Knowledge and Opinions

[Nick_A]

Very few, if any, appreciated the natural beneficial relationship between the atheist and believer. Probably just this suggestion gives the impression of my being deranged. However Simone Weil, in her usual laconic fashion, allows one to experience the potential for this relationship.

Simone Weil was a celebrated French Marxist and social activist who died a Christian mystic. Leon Trotsky admired her intelligence and she became an intellectual influence on Pope Paul V1.

Albert Camus wrote in 1951:

Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing.

For my part, I would be satisfied if one could say that in my place, with the humble means at my disposal, I served to make known and disseminate her work whose full impact we have yet to measure.

She wrote:

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Could it be that both the atheists and believers content within Plato's cave and lost in opinions are just arguing from ignorance natural for the unawakened supernatural part necessary for opening to experience the a priori knowledge of the world of forms?

What would it take to value the effort to transcend the love for opinions in order to experience the level of perspective of the source of opinion that is outside the confines of Plato's cave?

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin when she knew she was dying:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

Was she a fool to have such a need or are we foolish for sacrificing this yearning of the heart for the continuing egoistic struggle to justify opinions?

Could it be that there are only a relative few like Simone capable of experiencing the emptiness of justifying opinions normal for life in Plato's cave so are willing to sacrifice this tendency for the "pearl of great price" or the experience of where truth abides? Perhaps the only reason for the societal dominance of the need to justify opinions is the collective unawakened supernatural parts.

If she is right, how could one open to experience what we are missing without getting caught up in the fantasy the atheist rightly objects to?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If she is right, how could one open to experience what we are missing without getting caught up in the fantasy the atheist rightly objects to?[/quote]She is right, but only relative to her and those of the same conditions and mental set-up.

All living things are programmed to avoid premature death. Those in the upper 'hierarchy' of evolution are programmed with fears if there is a threat of death. At the top most, it is humans who are self-conscious of their inevitable death and this mentality manifest all shades of fears and terrors of mortality.

In order to facilitate other activities of self-preservation, the fear of mortality of all shades are also inhibited and suppressed to a degree (not all) by circuits from the prefrontal cortex. The majority of human beings has a very low degrees of inhibitions and thus to soothe the angst of the fear of mortality, they had to resort to theism or some form of soteriological religions that offer salvation in one form or another.

The atheists (non-theist preferred) had stronger neural inhibitors (arising from various reasons) to enable them to suppress the fear of mortality.

The fact is, neurons in the brain are subjected to atrophy as one grows older. A normal person could lose millions of neurons a year out of the appx. 100 billions given since birth of which (99%?) are not replaceable.

Simone Weil is one of those % of atheists, who during their later years, whose neural inhibitors, which suppress the fear of inevitable mortality (FIM) circuit, has atrophied greatly and thus loose the inhibiting mental power to deal with the primordial impulses of FIM.

Once the FIM is on the loose, the fears are really terrible and they manifest into anxieties, psychological angst, and an existential crisis. As Kieikegaard stated, such a natural mental state that manifests in the fragile human being should be dealt with via something beyond them, even if it is absurd or a lie. That is no way a fallible human being who succumb to FIM can handle that sort of problem, thus the most accessible mean is theism.

What happened to Simone Weil is a very common event with older people, and many are like a drowning man in the middle of a very deep lake who will even grip on to a 'straw' in trying to survive instinctively.

Note: Study reveals almost half of over-68s are 'certain' that He exists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z20TDt7Wlf

I have a few relatives who were non-theists, suddenly turned theist due to some potential fatalisitic events in their life.
The very vociferous strong atheist, Anthony Flew became a deist in his later life.

The critical reason why any atheists turned to become theistic (in most cases) is due the loosen 'screw' than unleashes the primordial fear of mortality. Whatever else is just stories and secondary.

[Nick_A]

Hi Veritas

In order to facilitate other activities of self-preservation, the fear of mortality of all shades are also inhibited and suppressed to a degree (not all) by circuits from the prefrontal cortex. The majority of human beings has a very low degrees of inhibitions and thus to soothe the angst of the fear of mortality, they had to resort to theism or some form of soteriological religions that offer salvation in one form or another.

Does the recognition of the potential for higher meaning have to result from the fear of death or misfortune or can it be a natural human drive to experience "meaning" beyond the myriad of opinions and partial truths?

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstein

Notice Einstein is not speaking of idolatry but rather an ineffable Source that devolves into forms of idolatry.

Do you believe a human being can feel as Einstein did not from a fear of death but from the recognition of a Source for "knowledge" that devolves into the virtual infinity of "opinions" governing the collective life of humanity?

