[Johan]

I don’t understand your objection. Of course we accept that mental states exist, but the question is if those mental states do more harm, or more good.

Just because you feel internally like you are experiencing a relationship with person X, that doesn’t mean that an actual relationship exists either.

As an atheist, I feel contrition when I have wronged another person. A Christian is asked to have contrition for merely being born a human and is asked to seek forgiveness for that fact for their entire lives. These things are not equal. Expressing contrition is not worship though. It may be a part of it, but does not encompass it.

Although similar, Veneration and devotion are different animals. I don’t think they are at all useful things to strive for. I think it is great to respect others, and feel some awe towards them, but once you get into the extreme levels of veneration and devotion, you start walking a mine field. Veneration can be used as a weapon against you, same with devotion.

[jayceeii]

You appear to be saying that contrition is a universal human mental state, but that contrition felt towards a Deity would be delusion, and as there is no one watching the contrition it is not received.

Then you are also saying veneration and devotion are not universal states, as you experience neither. Then you must be forming ideas about these from conjecture of what you call milder states, of respect and “awe.”

Your theory becomes that the division between humans is that some are subject to more extreme versions of states you experience in your ordinary sense experience. Not only this but it can go on their whole lives, bringing on such things as martyrdom and monkhood.

Then from a naturalistic perspective, the biochemistry of some becomes “unhinged” from the normal sense reality everyone experiences. They begin looking to the invisible and ineffable, in a deviation or malfunction inherent to a randomly generated material intelligence.

Maybe these things are already part of atheist conceptions, but at the forum the emphasis has been on belief and the evidence for it. One might wonder why you’d go on interacting with religionists, having diagnosed them as having a deep and probably irreversible biochemical distortion. Why would you think reasoning with them can pull them out of their religious states? Are you sure that wouldn’t also be a delusion?

Wouldn’t your theory become that you’d been “lucky,” having the authentic material intelligence which is not subject to religious delusions, and there is logically nothing that can be done for those who are? A more thorough atheism might see there is no hope for rational argumentation to succeed, and isn’t that how the barriers are normally drawn anyway? The divide between atheists and theists even looks like this, neither side listens to the other. Maybe atheism is succeeding more than it knew.

In any case your task becomes twofold, to convince of both error in belief and distortion of states. You’ve found resistance to the former, but might find much more for the latter. It’s a problem for you that the religionists are competent or excellent, in everyday labors. It’s not like their biochemical distortion makes them mentally deficient in practical ways. Then your theory has to get more sophisticated, that the distortion is compartmentalized. You have to argue that the material intelligence has depths that seem almost “spiritual.” Somehow the distorting influence that leads some to feel devotion, afflicts some “levels” of normal function, but has absolutely no influence on the levels involved in daily work.

[Johan]

The term “delusion” was your addition not mine, but yes, I think it is false to feel sorry to a character that does not exist. It would be like feeling contrition to Bilbo Baggins for something that you did. It would be odd.

Yes, it is common for humans to experience different degrees of things. Some people take thing to extreme levels while others do not. I didn’t think this was something that was in question?

Once again, “unhinged” was your term not mine. I would simply say that people have varying experiences and each take things to different levels.

Yet again “deep and probably irreversible biochemical distortion” are your words not mine. I really wish you wouldn’t attempt to put words into my mouth and then criticize me for those words, it makes for a poor conversation.

Yes, in some sense I was “lucky” that things worked out for me in such a way that I did not take that particular idea to an extreme level. I recognize that some of it is personal work, and some of it is the luck of the environment I lived in and the things I have been exposed to. Had I not been exposed to atheistic and religious content from youtube, I would probably be an agnostic Catholic still to this day. I don’t believe others are incapable of reaching the same conclusions that I have, so I would never be so arrogant as to write others off as you propose. I believe that by exposing people to ideas that they may not have been exposed to, or sides of a concept they may have never considered before can be important. I also think it is important for me to expose myself to other ideas too.

The fact is that I don’t know what I don’t know, and if I live in an echo chamber, I will probably never discover what it is that I don’t know, so I find immense value in discussions with people who hold contrary views. It seems that you couldn’t be more wrong in your understanding of my ideas and beliefs here. Wouldn’t it be better to simply ask me, rather than make these sweeping assumptions that I have to spend more time correcting than it would have taken to simply tell you in the first place?

