Which Came First the Imagination or the Religion?

[Shine]

Religion! GOD created the heavens and the Earth in the beginning and gave man his mind. Why is it so hard for you atheists to understand something as simply as that.

If your claim is so simple, then why is it so hard to provide evidence for it?

[Asmodean]

If your claim is so simple, then why is it so hard to provide evidence for it?

A tiny small part of that would be that it's a load of crap, I think

[Shine]

If your claim is so simple, then why is it so hard to provide evidence for it?

A tiny small part of that would be that it's a load of crap, I think lol

[Myoslnev]

Religion is as much a part of man as science, art, and community is. You can't divorce man from religion, and it would be a terrible thing to do so in the first place. <-- I think this statement won't sit well here, but please, hear me out. I do not mean particular beliefs. If religion was about what, in particular, a person believed, then everyone would have to have a certain set of particular beliefs to have religion.

Of course, this isn't so. With all the variety of beliefs and worldviews out there, Religion isn't so much about what in particular you believe as it is about the divine inspiration.

Even atheists feel this divine awe. If you look at the universe that science has revealed to a person, it is possible to have a divine apreciation towards it. The devine emotiation is a crucial aspect of human experience. As for what religion you are under, it doesn't matter what religion you are, but the need to have some deeper feeling, some cosmic emotion, remains with man.

It is this divine feeling that can not be destroyed. To give it up would be to give up an essential part of your humanity.  

[Davin]

Religion is as much a part of man as science, art, and community is. You can't divorce man from religion, and it would be a terrible thing to do so in the first place. <-- I think this statement won't sit well here, but please, hear me out. I do not mean particular beliefs. If religion was about what, in particular, a person believed, then everyone would have to have a certain set of particular beliefs to have religion.

Of course, this isn't so. With all the variety of beliefs and worldviews out there, Religion isn't so much about what in particular you believe as it is about the divine inspiration.

Even atheists feel this divine awe. If you look at the universe that science has revealed to a person, it is possible to have a divine apreciation towards it. The devine emotiation is a crucial aspect of human experience. As for what religion you are under, it doesn't matter what religion you are, but the need to have some deeper feeling, some cosmic emotion, remains with man.

It is this divine feeling that can not be destroyed. To give it up would be to give up an essential part of your humanity.  

I don't have this deeper feeling or cosmic emotion. I'm perfectly fine without it. But then again with your squishy definition of religion you may have a squishy definition for this "deeper feeling, some cosmic emotion" as well. I don't like definitions that can be spread thin, because all that means is that you need to find a more specific word to use to explain what you mean instead of the word that has been redefined to mean so many things that it's now useless.

Any way, I agree that it is possible to have a divine appreciation for something without believing in a god, I don't think the "divine emotiation" is a critical part of the human experience. If you like that part then by all means make important to you, but I just don't think that it is or even that it should be important to everyone. I think the best part about the human experience is finding out what is or isn't important to you and experiencing those things that you enjoy (so long as it doesn't unreasonably harm anyone else).

[pinkocommie]

Religion is as much a part of man as science, art, and community is. You can't divorce man from religion, and it would be a terrible thing to do so in the first place. <-- I think this statement won't sit well here, but please, hear me out. I do not mean particular beliefs. If religion was about what, in particular, a person believed, then everyone would have to have a certain set of particular beliefs to have religion.

Of course, this isn't so. With all the variety of beliefs and worldviews out there, Religion isn't so much about what in particular you believe as it is about the divine inspiration.

Even atheists feel this divine awe. If you look at the universe that science has revealed to a person, it is possible to have a divine apreciation towards it. The devine emotiation is a crucial aspect of human experience. As for what religion you are under, it doesn't matter what religion you are, but the need to have some deeper feeling, some cosmic emotion, remains with man.

It is this divine feeling that can not be destroyed. To give it up would be to give up an essential part of your humanity.  

I feel like you're just adding the word 'divine' to common human emotions and reactions without having any reason to do so.  Inspiration, appreciation, awe, and other similar reactions don't have to be 'divine' to be meaningful, but the fact remains that these are still personal reactions.  I look up at the sky and get kind of fuzzy wuzzy about the universe, but I would never try to argue that everyone feels the same 'fuzzy wuzzy' feelings as I do or that my 'fuzzy wuzzys' are in any way divine in origin.

I guess I just see the action of labeling these kinds of feelings or reactions as 'divine' as an extra and not necessarily required or even applicable step when describing human response to different stimuli.  Plus, there are people (like Davin and others I have come across including one of my closest friends who also happens to be a successful artist) who don't really feel any fuzzy wuzzys at all.

