maybe “spiritual” can refer to something other than god(s) and religion.

It’s this “other than gods and religion” that is the question of the OP. Can spirituality be god-free and non-religious? Does anyone have any ideas on this?
You can worship a god that appeals to your heart and soul without needing a c band of priests to tell you what that god is all about.
#450527
Sculptor1 wrote: December 1st, 2023, 8:05 am
Lagayscienza wrote: November 30th, 2023, 6:20 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: November 30th, 2023, 3:43 pm
A religion is a "binding", a system of dogma that binds people to adhere and belong. It not only tells people what to think, but what to do, how to behave, who to sleep with, what to wear. If spirituality means anything I think it ought to mean something about free thinking, not accepting the dogma of a priestly class.
I think that’s right. So, I’m wondering whether there is a way for an atheist to be “spiritual”. What would that mean?
Simply enough for this to be an issue any definition of "spiritual" would have to include belief in God, and I do not think that is warrented.

As I see it, an atheist is not making any positive claim such as “god(s) don’t exist. An atheist just finds that, given the lack of evidence for god(s), and good arguments for why god(s) don’t exist, there is no reason to believe in god(s) or in religions based on belief in god(s). Then there is all the negative baggage that comes with religion that the atheist wishes to avoid. However, the lack of belief in god(s) and religion does not seem to preclude some other way of being “spiritual” if such a way exits. Maybe “spiritual” can refer to something other than god(s) and religion.
I would agree were your definition of "spiritual" to include delusional factors. To my mind whatever it is when people feel spiritual is so often confused with supernatural phenomona and their preconeption of god that it would give rise to the OP question.
However... I regard that feeling as perfectly natural. From my studies in anthroplogy such behaviours are widespread if not universal. I would go so far as to say that even animals can be included.
The San people without a single reference to god practice the health dance in which they dance in circls and call up healing power through trance states. Now their world does have "spirits", but from a Christian perpective they are essentially atheistic, though they have some personifications when they think through their spirit world. This is not theism.
That ability to go to trance does not require a belief in god, and such practices are forbidden and often dismissed as "witchcraft" by religions.

It’s this “other than gods and religion” that is the question of the OP. Can spirituality be god-free and non-religious? Does anyone have any ideas on this?
Hyponosis, Mesmerism and other mind bending practices work without god.
And you can put a chicken into a trance if you need to.

When my dog rolls on her back and receiving a tummy rub can go into an ecstatic state. Is this not "spiritual"?
And when I get that feeling of wonder by looking under a rock, or looking at the stars - what is that?
The Mende people of Sierra Leone , besides ancestors and spirits of place, also have Ngwe(sp?) who is unique creator who created it all then went "Far far away"ie. unapproachable.
That ability to go to trance does not require a belief in god, and such practices are forbidden and often dismissed as "witchcraft" by religions.
(Sculptor) Religions "would wouldn't they!" To quote Mandy Rice Davies.
excluding non conformers is what religions are for. Them and us.
#450528
Philosophers of a phenomenological persuasion see consciousness as the subjective a priori reality that is given directly in/as consciousness, and as the ground of BEING. They say science is metaphysically forlorn, mistaken about reality and an epistemic non-starter. So, if science is wrong about reality, is it also wrong about spirituality? I'm still learning about phenomenology and so I'd be interested to hear how the spiritual naysayers would answer the phenomenologists? Is there something that phenomenology is getting wrong? What is it? It would be very useful if Hereandnow could weigh in here. :)
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#450531
Lagayscienza wrote: December 1st, 2023, 9:41 am Philosophers of a phenomenological persuasion see consciousness as the subjective a priori reality that is given directly in/as consciousness, and as the ground of BEING. They say science is metaphysically forlorn, mistaken about reality and an epistemic non-starter. So, if science is wrong about reality, is it also wrong about spirituality? I'm still learning about phenomenology and so I'd be interested to hear how the spiritual naysayers would answer the phenomenologists? Is there something that phenomenology is getting wrong? What is it? It would be very useful if Hereandnow could weigh in here. :)
No, none of this means that science is wrong about reality.

