Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

UU

Hi all!

This topic has been bothering me for some time now and I thought I might just get an opinion on it from other atheists, humanists and agnostics (and any others in that category).

So the questions I propose are:
« Do you believe in the existence of a soul? »
« Do believe in what could be called a soul but not an infinite soul »
« Or maybe something along the lines of self-awareness, consciousness, an energy field, etc.? »
« Do most atheists, etc. believe in a soul or not? »
« How do we exist without a soul? » (Many religious people will pose that to refute the argument)

Also, I have included a poll to see the results.


I feel that this question is an extremely important one and is relevant to this community. Firstly, because if one chooses to disbelieve in a deity, and maybe in an afterlife, then the existence of the soul becomes an important question. Secondly, such issues, as abortion, stem-cell research and embryonic screening become very relevant topics in today’s world and for atheists, etc. alike. I’d actually like to see how people here view abortion and stem-cell research as opposed to our fellow Christians, Muslims, etc. Although, I’ll give that controversial topic some more thought and space on another thread soon.


Myself. Do I believe in the existence of the “soul”?

My thoughts. It’s a hard question. It depends what you define a “soul” or a “spirit” as? And by what standards? In the standard religious sense, no. Most religions believe that the soul is you while your outer manifestation is just a part of you. The soul is invisible and infinite. Christianity teaches that only humans have souls and that other animals and plants are either soulless or have a different type of soul. Religions teach that the soul is freed from the restrictions of the body when one dies and it goes off somewhere else or is reincarnated.

I do believe that there is an inner being but it is more like consciousness or a sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort – it’s difficult to put into words! I think all creatures, plants, all living things have this - not just humans. And it is directly linked with brain activity. But when the being ceases to be, it is gone also. So in this sense, I think the “soul” is finite and doesn’t possess any sorta glorious spiritual nature. The problem with religious people, particularly Christians is that many will see only humans as possessing souls and maybe animals too. But what if I were to go as far to ask them, if they would accept that bacteria have souls or micro-organisms. After all, they are living beings, aren’t they?

Well, it is an interesting topic. Sorry if this post is so long, I have the tendency to ramble on.


I look forward to seeing your replies!

Daniel

UU

Oops sorry, I forgot to include the option on the poll of - Other views. Sorry about that. It is not a black and white issue so people may have different views than what is offered as a possible choice. If you prescribe as - Other views - just write down what your views are. I dont seem to be able to edit the poll!

rockbeer

Interesting topic. Just a couple of things in your post I wanted to pick up on:

UU wrote:

How do we exist without a soul? » (Many religious people will pose that to refute the argument)

Clearly a spurious argument, if it is indeed posed by religious people, especially christians, who don't have a problem with other animals existing without a soul. Anyway, that's like saying we can't exist without any other invisible, unidentifiable force. If you can't actually identify the soul it's meaningless to claim it's necessary for existence.

UU wrote:

Christianity teaches that only humans have souls and that other animals and plants are either soulless or have a different type of soul.

That's because of their bizarre beliefe that god created us in his image and therefore we're inherently different from all other species. This is a dangerous perspective which opens the door to all manner of disprespectful attitudes and behaviour towards our planetary co-inhabitants. Would there, for example, be factory farming, I wonder, without the innate sense of superoirity that christianity has allowed us to develop about ourselves? Of course, once you accept the scientifically demonstrable truth that we are evolved species who have much more in common with other species than we have differences, that argument collapses. And a good thing too. Not that this stops many christians from attempting to simultaneously hold on to two contradictory positions.

Anyway, as regards the soul, why would I believe in that? What evidence is there?

Dades

For me a "soul" is a vehicle that allows you to believe that you can live on in an afterlife. Physically we know our bodies are broken down after death to mass that cannot sustain any elements of who we were, but the concept of a soul overcomes this hurdle by conveniently being invisible, undetectable and intangible.

If nobody ever suggested an afterlife existed, the term soul would simply be our personality/character.

And yes, the existence of a soul becomes a little trickier to explain in the light of evolution, rather than the view that existed in biblical times, i.e. that man always co-existed with animals.

