Lyceum: Philosophy Reading & Discussion Group

The justice system is meant to be the great equalizer, protecting our rights and upholding the law. But is it truly just for all Americans today? In this thoughtful and personal conversation, we’ll explore the core questions surrounding our courts:

• How are judges and justices appointed, and how does that influence their decisions?
• What role, if any, does undisclosed (“dark”) money play in shaping judicial rulings?
• Why is public trust in the courts declining—and how can we rebuild it?
• What are some personal stories that reveal both the strengths and shortcomings of our current legal system?
• If our system isn’t perfect (and no system is), what reforms could make it fairer and more accountable—such as community courts or citizen juries?

Our goal is not to tear down the justice system but to improve it thoughtfully—protecting its essential role in society while correcting the ways it falls short of fairness. We’ll also discuss innovative ideas like local community courts and explore how ordinary citizens can help create a more just and trustworthy legal system.
Whether you’re a skeptic or a supporter of the courts, conservative or liberal, your voice matters in this conversation about how we define justice in America today—and tomorrow.

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposes giving every citizen a guaranteed minimum income—no strings attached. Some argue it could end poverty and prepare us for an automated future. Others warn it could discourage work and bankrupt governments.
In this session, we’ll explore:

• What real-world experiments in UBI (like in Finland or Alaska) have shown.
• Whether UBI could replace—or complement—existing welfare programs.
• The economic, ethical, and political arguments on both sides.

Whether you see UBI as a bold solution or a dangerous gamble, join us for a balanced discussion where conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and independents alike can explore the facts and debate what’s best for society.

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.

The “God of the Gaps” argument—claiming that God explains what science cannot—has long been criticized for shrinking as human knowledge expands. But what if there’s a more nuanced version of this argument? One not rooted in ignorance, but in the fundamental limits of human understanding itself.

Enter Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which mathematically prove that within any consistent system of logic, there will always be true statements that cannot be proven within that system. Does this open the door to a rational acknowledgment of mysteries that may remain permanently beyond human explanation—whether those mysteries point to God, the transcendent, or simply the limits of reason?

In this session, we’ll explore:

What Gödel’s theorems actually say—and don’t say—about the limits of human knowledge.

Whether the “God of the Gaps” argument, when reframed as an acknowledgment of intrinsic limits rather than temporary ignorance, holds any philosophical merit.

Alternative secular explanations for the unknown, such as human cognitive limits, multiverse theories, or epistemological humility.

How this question intersects with science, philosophy, and personal belief systems across the spectrum.

This conversation is for skeptics, believers, and anyone intrigued by the boundaries of what we can know. It’s less about proving or disproving God, and more about asking: When we reach the edges of knowledge, what—if anything—should we place there?

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.