Far from it. It provides view of reality which is often beside human experience. It tend to quantify, predict and explain through its type of description.
Phenomenology takes a human experience sided view. This is not always much good to do the things that science achieves. But can offer us a point of view more suited to our expeiences. So rather than talk about low blood sugar or gherlin levels, phenomenology talks about your expeience of hunger.
But science is not wrong to point out that hunger is caused by low BS and Hormones such as ghrelin and leptin levels, and I think you would agree that science gives us something which is useful.
#450544
Sculptor1 wrote: December 1st, 2023, 11:25 am
Lagayscienza wrote: December 1st, 2023, 9:41 am Philosophers of a phenomenological persuasion see consciousness as the subjective a priori reality that is given directly in/as consciousness, and as the ground of BEING. They say science is metaphysically forlorn, mistaken about reality and an epistemic non-starter. So, if science is wrong about reality, is it also wrong about spirituality? I'm still learning about phenomenology and so I'd be interested to hear how the spiritual naysayers would answer the phenomenologists? Is there something that phenomenology is getting wrong? What is it? It would be very useful if Hereandnow could weigh in here. :)
No, none of this means that science is wrong about reality.

Far from it. It provides view of reality which is often beside human experience. It tend to quantify, predict and explain through its type of description.
Phenomenology takes a human experience sided view. This is not always much good to do the things that science achieves. But can offer us a point of view more suited to our expeiences. So rather than talk about low blood sugar or gherlin levels, phenomenology talks about your expeience of hunger.
But science is not wrong to point out that hunger is caused by low BS and Hormones such as ghrelin and leptin levels, and I think you would agree that science gives us something which is useful.
Thanks, that's a good answer. The low blood sugar/hunger example makes clear that science and phenomenology are just different perspectives - 1st person vs 3rd person and the one does not trump the other. If I've understood correctly, phenomenology is about how hunger feels subjectively. Science is about the relations between physical elements that result in the subjective feeling. However, some phenomenologists assert that science does not rest on a sound metaphysical foundation. I don't agree with this assertion.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#450553
Lagayscienza wrote: December 1st, 2023, 11:01 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 1st, 2023, 11:25 am
Lagayscienza wrote: December 1st, 2023, 9:41 am Philosophers of a phenomenological persuasion see consciousness as the subjective a priori reality that is given directly in/as consciousness, and as the ground of BEING. They say science is metaphysically forlorn, mistaken about reality and an epistemic non-starter. So, if science is wrong about reality, is it also wrong about spirituality? I'm still learning about phenomenology and so I'd be interested to hear how the spiritual naysayers would answer the phenomenologists? Is there something that phenomenology is getting wrong? What is it? It would be very useful if Hereandnow could weigh in here. :)
No, none of this means that science is wrong about reality.

Far from it. It provides view of reality which is often beside human experience. It tend to quantify, predict and explain through its type of description.
Phenomenology takes a human experience sided view. This is not always much good to do the things that science achieves. But can offer us a point of view more suited to our expeiences. So rather than talk about low blood sugar or gherlin levels, phenomenology talks about your expeience of hunger.
But science is not wrong to point out that hunger is caused by low BS and Hormones such as ghrelin and leptin levels, and I think you would agree that science gives us something which is useful.
Thanks, that's a good answer. The low blood sugar/hunger example makes clear that science and phenomenology are just different perspectives - 1st person vs 3rd person and the one does not trump the other. If I've understood correctly, phenomenology is about how hunger feels subjectively. Science is about the relations between physical elements that result in the subjective feeling. However, some phenomenologists assert that science does not rest on a sound metaphysical foundation. I don't agree with this assertion.
Phenomenology is more thah a subjective view I think. In fact I would not separate it from science as such. Many scientific disciplines such as archaeology, anhtropology, psychology and sociology can use phenomenological perspectives and are better for them.
Phenomenology asks what is objectivity - and I would argue that it might be better qualified to be able to answer that question. How do we experience objectivity? What does it mean to seek it? What behaviours does it encourage?
You can tell when a person is devoid of this way of thinking; unable to draw scientific and experiential references. Those that cannot fathom the role of cultural, historical and personal influences on what we would like to call "objective" morality, for example.
#450556
Sculptor1 wrote: December 2nd, 2023, 6:17 am
Lagayscienza wrote: December 1st, 2023, 11:01 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 1st, 2023, 11:25 am
Lagayscienza wrote: December 1st, 2023, 9:41 am Philosophers of a phenomenological persuasion see consciousness as the subjective a priori reality that is given directly in/as consciousness, and as the ground of BEING. They say science is metaphysically forlorn, mistaken about reality and an epistemic non-starter. So, if science is wrong about reality, is it also wrong about spirituality? I'm still learning about phenomenology and so I'd be interested to hear how the spiritual naysayers would answer the phenomenologists? Is there something that phenomenology is getting wrong? What is it? It would be very useful if Hereandnow could weigh in here. :)


No, none of this means that science is wrong about reality.