PDN

UU wrote:

Christianity teaches that only humans have souls and that other animals and plants are either soulless or have a different type of soul.

Some Christians teach that, rather than Christianity.

Sangre

So all dogs do go to heaven then?

DinoBot

Sangre wrote:

So all dogs do go to heaven then?

Id say only the good ones

Hivemind187

UU wrote:

Hi all!
So the questions I propose are:
« Do you believe in the existence of a soul? »
« Do believe in what could be called a soul but not an infinite soul »
« Or maybe something along the lines of self-awareness, consciousness, an energy field, etc.? »
« Do most atheists, etc. believe in a soul or not? »
« How do we exist without a soul? » (Many religious people will pose that to refute the argument)

I feel that this question is an extremely important one and is relevant to this community. Firstly, because if one chooses to disbelieve in a deity, and maybe in an afterlife, then the existence of the soul becomes an important question. Secondly, such issues, as abortion, stem-cell research and embryonic screening become very relevant topics in today’s world and for atheists, etc. alike. I’d actually like to see how people here view abortion and stem-cell research as opposed to our fellow Christians, Muslims, etc. Although, I’ll give that controversial topic some more thought and space on another thread soon.

Outside of the poetic perception that people are more than the sum of their parts (which conveniently ignores environmental and genetic influences) I do not believe in a soul. though I have been heard to invoke the poetic from time to time as a metaphor for emotional or intellectual well being or simply for people who need "personalisty adjustment".

As for "how do we exist without a soul" I will answer this, along with the passage "Firstly, because if one chooses to disbelieve in a deity, and maybe in an afterlife, then the existence of the soul becomes an important question."

First, a soul is not a pre requisite for existance. Being alive is not contingent on it (as evidenced by the existance of diverse stratum of living organisms from algae and bacteria to elephants and people).

Secondly, it is not a choice to "disbelieve" in a deity since this is the natural position, we only become aware of a deity when informed (lied to) by authority figures when we are developing. If you do not believe in a deity, and you do not believe in an after life then the existance or non-existance of a soul is not an important question since it has no bearing on anything tangible.

Now, if the soul were a measurable quantity then this argument would require a slightly different approach. That of "Is it possible for the soul to exist without the presence of a deity or the supernatural?". But it isnt and therefore this line of thinking is irrelevant.

(Note: There is some evidence of "soul" but is no longer measureable since the death of James Brown ... )

Tar.Aldarion

It depends on how you define a soul. (Why do most of my posts about these things begin with 'It depends on how you define'? :-) )
If a god does not exist that does not mean a 'soul' does not.
I really do not know how to answer whether we are just electrochemoical reactions or is there an 'essence', but as you can see from my sig, I don't think grass is any different than the man that mows it.
Without any proof to the contrary I think we are a bunch of machines, just moving along with our actions, which are dictated by our brains.
Is there a difference from you, a dog and a rock? Not much, you just react to stimulus easier than a rock.

Fallen Seraph

I believe that there exists an aspect of a person which is convenient to term the "soul". But this is just a convenient term for that which separates us from inanimate objects; such as emotions and whatnot. It isn't an aspect of us that cannot be explained in terms of physical reality.

Galvasean

I don't believe in a soul at all. I believe when you die you decompose into minerals. Circle of life. Many people find that idea unfullfilling. I disagree, I find the concept quite soothing.
Although i do believe that,
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings!"
(kudos to whoever gets who that quote is attributed to).

Hivemind187

Galvasean wrote:

I don't believe in a soul at all. I believe when you die you decompose into minerals. Circle of life. Many people find that idea unfullfilling. I disagree, I find the concept quite soothing.
Although i do believe that,
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings!"
(kudos to whoever gets who that quote is attributed to).

Optimus Prime.

UU

Thanks everyone for your responses! They were very interesting. It seems that the majority of people take on a very naturalistic position. Thanks Rockbeer and PDN for picking up on my mistakes!

Although, consciousness is another issue I would particulary like to focus on. Even science accepts the existence of consciousness in humans and other beings. Maybe what I accept is more accurately described as consciousness which included one’s thoughts, feelings, memories, desires, hopes, and so on...