Yes, humans are really good at compartmentalizing beliefs and walling some off from inspection. I sometimes even catch myself doing it, and I have to force myself to try to overcome this. I don’t understand where “spiritual” comes into play here though.

[jayceeii]

You say that I have mischaracterized your argument, but I am not so sure.

JB: The term “delusion” was your addition not mine, but yes, I think it is false to feel sorry to a character that does not exist. It would be like feeling contrition to Bilbo Baggins for something that you did. It would be odd.

JC: So we are agreed, from your viewpoint those who apply their extreme versions of respect and awe, referred to as veneration and devotion, to an Invisible Entity, are deluded because there is no one actually watching. Their ideas and emotions are applied to their own imaginations only, perhaps induced by the delusions of many in the religion.

JB: Yes, it is common for humans to experience different degrees of things. Some people take thing to extreme levels while others do not. I didn’t think this was something that was in question?

JC: My point is these are by no means minor variations, but lead to tremendous differences in lifelong behavior, such as being willing to accept martyrdom or to become a monk. Monks write of vast transformative experiences, virtually sweeping them off their feet in devotion to God, as well as claiming profound everyday inner experiences.

JB: Once again, “unhinged” was your term not mine. I would simply say that people have varying experiences and each take things to different levels.

JC: I used the word “unhinged” in reference to the extremities of difference in inner experience that would make some accept martyrdom, and others become monks. The differences are stable and lifelong, not minor fluctuations like seen in biochemistry. Your argument becomes that the physical organism must have major differences, while also not influencing everyday labor. The material intelligence manifests in vastly different ways.

JB: Yet again “deep and probably irreversible biochemical distortion” are your words not mine. I really wish you wouldn’t attempt to put words into my mouth and then criticize me for those words, it makes for a poor conversation.

JC: You are not denying me according to strict materialist theory, which says the mind is a product of biochemistry and neurology. You appear to have a belief that your mind is not material, despite your stated beliefs as an atheist, that you aren’t concluding this too. According to strict materialist theory, you’d be saying your mind is not distorted, but the minds of religionists are, not only in their belief but also in their inner mental experience. You’re defining yourself as the rational norm, not subject to delusion of invisible beings and with emotions mild rather than extreme. Maybe it is the extreme emotions that lead to wrong beliefs, and you should go to work on those first, attempting to convince theists. Yet these emotions do not cut into their everyday secular lives, where they succeed easily.

JB: Yes, in some sense I was “lucky” that things worked out for me in such a way that I did not take that particular idea to an extreme level. I recognize that some of it is personal work, and some of it is the luck of the environment I lived in and the things I have been exposed to. Had I not been exposed to atheistic and religious content from youtube, I would probably be an agnostic Catholic still to this day.

JC: This is back in the strict materialist view. As you say, “I,” you mean the mind generated by solely physical processes of biochemistry and neurology. You have “been delivered” somehow, by an accident of nature which kept your emotions mild and therefore you didn’t seek to put these onto an Invisible Being, like those whose accidents of nature gave them extreme forms of respect and awe. So maybe this is the more efficacious atheist diagnosis of theists, their emotions untamable, they turn to a Deity.

JB: I don’t believe others are incapable of reaching the same conclusions that I have, so I would never be so arrogant as to write others off as you propose.

JC: Now here you again seem to slip into a closet belief your mind is not material. You speak of reaching a conclusion here, but formerly you have said your emotions are mild by nature. If the problem is in the states of mind to which nature subjects various people, how is reasoning the solution? Don’t you see nature had given them veneration and devotion and there’s no way to reason out of that? Reason is thinking, emotion is not. You’d have to become almost an anti-spiritual teacher, teaching them ways to tame their emotions so they can be detached from false ideas of a Deity, as was so simple for you. The biochemistry has randomly fated some to extreme emotions, which relate to belief in God but not daily labor. In fact many religious ones say it helps them work passionately.

JB: I believe that by exposing people to ideas that they may not have been exposed to, or sides of a concept they may have never considered before can be important. I also think it is important for me to expose myself to other ideas too.

JC: Again you are back to thinking, although we are agreed the problem is in the states. How is thinking going to adjust an emotional state which biochemistry has dictated? You’re exhibiting an implicit belief your mind is not material, as you suppose thinking could change the biochemical fate that pushes some into lifelong veneration and devotion. But you aren’t succeeding, and the theists aren’t succeeding in persuading you, and this strengthens the material case. It looks like nature, not ideas, divide the people!