Far from it. It provides view of reality which is often beside human experience. It tend to quantify, predict and explain through its type of description.
Phenomenology takes a human experience sided view. This is not always much good to do the things that science achieves. But can offer us a point of view more suited to our expeiences. So rather than talk about low blood sugar or gherlin levels, phenomenology talks about your expeience of hunger.
But science is not wrong to point out that hunger is caused by low BS and Hormones such as ghrelin and leptin levels, and I think you would agree that science gives us something which is useful.
Thanks, that's a good answer. The low blood sugar/hunger example makes clear that science and phenomenology are just different perspectives - 1st person vs 3rd person and the one does not trump the other. If I've understood correctly, phenomenology is about how hunger feels subjectively. Science is about the relations between physical elements that result in the subjective feeling. However, some phenomenologists assert that science does not rest on a sound metaphysical foundation. I don't agree with this assertion.
Phenomenology is more thah a subjective view I think. In fact I would not separate it from science as such. Many scientific disciplines such as archaeology, anhtropology, psychology and sociology can use phenomenological perspectives and are better for them.
Phenomenology asks what is objectivity - and I would argue that it might be better qualified to be able to answer that question. How do we experience objectivity? What does it mean to seek it? What behaviours does it encourage?
You can tell when a person is devoid of this way of thinking; unable to draw scientific and experiential references. Those that cannot fathom the role of cultural, historical and personal influences on what we would like to call "objective" morality, for example.
I endorse Sculptor. Unless there be there be the 'first person singular' who is experiencer all sciences, including not only the human sciences but also the natural sciences, could be done by artificial intelligence machines.
#450557
Belindi wrote: December 2nd, 2023, 8:55 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 2nd, 2023, 6:17 am
Lagayscienza wrote: December 1st, 2023, 11:01 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 1st, 2023, 11:25 am



No, none of this means that science is wrong about reality.

Far from it. It provides view of reality which is often beside human experience. It tend to quantify, predict and explain through its type of description.
Phenomenology takes a human experience sided view. This is not always much good to do the things that science achieves. But can offer us a point of view more suited to our expeiences. So rather than talk about low blood sugar or gherlin levels, phenomenology talks about your expeience of hunger.
But science is not wrong to point out that hunger is caused by low BS and Hormones such as ghrelin and leptin levels, and I think you would agree that science gives us something which is useful.
Thanks, that's a good answer. The low blood sugar/hunger example makes clear that science and phenomenology are just different perspectives - 1st person vs 3rd person and the one does not trump the other. If I've understood correctly, phenomenology is about how hunger feels subjectively. Science is about the relations between physical elements that result in the subjective feeling. However, some phenomenologists assert that science does not rest on a sound metaphysical foundation. I don't agree with this assertion.
Phenomenology is more thah a subjective view I think. In fact I would not separate it from science as such. Many scientific disciplines such as archaeology, anhtropology, psychology and sociology can use phenomenological perspectives and are better for them.
Phenomenology asks what is objectivity - and I would argue that it might be better qualified to be able to answer that question. How do we experience objectivity? What does it mean to seek it? What behaviours does it encourage?
You can tell when a person is devoid of this way of thinking; unable to draw scientific and experiential references. Those that cannot fathom the role of cultural, historical and personal influences on what we would like to call "objective" morality, for example.
I endorse Sculptor. Unless there be there be the 'first person singular' who is experiencer all sciences, including not only the human sciences but also the natural sciences, could be done by artificial intelligence machines.
Not sure what you mean.
I cannot agree with the last phrase.
AI is incapable of science. They can be guided to help us find answers but you still need to want, desire, have purpose, volition.
AI is just a language machine.
#450559
Belindi wrote: November 30th, 2023, 9:38 am We can't measure mind because measuring is definitely an objective activity. I seem to remember someone said of my mind and of your mind that I and you have privileged access to our respective minds.
Er, we can't "measure" mind because we have no scientist, and no scientific equipment, that is able to do so, "objective" or not. Mind is wholly invisible to science and its accoutrements.

