I consider myself a person with a reasonably standard range of emotions. One my society deems good, like empathy, love, and occasional courage; and ones considered harmful and selfish, like anger, spite and cowardice. I don't rule out the possibility of dualism, though I don't think it adds anything to the natural explanation of emotions: their reasons, their sources, their development, their physiology. Many Christians take it for granted that certain emotions, if powerful enough, must certainly transcend the corporeal human experience. I recall reading once that the sensation of "itching" is actually two kinds of pain sensation to encourage scratching to stimulate circulation in the affected area; but in a dualistic view, there must be an ultimate source of itchiness. It seems as fair as saying there's an ultimate source of love. Hopefully, they're not one in the same.

I don't know whether I experience life differently from a believer in any physiological sense, though I imagine they tweak their pleasure receptors engaging in mass rituals, and acute bouts of eyes-to-the-sky smugness. I've long considered the dualistic view a mistaken cordoning off of certain emotions; an emotional foot-binding that contorts the psyche as it develops. "All good feelings are x, all bad feelings are y," so the indoctrination goes, making it difficult to see beyond the religion on an emotional level; on a level that bypasses the intellect, similar to Orwell's ultimate vision for Newspeak (a way of speaking, and thinking, that admits not even an internal articulation of criticism of Big Brother, because Big Brother becomes synonymous with the concept of good itself).

I wonder if there's any way to demonstrate on some definitive level whether the crass and awful emotions felt by heathens like myself, and the haughty, Platonic emotions felt by the Christian dualist are, in fact, one in the same.