JB: The fact is that I don’t know what I don’t know, and if I live in an echo chamber, I will probably never discover what it is that I don’t know, so I find immense value in discussions with people who hold contrary views. It seems that you couldn’t be more wrong in your understanding of my ideas and beliefs here. Wouldn’t it be better to simply ask me, rather than make these sweeping assumptions that I have to spend more time correcting than it would have taken to simply tell you in the first place?

JC: You’ve exposed an inconsistency in your materialist worldview, that you believe thoughts can control emotions although each of these theoretically springs from randomly deposited biochemistry and neurology. I started this post looking for a more consistent atheism, but perhaps atheism has never been very consistent. I was giving you a new angle from which to oppose the theists, that not only are their beliefs meaningless but also their claimed states. You say nature has blessed you with mild states, but has given others extreme states which tend to push them into zones of false belief in a Deity. You have a material explanation for theism, but retain a belief thinking could influence that.

JB: Yes, humans are really good at compartmentalizing beliefs and walling some off from inspection. I sometimes even catch myself doing it, and I have to force myself to try to overcome this. I don’t understand where “spiritual” comes into play here though.

JC: It becomes quasi-spiritual that the biochemistry which has a tremendous lifelong effect of “inflicting” veneration and devotion on some, does not influence the total mind. Now we are talking about levels of mind, not one surface mind. A mind with levels does not yield easily to a materialistic explanation. Your argument becomes a very difficult one, that the biochemistry is blasting through a sea of overwhelming emotions in some and yet the effect remains restricted. And if you want to know what people are talking about controlling emotions with the mind, it is the gurus. And even the notion you have of a mind that can compartmentalize, implies a presence that can influence the interior.

[Johan]

Delusion has a very specific meaning, and I wouldn’t apply it here.

Minor variations can lead to tremendous differences in lifelong behavior though.

You refer to my “stated beliefs as an atheist”, but I don’t know what you think those are? The only stated belief I have as an atheist is that I don’t hold the positive belief that God exists. I am not saying that my mind is not distorted, I am not saying that the minds of religionists are. I am not defining myself as the rational norm, not subject to delusion of invisible beings. I really wish you would stop trying to assume my psychology.

I honestly have no desire to keep going through your reply because it is simply filled with false accusations that I would need to spend more time replying to than actually advancing any conversation.

[jayceeii]

Stating that there is no God or spirit you are left with solely material causes. Rejecting God is an insufficient atheism. You must look at the consequences if there is no God.

For instance, in this interaction your annoyance with me must be written down as a reaction in your atoms. If you feel personally annoyed, it is a quasi-spiritual assumption.

The question is how you will respond as you see atheism forces you to identify as a collection of atoms. If you don’t agree atheism forces this, what are you then, essentially?

Stating the opposite isn’t an argument. I thought it was very usual to say atheists describe themselves as the rational norm, denying the delusions of the theists to invisible beings.

I mean you are saying you are right in denying invisible beings and they are wrong. Whatever “rational” means you are claiming more of it, and that theists are distorted.

This is on a material worldview. Your atoms have coalesced in a more rational way so that you aren’t subjected to delusions, except it seems a delusion that you are a person.

You should embrace the “full metal atheism,” that you are a collection of atoms and proud of it (even though a personal feeling of pride must also be a material illusion).

[Johan]

This is just wrong though, an atheist is not limited to materialism. An atheist can be a dualist, or have any number of beliefs about the world provided those beliefs do not include a god. God is not the only path for immaterial things.

Once again you are comitting a composition fallacy. Just because I am made of atoms does not mean I am merely limited to what a single atom can do.

[jayceeii]

Looking duality up online I found this:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

“Dualist views (the subject of this entry) say that the mental and the physical are both real and neither can be assimilated to the other.”

Such a view in essence denies that reality consists of anything specific whatsoever. So I would say it is an inauthentic or ungrounded view, or one that is not fully rational. You have admitted atoms and denied spirit, and now try to cite causes that are not material without saying what they are, like some kind of magic overlay on matter, for instance. Your argument appears to be that atoms can amount to more than themselves, but what material cause could induce this if there isn’t a guiding intelligence somewhere behind it?