Yes, we have privileged access to our own minds, of course, but that does not constitute what a scientist might call "evidence". I think it only means that we all know what 'mind' is, but cannot transfer our experiential understanding into something a scientist could get a hold of.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#450560
Sy Borg wrote: November 30th, 2023, 8:10 pm A major issue with religions, aside from superstition and dogmatism, is the notion that a one-size-fits-all solution exists that can satisfy all people - from soldiers to cops, nurses, watchmakers, scientists, musicians, salespeople, bricklayers, welfare workers, politicians and executives. According to religions and some ideologies, all people should have the same needs and ascribe to the same values. Religion effectively tries to reign in pluralism, but that is the lifeblood of society. It takes all sorts ...

Spirituality can be whatever people deem it to be. It's personal, subjective. Einstein and some other scientists found physics to be spiritual. Astronauts report spiritual experiences looking down at the obviously-living Earth. Some artists and musician consider their flow state to be spiritual. I can't say if Sagan's famous Pale Blue Dot speech is technically spiritual, but - to me - it's one of the most inspiring and spiritual sentiments I've encountered.
You're a bit hard on religion, unsurprisingly, but I think you have it right when you see spirituality as being more flexible and open than "religion", more able to embrace plurality (as quite a few religions do too). It may be that, when it comes to non-material things like beliefs, there is such a thing as one-size-fits-all, as long as the "one size" is a highly inclusive size. It's like the difference between trousers that fit a waist of exactly 36", and one that is elasticated, and fits most adult waist sizes. One pretty-flexible size can approach 'fitting all', I think...?
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#450579
Lagayscienza wrote: November 27th, 2023, 1:40 am
I am so tired of hearing that science thinks that consciousness comes from the brain
Gee, if consciousness doesn't come from the brain, then where does it from? And how can you tell?
If you want to know where consciousness comes from, wouldn't it first be handy to know what consciousness is? Most people, all of science, and most of philosophy see consciousness as being thought and the rational mind, which comes from the brain. It may well be true that thought comes from the brain, but is it consciousness? If thought, that comes from the brain, is consciousness, then thought is the source of our lives, which would make the Bible story in Genesis true -- first there was the word (thought) and the word was "God" -- so thought started everything. "God" was first. All species that do not have a brain work on reflex, or automatic responses that are dictated by "God", or maybe they are magic, but they are NOT conscious. All ecosystems are dictated by "God" and all of the self-balancing of Nature is dictated by "God" or the Intelligent Designer -- awareness (consciousness) is irrelevant to these processes. This is close to what was believed in the Dark Ages, so we have not advanced much, and I don't think it was the intention of science to promote this kind of thinking.

The above thoughts brought me into discussion with a professor at Duke University, who explained the following. He said, "If you take the greatest thoughts known to man and write them down on a piece of paper, or record them on a disc, then store them for hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of years, what will happen?" "Nothing." "Because thought has no power, so without an active reader, thought is static and incapable of doing anything -- much like thought or knowledge recorded in a dead body/brain. It will certainly not evolve." This sent me on a quest looking for the active components of consciousness.

In my thread, "Pure Consciousness?", I questioned and then broke down consciousness into six main components that make up most of our understanding of consciousness. Three of them, thought, memory, and knowledge, are private and internal aspects of consciousness -- you can not know mine and I can not know yours unless we choose to share the information. These components are digital and can be sorted, manipulated, and accumulated, which is why they are the mainstay of the rational mind. The other three, emotion, feeling (not tactile), and awareness, are fluid, analogue, not private, and are difficult to define as they are not static and tend to flow between lives. They are aspects of the unconscious because they can be felt, but not known, thus they are something that we are not consciously aware of until we see a reaction. The unconscious is predominantly guided by emotion and is not very knowable.

Then I went to a science forum where I had some discussion with a neurologist, who was working on an AI project, I believe it was in Italy. I learned a lot from that person, but had problems believing that the unconscious aspect of mind is a receptacle for excess knowledge that the conscious aspect of mind could not hold -- as is taught by a lot of science. Most people believe that the rational conscious aspect of mind, where we do our thinking, plan our days, and guide our activities, is our consciousness. I don't think so, as it seems that the rational aspect of mind is more likely a product of consciousness. There is too much going on in our minds that we have little or no control over, which did not come from the conscious aspect of mind, is part of our unconscious, and that also keeps us alive. The unconscious is too important to our self-preservation, ecosystems, and to the self balancing of Nature.