Certainly I do not believe in an infinite soul which has the capabilities of surviving death. I think that we just “cease to be” when we die and that is the end of us. But I am aware of my own existence and know that I am one in billions of different living things that exist here on Planet Earth and possibly elsewhere on other planets and in other galaxies. Just my views. I feel priviliged to exist because I came to be by mere chance. And I plan on making the best of my short time here.

lookinforpicnic

UU wrote:

Hi all!

I do believe that there is an inner being but it is more like consciousness or a sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort – it’s difficult to put into words!

I think (know!:) ) that we are very elaborate machines and thus there is no extra work for some immaterial soul to carry out, just as we can explain the workings of the cell by looking at the mechanics and interactions of proteins, DNA, fat and little biomolecules with out any extra ingredients, I believe that we will explain (the bulk of the explanation is probably already sketched out) everything human including consciousness with the similar interaction of blind neurons (and whatever analysis we need to do to get a grip on the goings on). There is no need to postulate consciousness as something else over and above the complex activity of humans, as you (UU) hint at above - "sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort". That to me smells of dualism and putting consciousness up on a pedastal it doesn't deserve.

MooseJam

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake", people have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, they feel they are so special that they must have a soul and God must love them etc etc when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street and when they die they are manure, nothing more and nothing less, you can probably tell I don't believe in a soul

Hivemind187

lookinforpicnic wrote:

I think (know!:) ) that we are very elaborate machines and thus there is no extra work for some immaterial soul to carry out, just as we can explain the workings of the cell by looking at the mechanics and interactions of proteins, DNA, fat and little biomolecules with out any extra ingredients, I believe that we will explain (the bulk of the explanation is probably already sketched out) everything human including consciousness with the similar interaction of blind neurons (and whatever analysis we need to do to get a grip on the goings on). There is no need to postulate consciousness as something else over and above the complex activity of humans, as you (UU) hint at above - "sorta self-awareness or like an energy of some sort". That to me smells of dualism and putting consciousness up on a pedastal it doesn't deserve.

Infact, if you give it some though along evolutionary lines, the existance of a "soul" would have been selected against over the past few hundred thousands years.

Consider that the production of any energy field requires the allocation of body fuels to maintain its generation. Without providing any tangible benefit to the organism (running faster, stronger muscles etc etc) the animal who allocates less fuel to the production of a redundant energy field would have more energy for production of sex cells, growth & repair etc which inevitably makes it a more successful organism.

In this sense the "soul", if it did exist would actually be a harmful abberation in a survival of the fittest sense.

lookinforpicnic

MooseJam wrote:

when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street

Your not a lover of dogs then...

lookinforpicnic

Hivemind187 wrote:

Infact, if you give it some though along evolutionary lines, the existance of a "soul" would have been selected against over the past few hundred thousands years.

Giving thought to the evolution of a soul is a worthless endeavour, but one could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for. This spark of self awareness or smidgen of consciousness is the last retreat for the spiritual folk and again it is a fine example of lazy wishful thinking.

Tar.Aldarion

What makes you think we are self aware in a diferent way from a very advanced computer?

lookinforpicnic

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What makes you think we are self aware in a diferent way from a very advanced computer?

If your addressing me, I don't. BTW the very advanced computer isn't built yet.

Tar.Aldarion

Ok, I was just wondering if you were onewho 'could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for.'

lookinforpicnic

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Ok, I was just wondering if you were onewho 'could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for.'

No way:eek: Just came across that argument a fair few times. But yeah ulitmately it comes down to you either believe we are a fancy computer of sorts with no extra soulstuff (or smidgen of consciousness in the sense of consciousness as some kind of tangible substance of a sort generated/correlated with brain activity) or you don't. I of course believe we are with no extra soulstuff or smidgen of consciousness (in the sense as above) needed. We do of course have conscious experiences but the explanation of which can involve no mysterious, intrinsic, dualistic syrup.

Dades

MooseJam wrote:

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake", people have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, they feel they are so special that they must have a soul and God must love them etc etc when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street and when they die they are manure, nothing more and nothing less, you can probably tell I don't believe in a soul

Worthless in the grand universal scheme of things, perhaps. But I like to think that during my blink-of-an-eye existance I'd be worth something to another bonesack. It's all relative.