The composition fallacy is assuming something is true of the whole because of something that is true of the parts. Indeed, the full metal atheism digs down to the very root parts. But I allow that these parts can combine in usual material ways, such as molecules, neurons and biochemicals. This does not amount to building to something immaterial. That would seem to require a leap of faith into the undefined, almost like the religions!

[Jabberwock]

It is rather unhelpful to categorize all subjective experiences as ‘delusions’. For example, colors are subjective experiences which are not identical to their physical causes, i.e. ‘colors’ as such do not exist in the outside world, yet it would be odd to call them delusions.

Contrition is a real subjective experience that may have positive psychological effects. If it is directed toward a non-existing entity, it is no less real.

[jayceeii]

A delusion means the mind thinks something which is not real. So as from the atheist standpoint consciousness has a material origin, a belief in a spiritual realm is delusion.

Yes, the idea is real, but it would be a delusional idea. You are arguing that the contrition of Christians has positive effects although it is a delusion, I guess like handing a kid some cotton candy although you know it is not nutritious. This portrays all humans as standing in their emotions without requirements to connect their ideas to reality. Like the Matrix.

[jayceeii]

This post showed up in the wrong place so I’m trying one more time.

[wonderer]

JC2 “Not that my aim is to strengthen atheism, but just like you’ve been failing to notice religious minds always drag in the devil and can’t conceive of an all-good Heaven…”

You frequently bring up your problems with making friends. If that is something you want to take responsibility for and try to improve on, then it would be a good idea to refrain from taking the conclusions you jump to about other people’s thinking, and state those conclusions as fact.

In any case, I have no interest in trying to correct all of your misconceptions in the OP, and I assume you are vastly more likely to persist in your narcissitic belief that the problem with you making friends is all on the part of “the humans” (who you are above).

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  wonderer.

[jayceeii]

I don’t know, you’ve been kind of a friend of mine, for though on the surface you oppose me your remarks open doors I might have opened for myself, were I allowed to do such a thing. Where are the friendships at this forum? Where? I do long for a friendly society but am not searching for it directly here. A narcissist stares only at himself. I’ll try to remember that advice, that on every level, everything that I do should not be narcissistic.

I think I’ve learned something interesting in this post, that atheism hasn’t been exactly well thought out, when there is no accounting from a basis of raw material causes for both intellect and emotion, and the interplay between these. It’s like atheism is mostly a reaction against theism, where both sides draw the battle lines on the basis of ideas rather than states. Ideas are deceptive as it seems words can be exchanged and differences resolved easily. States are an entirely different matter, and the only ones claiming to be able to control states through the mind are the gurus. The atheists seem to be making a presumption emotions will follow thoughts easily despite the very obvious huge difference in inner experience whereby some monks, for instance, can meditate for years in a hut and claim states of supernal joy. It’s been made into a rational game but the whole being should be considered, not just the intellect, and the material explanation for these emotional differences comes down to radically different physiologies across the human race. Then, these radical differences strangely do not interfere with daily labor. So, what kind of physiological difference are we talking about, to account for all of this?

[wonderer]

• • Sorry about the formatting of this. I don’t know what is going on with the bullets, but I don’t seem to be able to delete them.

  • JC2: “I don’t know, you’ve been kind of a friend of mine, for though on the surface you oppose me your remarks open doors I might have opened for myself, were I allowed to do such a thing.”

  • I don’t know what you are talking about regarding doors you are not allowed to open, but I’m glad to hear you consider me “kind of a friend” despite my harshness at times.

  • JC2: “I think I’ve learned something interesting in this post, that atheism hasn’t been exactly well thought out, when there is no accounting from a basis of raw material causes for both intellect and emotion, and the interplay between these.

  • Atheism isn’t a position on neuropsychology. Atheism is only a label conveying somewhat, a person’s view on the question of whether or not gods exist.

  • JC2: “It’s like atheism is mostly a reaction against theism…”

  • Pretty much.

  • JC2: “It’s been made into a rational game but the whole being should be considered, not just the intellect, and the material explanation for these emotional differences comes down to radically different physiologies across the human race. Then, these radical differences strangely do not interfere with daily labor. So, what kind of physiological difference are we talking about, to account for all of this?”