Simone Weil was 34 years old when she died. She didn't fear death but instead put herself into dangerous situations to consciously experience the "truth" of the human condition. Apparently she was willing to risk death and misfortune for the sake of the experience of what transcends opinions. This may not be normal for today's society but may instead be naturally human. Is this division possible for you?

[Mark Question]

nice story. sounds like simone was a seeker rather than a keeper.

The critical reason why any atheists turned to become theistic (in most cases) is due the loosen 'screw' than unleashes the primordial fear of mortality. Whatever else is just stories and secondary.

from that point of view whatever else is just stories? why your writings are not?
if that point of view, then that point of view?
if god, then god?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hi Veritas

In order to facilitate other activities of self-preservation, the fear of mortality of all shades are also inhibited and suppressed to a degree (not all) by circuits from the prefrontal cortex. The majority of human beings has a very low degrees of inhibitions and thus to soothe the angst of the fear of mortality, they had to resort to theism or some form of soteriological religions that offer salvation in one form or another.

Does the recognition of the potential for higher meaning have to result from the fear of death or misfortune or can it be a natural human drive to experience "meaning" beyond the myriad of opinions and partial truths?

Note the fear of death manifests in many shades and angles consciously and subconsciously.
The recognition of the potential for higher meaning is done at the subconscious level to suppress the fear of death at the refined level while at the same time make life more meaningful.
In the other extreme Re Maslow Hierarchy of Needs, if one is facing hunger or other threats of death all the time, generally there is no time for one to think about or do anything to make one life meaningful via self-actualization.

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstein

Notice Einstein is not speaking of idolatry but rather an ineffable Source that devolves into forms of idolatry.
Do you believe a human being can feel as Einstein did not from a fear of death but from the recognition of a Source for "knowledge" that devolves into the virtual infinity of "opinions" governing the collective life of humanity?

This awareness is indirectly motivated by the inherent fear of inevitable death at the subconscious level. Note the potentials of Science has enabled humanity to increase the average human life-span and extending death a little longer.

Simone Weil was 34 years old when she died. She didn't fear death but instead put herself into dangerous situations to consciously experience the "truth" of the human condition. Apparently she was willing to risk death and misfortune for the sake of the experience of what transcends opinions. This may not be normal for today's society but may instead be naturally human. Is this division possible for you?

As I had stated, the fear of inevitable death manifest in many shades and angles. Note the Jihadists initial move into religion is to soothe the fear of death at one level, but are so willing to hasten their death in another different perspective of immortality.

Simone Weil may not fear death on a conscious level, but there is no way she could get rid of the billion-of-years-programmed neural circuits manifesting the inherent fear of inevitable death which is embedded deep in her brain and pulsating subliminally. Her turn to mysticism is one form of modulating the fear of inevitable death at the subliminal level beyond her conscious level.

Btw, I am not saying what Simone Weil did was negative, it may be natural and necessary in accordance to her circumstances. My point is, we need to underlying the root causes and underlying basis for her actions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

nice story. sounds like simone was a seeker rather than a keeper.

The critical reason why any atheists turned to become theistic (in most cases) is due the loosen 'screw' than unleashes the primordial fear of mortality. Whatever else is just stories and secondary.

from that point of view whatever else is just stories? why your writings are not?
if that point of view, then that point of view?
if god, then god?

Mine could be stories as well, but they are open to scrutiny and explorations for anyone interested.

The critical point is trace effects to their fundamentals and root causes, and therefrom seek corrections and improvements where necessary or accept them for whatever they are.

[Mark Question]

Mine could be stories as well, but they are open to scrutiny and explorations for anyone interested.

The critical point is trace effects to their fundamentals and root causes, and therefrom seek corrections and improvements where necessary or accept them for whatever they are.

how open your stories really are? do you mean your stories can be changed whatever way, no matter how? do religions, politics and science have rules how to open and change their stories?

do all stories have corrections and improvements, and all that, if those stories are used by people? like we use tools? "dont fix if it is not broken."? root causes in religion is often god or gods?

[Nick_A]

Veritas

Simone Weil may not fear death on a conscious level, but there is no way she could get rid of the billion-of-years-programmed neural circuits manifesting the inherent fear of inevitable death which is embedded deep in her brain and pulsating subliminally. Her turn to mysticism is one form of modulating the fear of inevitable death at the subliminal level beyond her conscious level.

She is not referring to getting rid of programming on the animal level but rather the potential for conscious recognition of programming and the benefits of conscious recognition.