So it was time to study the unconscious. The unconscious has at least five levels or "stratums" as discovered by Matt Blanco, a psychiatrist, so there is nothing simple about it. It works predominantly through emotion, so it is reactive, and it ignores time so it is not very logical as we know logic. Most of its deliberations deal with recognizing opposites like same and difference, self and other, which is where our bias comes from and probably what causes the self-balancing of life. Although the rational aspect of mind is generally thought to be internal, echoing the parameters of the brain, there is no such limitation on the unconscious. We have no idea of what the parameters of the unconscious are, but from what we have discovered from hormones and pheromones, it is a player in the game of ecosystems, so who knows. I once saw an article about a theory of consciousness that stated it is much more likely that we are in consciousness, than that consciousness is in us. I suspect that the article was about the unconscious and have no doubt that it is an important component in spirituality. After all spirituality is really just connections.

If you could take consciousness and put it in the form of a sentence, you would find that thought, memory, and knowledge represent the nouns in the sentence, the objects, that give the sentence form and substance. You would find that feeling, emotion, and awareness represent the verbs in the sentence denoting action and state of being. It would take both in order for the sentence to work, make sense, and explain the activity.

ALSO CONSIDER

Let me state that the supernatural, the spiritual, the paranormal, and some forms of mental illness are the same thing. The difference between them is accreditation. The sameness between them is emotion and the unconscious aspect of mind.

Somewhere around 400 AD, Constantine and Augustine established the Western (Christian) Church doctrine, and about 100 years after that, the idea of the supernatural, as we now understand it, was firmly established. (You can look this up in Wiki) Anything that was not accepted as spiritual by church doctrine was downgraded to supernatural. If you are Joan of Ark and hear voices in your head, it is spiritual, for anybody else, it is supernatural or maybe schizophrenia. If you are talking to your dead husband, it is supernatural, unless you live in an area that accepts reincarnation and your husband has been reborn -- then it might be spiritual. If your dead husband is walking around, it is definitely supernatural, unless you practice VooDoo -- maybe. So the difference between supernatural and spiritual is generally what the local religion accepts -- accreditation.

About 100 years ago, Freud, Jung, et al, identified the unconscious and studied it. It was not long before they discovered that some things labeled supernatural or spiritual, were in reality aspects of the unconscious. These aspects became explained as the paranormal. The interesting part, at least to me, was that no matter which of the labels were used, spiritual, supernatural, paranormal, or the unconscious -- all of them work through emotion -- as the unconscious does. Emotion was a common factor. I began to wonder what exactly is emotion that it should have so much power and influence, and so little understanding of what it is and how it works.

Someone here stated that emotion works through chemistry and electricity, which is partially correct. Emotion works between things, and I suspect that chemistry is an important player in that game, but it uses something closer to magnetism than it does electricity. If you are interested and get the opportunity, go to YouTube and look up Richard Feynman's explanation of magnets. He states that they are considered electricity, and then goes on to state that they really are not electricity, but you would have to take his class to understand it. Unfortunately he is no longer with us. But emotion and feeling definitely work between things like magnets, and if you break them down to their simplest forms, they work on attraction/repulsion.

Sorry it took me so long to reply to this, but I was in the hospital last week.

Gee
Location: Michigan, US
#450585
Gee wrote: December 2nd, 2023, 6:15 pm
Sy Borg wrote: December 2nd, 2023, 5:53 pm Summary: emotion and spirituality are posited to be intimately related.
But which is causal? Emotion -- a force? "God" -- a deity? It is clearly not thought.

Gee
I'm thinking it's a combination of entropy and chaos, resulting in the probability that ordered entities may emerge. From there, it's a matter of "survival of the persistent". Qualities that lead to persistence will logically tend to increase in reality. It's not technically natural selection, which only applies to biology, but a larger tendency of reality of which natural selection is a part.

Digging deeper, past entropy and chaos would seem speculative. Maybe God is the Great Programmer of this particular universal simulation? At the core of all things, anything can be postulated - from The Void to a humanoid deity to multidimensional membranes to endless cycles.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 57

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

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

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 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

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


SCIENCE and SCIENTISM

I agree that science is a powerful tool and very […]

The idea the sky and the ground are upside-down as[…]

There have been studies done to see if people with[…]

Personal responsibility

It’s important to realize that Autism comes in man[…]