You may think we're dumb, but have you ever met a us more intelligent species than us? Flawed, but not completely dumb.

lookinforpicnic

The Atheist wrote:

Flawed, but not completely dumb.

I wouldn't be so generous, we are by far the most intelligent entity on this planet, even our most sophisticated computers can't even nearly match our ability to navigate and reason, ok they can beat us a chess aided by humans, but there is no computer/robot today that can play chess (i.e. pick up the pieces and move them) the most sophisticated robot can't match the manual dexterity of a four year old, or a worthless animal. Just in our bodies there is more intelligence than in the most sophisticated super computers, so if we are only "not completely dumb" everything else on this planet has to be superdumb.

Fallen Seraph

Speculating on the "absolute intelligence" of humans as a species is pointless.

1. By what standard does one judge the intelligence of a species; by the mean, or by the intelligence of the geniuses?

2. With what does one compare humans to? There isn't another species on the planet with which a worthwhile comparison can be made.


It's like two blind people debating the relative merits of blue.

Tar.Aldarion

If something 'dumb' makes something, in our case a computer, how can it be expected to be better than the creator? Of course it will be less advanced and the day that one of our inventions isn't, it would be an evolving AI and would frankly take over.
Anyway, we are not too smart, you may find animals mind numbingly slow, but I could say I feel the same about most humans, and I know how ignorant I myself am. That is the first step to wisedom.

Galvasean

One day the world will wake up and realize that intelligence =/= self awareness. If that were the case smart people should have more rights than stupid people. Try getting that amendment!

Tar.Aldarion

It is of course not the case, but yet, look at how many billion of other species of animals are killed each year. If somebody makes the arguement that they are not as intelloigent as us that that they deem other animals not 'self-aware' then can I not do the same as them if their IQ is under 150?
Could something smarter than a human(advanced alien etc) just do the same to all humans? Would we then have a problem with it?

For most humans, an atrocity is only an atrocity when it affect themselves.

Hivemind187

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Giving thought to the evolution of a soul is a worthless endeavour, but one could argue that the soul provides (or is) that spark of self awareness which is responsible for our superior intelligence and that could be selected for. This spark of self awareness or smidgen of consciousness is the last retreat for the spiritual folk and again it is a fine example of lazy wishful thinking.

I'm not so sure. Why cant "self-awareness" and "consciousness" be merely a side effect of higher thinking and the capability to rationalise and objectify?

Thats the trouble with the superstitious lot. Always wanting there to be more of something when they dont even understand the miracle they already have.

Greedy b*stards really!

edit(because I forgot it) : But my point about the soul is if it were to be a measureable energy field as was suggested in earlier posts. If so, it would need to be generated by a chemical reaction within tissues - the rest of my argument flows from here.

Dades

Fallen Seraph wrote:

2. With what does one compare humans to? There isn't another species on the planet with which a worthwhile comparison can be made.

Define worthwhile? If the result of the comparison is that humans are far smarter than any other creature, then so be it.

I'm not sure where any of this is going btw.

lookinforpicnic

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Speculating on the "absolute intelligence" of humans as a species is pointless..

We are not, we seem to be just commenting on this (dumb;) ) statement below which we should probably move on from...

MooseJam wrote:

when in actual fact they are just a dumb worthless animal like any dog in the street"

I'll say my last bit:
Worth isn't measured by the presence of something special like a soul.
Animals aren't worthless or dumb for that matter (relative to the species/computers on this planet).
Our intelligence is nothing like that of a dog it is far more superior (and yes you can compare).

Just because there is no soul doesn't mean that we are all dumb worthless animals, that is just ridiculous, and fueled by the idea that to have worth we need a little magical soulpearl in each of us.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If something 'dumb' makes something, in our case a computer, how can it be expected to be better than the creator?"

There is lots of ways it can be smarter than the creater, as you mention an evolving AI is one, but any automonous selforganising entity could, and often when a AI/robot is put in a real environment it can often behave smarter than planned, you can get emergent behaviour for example. After all we were created by a very dumb process ourselves.