“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.” “All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.” “Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.” Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

She uses the word "gravity" in the psychological sense as well as an expression of involution or the descent and devolution of the life force into creation creating diversity from unity

You are describing the origin of our mechanical necessity. Simone is explaining in her typical laconic fashion, the potential for conscious evolution which by definition transcends the reactions of mechanical evolution and providing the means for conscius "choice."

Simone is describing the conscious return to the realm of "knowledge" impossible to be experienced by our sense organs which are habitually restricted to mechanical interpretations and the formation of opinions.

The scientist seeks verification through the scientific method. Those like Simone seek verification of human conscious potential that unites "above and below" through efforts of detachment and conscious attention that enable a person to "Know Thyself."

You seem to be describing the makings of a creature of REACTION and the personality and opinions associated with its unique conditioning. Simone is describing the potential for a quality of being capable of conscious ACTION originating through the remembrance of what has been forgotten; the realm of "KNOWLEDGE"

I'm not suggesting blind belief but rather becoming open to two distinct ways of contemplating the nature of human "being" including its conscious potential for uniting "above and below" the conscious with the mechanical.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas
Simone Weil may not fear death on a conscious level, but there is no way she could get rid of the billion-of-years-programmed neural circuits manifesting the inherent fear of inevitable death which is embedded deep in her brain and pulsating subliminally. Her turn to mysticism is one form of modulating the fear of inevitable death at the subliminal level beyond her conscious level.

She is not referring to getting rid of programming on the animal level but rather the potential for conscious recognition of programming and the benefits of conscious recognition.

.......
Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

She uses the word "gravity" in the psychological sense as well as an expression of involution or the descent and devolution of the life force into creation creating diversity from unity

You are describing the origin of our mechanical necessity. Simone is explaining in her typical laconic fashion, the potential for conscious evolution which by definition transcends the reactions of mechanical evolution and providing the means for conscious "choice."

Simone is describing the conscious return to the realm of "knowledge" impossible to be experienced by our sense organs which are habitually restricted to mechanical interpretations and the formation of opinions.

The scientist seeks verification through the scientific method. Those like Simone seek verification of human conscious potential that unites "above and below" through efforts of detachment and conscious attention that enable a person to "Know Thyself."

You seem to be describing the makings of a creature of REACTION and the personality and opinions associated with its unique conditioning. Simone is describing the potential for a quality of being capable of conscious ACTION originating through the remembrance of what has been forgotten; the realm of "KNOWLEDGE"

I'm not suggesting blind belief but rather becoming open to two distinct ways of contemplating the nature of human "being" including its conscious potential for uniting "above and below" the conscious with the mechanical.

I am very familiar with mysticism and I think the genuine mystics (theistic or non-theistic) can contribute positively to humanity in one perspective. I am aware mystics do not rely on the scientific method, rather they rely on their own cognition, experiences and reflection.

Mystics like Simone Weil (presumably she is genuine) do view reality and themselves in a wide perspective, but not wide enough in the ultimate sense.
The typical mystic will expressed the more refined aspect of reality in a standard format, i.e. higher consciousness, one with god, reality, and the cosmos, and the likes.

My point is, these mystics, due to the non-accessibility of knowledge or depth of reflection, do not understand the underlying finer inner machineries that drive and motivate their experiences and knowledge.

Theistic mystics 'experience' God, but they are not aware of the roots, fundamentals and limits of such theistic conceptions. The notion of 'God' that manifest from the subliminal fear of inevitable mortality is a useful illusion and such ideas has limits.

The concept of God, which is an illusion, may be useful, in this current phase of evolution, to the mystics and other theists, but it has grave consequences for humanity if carried on to the future. The mystic and god may be harmless, but the point that the concept of god, an illusion, is upheld by the majority, support and facilitates the extremists to exploit their abuses in terms of violence, cruelty and intolerances.

I think if mystics like Simone Weil had understood the inner machineries that drives her mysticism, she would not have promote the concept of God like she did.

[Mark Question]

Theistic mystics 'experience' God, but they are not aware of the roots, fundamentals and limits of such theistic conceptions. The notion of 'God' that manifest from the subliminal fear of inevitable mortality is a useful illusion and such ideas has limits.

are you not aware of the roots, fundamentals and limits of such theistic conceptions? god is their root, theistic conceptions are their fundamentals and limits? are you aware of your conceptions?

The mystic and god may be harmless, but the point that the concept of god, an illusion, is upheld by the majority, support and facilitates the extremists to exploit their abuses in terms of violence, cruelty and intolerances.

seeing negative effects is bigger picture also in science? technological violence, scientific cruelty and intolerance?