  • Trying to write this post has been a nightmare, with the remainder of your post that I had quoted having just disappeared. So I’m going to end by responding to this, and maybe I’ll respond to more later in another post.

  • The fact is, idiosyncracies to brain physiology most certainly do “interfere with daily labor” for some. The effects of just one class of atypical neurology, autism, can have wide ranging effects on people’s ability to do various things – ranging from people who aren’t able to take care of their own basic needs, to people with savant skills who can be exceptional at certain sorts of jobs.

  • Furthermore, there is a great deal of variation in cognitive strengths and weaknesses even among those classified as neurotypical. Many people aren’t very well informed about their own constellations of cognitive strengths and weaknesses, since most people don’t undergo the sort of comprehensive testing it takes to tease such things apart. Also, people tend to subconsciously develop strategies that capitalize on their strengths and work around their weaknesses resulting in a superficial appearance of greater similarity in the way people think than is really there.

  • I’m inclined to think emotional reactivity varies between people somewhat similarly to the way cognitive strengths vary between people, although it’s a rather apples to oranges comparison.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  wonderer.

[jayceeii]

WR: Sorry about the formatting of this. I don’t know what is going on with the bullets, but I don’t seem to be able to delete them.

JC3: I always compose in a word processor (libre office) then paste over.

JC2: “I don’t know, you’ve been kind of a friend of mine, for though on the surface you oppose me your remarks open doors I might have opened for myself, were I allowed to do such a thing.”

WR: I don’t know what you are talking about regarding doors you are not allowed to open, but I’m glad to hear you consider me “kind of a friend” despite my harshness at times.

JC3: It has been kind of uncanny. It’s like you’ve been that little voice, “Maybe you should add this too. Aren’t you forgetting to explain this section?”

JC2: “I think I’ve learned something interesting in this post, that atheism hasn’t been exactly well thought out, when there is no accounting from a basis of raw material causes for both intellect and emotion, and the interplay between these.

WR: Atheism isn’t a position on neuropsychology. Atheism is only a label conveying somewhat, a person’s view on the question of whether or not gods exist.

JC3: Yes, but with no gods you are left with only naturalistic explanations for all the traits observable in the entities, human or animal, and this means material or physiological differences, in biochemistry or neurology. Atheism must posit that consciousness is material in origin (unless you have another suggestion). And it has always ignored emotional differences, although these passions are the driving forces for people’s lives. Especially, it has no explanation for how some are constituted to experience deep bliss in long periods of meditation across their lifetime, but others can’t sit and meditate one minute. This is something very tough to explain by genetic differences. It is obviously unrelated to one of the largest known genetic differences, which is race. You can find dedicated monks and nuns of all skin colors, and they often show up in families where no one else meditates. All this is easy to explain on the basis of soul, but not a material mind.

JC2: “It’s like atheism is mostly a reaction against theism…”

WR: Pretty much.

JC3: The point of this thread has become that it has been an intellectual reaction instead of a holistic philosophy set to explain all the observable phenomena in a material way. There isn’t a lot of thought going on about the source and nature of thought and emotion. It isn’t enough to say, “We don’t believe what you believe; God did not make us.” You have to explain how you were made, across the whole spectrum of the human condition.

JC2: “It’s been made into a rational game but the whole being should be considered, not just the intellect, and the material explanation for these emotional differences comes down to radically different physiologies across the human race. Then, these radical differences strangely do not interfere with daily labor. So, what kind of physiological difference are we talking about, to account for all of this?”

WR: Trying to write this post has been a nightmare, with the remainder of your post that I had quoted having just disappeared. So I’m going to end by responding to this, and maybe I’ll respond to more later in another post.

JC3: My bugaboo is that it is much tougher to follow the threads now, as replies show up in the middle of what everyone else has posted instead of at the end. I got an RSS reader. Otherwise I’m not sure how I’d be able to follow it.

WR: The fact is, idiosyncracies to brain physiology most certainly do “interfere with daily labor” for some.

JC3: One of the most interesting places they interfere is where the subject is experiencing so much overwhelming bliss that he can no longer function in a job, as exhibited by Swami Ramdas of Kerala and many others. That works against the material viewpoint. But the vast majority of those who meditate function very well in everyday labor, in fact one can argue in a superior and more holistic way. Most meditators, for instance, are associated with concern over the environment and social justice. And it isn’t just the meditators, but as I began the discussion with those claiming elevated states of mind through worship. Though these states are milder than the bliss reported by meditators, yet no explanation for them has been incorporated into atheistic theory, which stops short at denying God without examining man. I think a material worldview can only explain mild variations in emotion, not extreme and lifelong variations resulting in sometimes radical departures from the usual inner experience, as these cut across conceivable genetic divides and leave the people unaffected or even enhanced as they perform daily labor.