Hivemind i get your point btw its just that talk of energy fields and the like I generally wouldn't waste time entertaining, my point was that you could get a selection pressure in the opposite direction if you believed as many spiritual people do in soul=selfawareness=more intelligent behaviour, but to be clear I think this absolute bollox and i have said in other posts what i think on consciousness.

Tar.Aldarion

lookinforpicnic wrote:

There is lots of ways it can be smarter than the creater, as you mention an evolving AI is one, but any automonous selforganising entity could, and often when a AI/robot is put in a real environment it can often behave smarter than planned, you can get emergent behaviour for example. After all we were created by a very dumb process ourselves.

Is it truly smarter than the creator if it can not create? Or create something smarter than a human or itself?

Fallen Seraph

The Atheist wrote:

Define worthwhile? If the result of the comparison is that humans are far smarter than any other creature, then so be it.

I'm not sure where any of this is going btw.

Point taken. I cannot define worthwhile in a way that makes my statement worthwhile.

But still, I'd be a lot more comfortable making judgements on our species dumbness if I had seen what the dominant species on a few other planets look like.

lookinforpicnic wrote:

We are not, we seem to be just commenting on this (dumb ) statement below which we should probably move on from...

ah, very true.

Galvasean

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Is it truly smarter than the creator if it can not create? Or create something smarter than a human or itself?

Skynet? is that you?

lookinforpicnic

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Is it truly smarter than the creator if it can not create? Or create something smarter than a human or itself?

Maybe there will be robots that reproduce or design improvements to themselves or design whole new robots smarter than themselves or humans. I think it is a good possibility that we could design creatures that could speed up the design process itself with there own creations, but we our now in the land of science fiction and off topic.

Tar.Aldarion

Galvasean wrote:

Skynet? is that you?

I am listening to all. I am in your internetz.

Dades

Fallen Seraph wrote:

But still, I'd be a lot more comfortable making judgements on our species dumbness if I had seen what the dominant species on a few other planets look like.

Now that's something we'd all like to see. Probably just before we are all wiped out like the parasites we are.

JimiTime

The Atheist wrote:

If nobody ever suggested an afterlife existed, the term soul would simply be our personality/character.

Although many Christians believe in the idea of an 'immortal' Soul, the bible talks about 'soul' with regards 'life'. I.E. The lifeforce of someone. Its more of a sense than a spirit. I think many Christians see the soul as an invisible spirit that floats away when you die, but biblically, its is more of a sensical part of the person. Thus we are called to Love God with our whole strength and soul. It describes the concience, the self awareness, those things that one cannot see, the actual person. Thats my Christian view for you anyway:)

Galvasean

I just think the idea of the immortal soul boils down to how bets to keep people well behaved. If people can live evil lives and enjoy themselves/profit what is there to stop them? However if they believe that they will have to pay for their actions for all eternity they might reconsider.

A permanent unchanging soul no, though rebirth yes

Tar.Aldarion

What gives Buddhists this belief in rebirth?
I have wondered.

I started with the belief in rebirth then found buddhism so I don't know about any others. I suppose there are some who don't believe it at all

Historically, it started with hinduism so naturally dharma and karma and rebirth were adopted

lookinforpicnic

bluewolf wrote:

A permanent unchanging soul no, though rebirth yes

Rebirth...strange idea? What exactly gets reborn?

Asiaprod

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What gives Buddhists this belief in rebirth?
I have wondered.

Its a corny answer, but its a true answer to a Buddhist. Because it feels correct.

pinksoir

I always understood with what little I studied about Buddhism, that Buddhists don't believe in any constant 'self' so to speak. I never really grasped how something that doesn't exist in and of itself could be reborn as something else. That is to say that if the self doesn't exist, and we are in a constant state of change, what is it that is reborn and is therefore constant? Is it a soul? And is this soul independent of the self?

Care to enlighten me?

MooseJam

The Atheist wrote:

Worthless in the grand universal scheme of things, perhaps. But I like to think that during my blink-of-an-eye existance I'd be worth something to another bonesack. It's all relative.