I think if mystics like Simone Weil had understood the inner machineries that drives her mysticism, she would not have promote the concept of God like she did.

then she had not understood the god that drives her mysticism? maybe she had or did understood both and their limits?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theistic mystics 'experience' God, but they are not aware of the roots, fundamentals and limits of such theistic conceptions. The notion of 'God' that manifest from the subliminal fear of inevitable mortality is a useful illusion and such ideas has limits.

are you not aware of the roots, fundamentals and limits of such theistic conceptions? god is their root, theistic conceptions are their fundamentals and limits? are you aware of your conceptions?

The mystic and god may be harmless, but the point that the concept of god, an illusion, is upheld by the majority, support and facilitates the extremists to exploit their abuses in terms of violence, cruelty and intolerances.

seeing negative effects is bigger picture also in science? technological violence, scientific cruelty and intolerance?

I think if mystics like Simone Weil had understood the inner machineries that drives her mysticism, she would not have promote the concept of God like she did.

then she had not understood the god that drives her mysticism? maybe she had or did understood both and their limits?

If God is their root, then there is still room for, what is the root of the root?

No doubt science is a double-edged sword. The difference between science and religion, especially the Abrahamics, is the words of god as in the holy texts are not changeable, i.e. immutable for eternity, while Science is flexible and changes with new evidences.
Science is neutral and do not impose of its users, while religion imposes its immutable laws in exchange for immortality.

Btw, this OP is about mysticism, i.e. a more refined form of religionism and generally is not as harmless, in contrast to the conventional Abrahamic religions.

[Nick_A]

Theistic mystics 'experience' God, but they are not aware of the roots, fundamentals and limits of such theistic conceptions. The notion of 'God' that manifest from the subliminal fear of inevitable mortality is a useful illusion and such ideas has limits.

are you not aware of the roots, fundamentals and limits of such theistic conceptions? god is their root, theistic conceptions are their fundamentals and limits? are you aware of your conceptions?

The mystic and god may be harmless, but the point that the concept of god, an illusion, is upheld by the majority, support and facilitates the extremists to exploit their abuses in terms of violence, cruelty and intolerances.

seeing negative effects is bigger picture also in science? technological violence, scientific cruelty and intolerance?

]I think if mystics like Simone Weil had understood the inner machineries that drives her mysticism, she would not have promote the concept of God like she did.

then she had not understood the god that drives her mysticism? maybe she had or did understood both and their limits?

If God is their root, then there is still room for, what is the root of the root?

No doubt science is a double-edged sword. The difference between science and religion, especially the Abrahamics, is the words of god as in the holy texts are not changeable, i.e. immutable for eternity, while Science is flexible and changes with new evidences.
Science is neutral and do not impose of its users, while religion imposes its immutable laws in exchange for immortality.

Btw, this OP is about mysticism, i.e. a more refined form of religionism and generally is not as harmless, in contrast to the conventional Abrahamic religions.

Are you willing to accept the possibility of A priori knowledge or a quality of soul knowledge we are born with that is not a product of the developing physical body around it you assert as the root?

Meno's Paradox and the Immortality of Soul: how will you know what you are looking for if you first don't already know it (and thus have no reason to go looking for it)? But why look for something you already have?

You seem to have a bottom up philosophy more normal for science that primarily uses inductive reason. I have a top down appreciation for creation which primarily relies on deductive reason to verify it.

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

She is describing what I believe to be an intellectually balanced human being. Such a person is capable of the inductive reason producing facts and the deductive reason that allows for facts to be put into a conscious human perspective uniting "above and below." Such people are rare but their existence may be vital if humanity is to survive technology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you willing to accept the possibility of A priori knowledge or a quality of soul knowledge we are born with that is not a product of the developing physical body around it you assert as the root?

It is quite obvious all humans has a priori knowledge in terms of;
1. evolutionary intuitive and innate nature in our DNA,
2.a priori knowledge of analytic from reason and pure reason.

1. Human beings are born with innate defaults and potentials for various forms, numbers, language, etc.

2. Humans are also born with potential for reasoning. However the potential for reasoning can go the extreme of pure reasoning. Re Kant's paralogism, the concept of the 'soul' is the resultant of natural crude-pure reasoning. The concept of 'soul' that survives physical death, is an illusionary entity based on a leap from an awareness and experience of one's own 'self'.
It a long story to discuss, ultimately, a soul that survives physical death is an illusion for various salvation and soteriological purposes.