WR: The effects of just one class of atypical neurology, autism, can have wide ranging effects on people’s ability to do various things – ranging from people who aren’t able to take care of their own basic needs, to people with savant skills who can be exceptional at certain sorts of jobs.

JC3: God has not been 100% successful with the bodies. That’s on Him. Yet you can’t turn to a different or better Creator, nor did the early Incarnations give advice about such situations. The Christian view that these are tests is ultimately self-serving, as they imagine God is here to see to their private needs, ignoring objective realities.

WR: Furthermore, there is a great deal of variation in cognitive strengths and weaknesses even among those classified as neurotypical.

JC3: Now you’re getting back into intellect rather than emotion, and where parental and cultural influences can be shown to have an impact. But as I pointed out, meditators often or even usually show up in families where no one else meditates. And the act of meditation is not like thinking. Some can meditate, others cannot no matter how hard they try or how much education and tips they are given. We’re not dealing with a universal trait, but one possessed only by a subset of humanity, cutting across all conceivable genetic lines.

WR: Many people aren’t very well informed about their own constellations of cognitive strengths and weaknesses, since most people don’t undergo the sort of comprehensive testing it takes to tease such things apart.

JC3: And of course there are NO tests regarding the ability to meditate (and feel bliss in the process). Either something real is happening when people meditate, or not. But in either case the materialists have no easy recourse to explain the phenomenon. Anyone can close their eyes and relax, and secular society often equates that to meditation. Clearly something deeper is driving the monks and nuns, as they report varied states of ecstasy.

WR: Also, people tend to subconsciously develop strategies that capitalize on their strengths and work around their weaknesses resulting in a superficial appearance of greater similarity in the way people think than is really there.

JC3: This becomes the weakest part of your argument, since you are citing a quasi-spiritual function of mind. It’s alright if you want to say, “Look, just count the base pairs in the sets of chromosomes, then look at the wide variation occurring in the human race in both intellect and emotion, it’s all natural.” But when the passions are driving the people into widely varying and stable states of mind that you can’t trace to family or race, and these passions are not interfering with the ability to function in society (and especially when the passions to meditate seem also to confer greater concern over environment and social justice), you are forced to say, “There is some overriding function that brings this together, that keeps it together, which looks like a created soul that bestowed a personal presence knitting together intellect and emotion, but must be something else.” A more thorough atheism would admit there is an obstacle here.

WR: I’m inclined to think emotional reactivity varies between people somewhat similarly to the way cognitive strengths vary between people, although it’s a rather apples to oranges comparison.

JC3: Once again you’ve touched the very heart of the argument, in an almost dilettantish or offhanded manner, like it isn’t that important to you but somehow you knew exactly what to say. What has turned into an argument against atheism here, depends on appreciation for the wide variety of stable emotional states which motivate human lives. If you posit a material mechanism for this variation it seems like things should blow apart at the top as you inject more fire down below. A material cause for emotion has no explanation for what binds the emotion together to form a personal presence. It ought to shoot off in all directions, but something holds it together which looks like a created soul.

Maybe we’re only succeeding in drawing the battle lines more carefully, that there’s an onus on the atheists they haven’t been acknowledging to account for the totality of human experience across both intellect and emotion, both of which contain large variations although everyone comes together in some form of daily work, and some form of social life. When you are introducing material variations it seems like there should be some cases found where the personality is really blown apart and there is literally “no one there.” Atheists may argue there have been such cases in history but they all died or failed to reproduce. But there aren’t new cases today despite more procreation than ever going on.

I don’t think we’ve gotten to the bottom of this one yet so press on if you see a way. The atheists are relying on a quasi-spiritual comprehension of the individual, even as they state all must arise from material causes. What is integrating the intellect and emotions? Why do the passions which drive some to meditate, also give them enhanced concern for environment and social justice? There is “somebody home,” in the human being, and that looks like a soul. The atheist position must become that it looks like a soul, but isn’t.