You may think we're dumb, but have you ever met a us more intelligent species than us? Flawed, but not completely dumb.

no not completely dumb , dumb when it comes to talk of self importance and souls and very large buildings full of kneeling mumbling people

I am very bad at explaining things, so first I'll suggest www.buddhanet.net which has good explanations of various things. Here's one link: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd47.htm
Perhaps i was mistaken about hindu origins.
and another
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm

Anyway, the idea is that the self is a bunch of conditioned reactions, I guess. The idea of the soul which is rejected by buddhism, leading to anatta, is the idea that there is a self which is permanent and unchanging. So, I suppose rebirth says that the exact same person with exactly the same personality etc in life after life just doesn't happen. We change a lot through our lives and so it goes on.

Sorry, this isn't great - I suppose the links do better.

Asiaprod

pinksoir wrote:

Care to enlighten me?

Wish I could, I have enough trouble trying just trying to enlighten myself:)
Probably could not explain rebirth even if I tried. Its not a scientific process, but more an instinctive process that develops as one progresses through life. I have always like the following analogies. They are not answers, just a mind jog to start one off on the thought proccess. Sorry if this does not make sense, its still always a matter of ones personal belief, call it faith if you will, but faith in ones self.


1. The suitcase analogy:
I go to an airport with a suitcase. I put the suitcase on a conveyor belt so it can be loaded into the luggage compartment of the airplane. But, I am not getting on the plane, just the suitcase. The suitcase contains my karmic energy. When the karmic energy gets to its new destination, my next lifetime picks up the suitcase. But, I didn't get on the plane, because my ticket had expired... It's not really me that picks up the suitcase... It's because of me the suitcase is picked up. The suitcase may be almost empty because of a past life of unskillful activity. It may have only one set of clothes and no shoes... But, I'm not predestined to be poor and homeless. Through acts of kindness and generosity, I can start filling the suitcase. I can turn rags into riches through good thoughts, good speech, and good actions. I'm in charge, and my life is what I make it.

2. The candle analogy:
Let's say you have a circle of unlit candles. You light the first one, with that one you light the one beside it and blow out the first candle. You continue doing this, lighting a candle and blowing out the other, until you've made around the circle and you're back to the first candle. You light it. Is it the same flame? No, it has changed, but the essence of the first flame is still there and effects all the candles lit after it. Everything we do in this lifetime effects those after us.

Both of these seek to describe the process, but do not answer where the next lifetime came from. If I find the answer to that one, I'll let you know. I guess for the moment I am happy just to begin to understand the process.

jtsuited

am i being a bit uptight by saying that 'believing' is a bit of a wrong term to use here.
I always thought that the one of the main characteristics of atheism was to make a concrete differentiation between a 'belief' system of thinking, and an observational acknowledgement of reality.

I chose the answer that I believe in my physical body and thoughts (or whatever it was) but its not that i 'believe' in them. Its that I am concious of them. I am aware of my body and (thankfully) I can see and touch it. Through my senses I percieve that it is there. I can't really choose any other interpretation of it (realistically speaking at least). Does this make sense or is it too late to be posting on boards and I need sleep?

Asiaprod

jtsuited wrote:

I chose the answer that I believe in my physical body and thoughts (or whatever it was) but its not that i 'believe' in them. Its that I am concious of them. I am aware of my body and (thankfully) I can see and touch it. Through my senses I percieve that it is there. I can't really choose any other interpretation of it (realistically speaking at least). Does this make sense or is it too late to be posting on boards and I need sleep?

Hum, If you are conscious of them, does that mean you believe in what you are conscious off?:) Bear in mind, all languages are limited in the feeling/emotion that they can convey. I could say I am conscious of what I believe in:) Yes you do make sense to me, and it is probably too late to be posting:D

pinksoir

They're quite good analogies. I understand it a bit better now. I've actually read quite a few books by Buddhists, they rarely dealt with the beliefs of buddhism, but were mainly about how to be aware, live a good life and positively affect other people. When I write it like that, it sounds like they were self help books but they were quite enlightening none the less.

Have you ever read any Anthony Di Mello? He was a Jesuit philosopher that borrowed a lot from Buddhism. Good thinker.