Meno's Paradox and the Immortality of Soul: how will you know what you are looking for if you first don't already know it (and thus have no reason to go looking for it)? But why look for something you already have?

What you are self-aware and experience is not what you regards as a soul that survives physical death. For an introduction, note Hume's take on what is self. It is just a bundle of activities.
Meno's Paradox is also applicable to 'a soul that survives physical death'. How do one knows a soul will survives after death, when one has not experienced death and the after death. It is a pure speculation for such a soul.

You seem to have a bottom up philosophy more normal for science that primarily uses inductive reason. I have a top down appreciation for creation which primarily relies on deductive reason to verify it.

I don't have a preference. I make an attempt to see both the 'trees' and the 'wood' simultaneously.
The question you need to ask yourself, is why are you so focused on a top-down approach re the soul, god, and whatever supernaturals?
It is a pandora box if you venture to open the question up.

She is describing what I believe to be an intellectually balanced human being. Such a person is capable of the inductive reason producing facts and the deductive reason that allows for facts to be put into a conscious human perspective uniting "above and below." Such people are rare but their existence may be vital if humanity is to survive technology.

I am very familiar with mystics and their thoughts, but I am also very aware of their fundamentals, motivations, and limitations. I agree humanity should not simply dismiss mystics in general but study their thoughts, understand what they are talking about, but without having to agree with everything they proposed.
However, whenever the topic of 'god' and 'soul' are brought up, I am very aware of their limitations.

The white-lie and illusion of 'god' and 'soul' may be necessary for the majority in this phase of human evolution, but such concepts should be weaned off gradually (not cold turkey btw) from humanity in the future ASAP.

[Kayla]

I have a few relatives who were non-theists, suddenly turned theist due to some potential fatalisitic events in their life.

i have seen one person stop being an atheist simply because the dickhead pastor of the church the rest of his family went to was fired

[Nick_A]

Hi Veritas

The question you need to ask yourself, is why are you so focused on a top-down approach re the soul, god, and whatever supernaturals?
It is a pandora box if you venture to open the question up.

The bottom up approach hasn't answered my basic questions concerning the meaning and purpose of the universe and human life within it

For example, the bottom up approach asserts life as evolving and supplies facts that substantiate it. However it cannot explain the origin of this marvelous living machine called organic life on earth that is sustained through everything eating everything else and reproduction. How does something so intricate come about?

I explain it through the ancient idea of involution which is the top down descent of life forces. Consider organic life as a form in potential at the level of reality Plato refers to as "sun" It involutes into fractions of this whole we call life forms necessary for the living machine to serve its purpose as a whole. Naturally then they are all related and can feed on each other. Evolution isn't an accident but just the return of what was created through involution

Yin is the involutionary force providing the foundation from which yang evolves. It reaches its height and than falls back through involution into the foundation. "Dust to dust." Then the process repeats.

I agree emotionally with Simone Weil where she wrote:

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Some people have a need of the heart that is not a conditioned or bodily need. This cannot be a matter of bodily knowledge but has a higher conscious origin our higher emotions respond to.

What you are self-aware and experience is not what you regards as a soul that survives physical death. For an introduction, note Hume's take on what is self. It is just a bundle of activities.
Meno's Paradox is also applicable to 'a soul that survives physical death'. How do one knows a soul will survives after death, when one has not experienced death and the after death. It is a pure speculation for such a soul.

"Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God ..." Meister Eckhart

Rather than a fully formed soul, I believe that a human being contains the seed of something that Christianity calls the "New Man." So from this point of view Hume is right. However can the seed mature into something that wouldn't be just a bundle of reactions?

However, whenever the topic of 'god' and 'soul' are brought up, I am very aware of their limitations.

Can we even know what they realistically mean through bottom up reason? If we cannot, how can we speak of limitations? Jacob Needleman writes in the preface to his book "Lost Christianity:"

But in fact, no such assumption of moral authority by secular humanism, has taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war along with the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all at once project humanity’s essence-immorality onto the entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness and the global disintegration of the normal patterns of life that have guided mankind for millenia. Neither the secular philosophies of our epoch nor its theories of human nature—pragmatism, positivism, Marxism, liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism, psychoanalysis--nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor offer wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzingly new ethical problems.

What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be-- both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

I believe such a new understanding is possible. I'm in a minority but I believe it to be a healthy meaningful minority since it is open to the idea that there is a quality of conscious knowledge that has devolved into "opinions" normal for life in Plato's cave. The question becomes how to open to it.