[Tank]

@PoC Quite right. I couldn't be arsed to waste the energy to say that.

[Shine]

Of course, this isn't so. With all the variety of beliefs and worldviews out there, Religion isn't so much about what in particular you believe as it is about the divine inspiration.

I disagree with your definition of religion.  As others have mentioned, I think that you are just loosening its definitive boundaries in order to escape the specific rigidity of dogma, doctrine, and the necessary intellectual conformity which religion entails.

Even atheists feel this divine awe. If you look at the universe that science has revealed to a person, it is possible to have a divine apreciation towards it. The devine emotiation is a crucial aspect of human experience. As for what religion you are under, it doesn't matter what religion you are, but the need to have some deeper feeling, some cosmic emotion, remains with man.

The key difference is that atheists do not assign supernatural causality nor significance to any sort of cosmic emotion.  (I would argue that any atheist who does so is more likely to be a deist.)  There is absolutely no reason that a purely atheistic materialist cannot recognize the conscious experience of wonder and awe at the unity of the universe at large.  I am reminded of a passage from Carl Sagan's Candle in the Dark:

"[Spirituality] comes from the Latin word 'to breathe'. What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spirituality' that we are talking about anything other than matter (including the realm of matter of which the brain is made) or anything outside the realm of science...Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a profound disservice to both."

I realize that this is not the general usage of the term "spirituality" as the word is generally monopolized by religious esoterics seeking to legitimize their opinions on various cosmic mysteries.  However, I find that this material view of spirituality is directly in line with that sense of awe which I think that you are referencing.  I will agree that this awe is truly a valuable part of the human experience; I just do not think that there is anything immaterial, divine, or supernatural about it.

[i_am_i]

Even atheists feel this divine awe.

So what you're saying here is that atheists are wrong to be atheist. Got it. Run along, Grasshopper. You have a navel that wants gazing at.

atheism
a : disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

devine
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god
b : being a deity
c : directed to a deity

[elliebean]

Even atheists feel this divine awe. If you look at the universe that science has revealed to a person, it is possible to have a divine apreciation towards it. The devine emotiation is a crucial aspect of human experience. As for what religion you are under, it doesn't matter what religion you are, but the need to have some deeper feeling, some cosmic emotion, remains with man.

Your description of what you refer to as "divine awe" or "divine emotion" seems to be very close in definition to what I prefer to call aesthetic experience.

[i_am_i]

Even atheists feel this divine awe. If you look at the universe that science has revealed to a person, it is possible to have a divine apreciation towards it. The devine emotiation is a crucial aspect of human experience. As for what religion you are under, it doesn't matter what religion you are, but the need to have some deeper feeling, some cosmic emotion, remains with man.

Your description of what you refer to as "divine awe" or "divine emotion" seems to be very close in definition to what I prefer to call aesthetic experience.

Excellent! Lookin' good, Ellie.  

[JillSwift]

Even atheists feel this divine awe.

I am so very sick and tired of being told what I think or feel by theists.

[Asmodean]

It is this divine feeling that can not be destroyed. To give it up would be to give up an essential part of your humanity.  :hmm:

[Davin]

I will agree that this awe is truly a valuable part of the human experience; I just do not think that there is anything immaterial, divine, or supernatural about it.

I again disagree with this concept of what must be considered valuable in relation to the human experience. I can understand that you value it greatly, I'm just a confused as to why you think it should be valuable to everyone. This sense of awe I don't think is any more valuable than eating bacon in that while it tastes good, it's not necessary for either living or an enjoyable experience but merely one type of experience to enjoy... or not enjoy because I can fully accept that a person may find this particular experience as not enjoyable and maybe even uncomfortable. I would consider myself to be a hypocrite if I were to say that any one thing I like must be something that everyone needs to appreciate if they value being human.

[Shine]

I will agree that this awe is truly a valuable part of the human experience; I just do not think that there is anything immaterial, divine, or supernatural about it.

I again disagree with this concept of what must be considered valuable in relation to the human experience. I can understand that you value it greatly, I'm just a confused as to why you think it should be valuable to everyone. This sense of awe I don't think is any more valuable than eating bacon in that while it tastes good, it's not necessary for either living or an enjoyable experience but merely one type of experience to enjoy... or not enjoy because I can fully accept that a person may find this particular experience as not enjoyable and maybe even uncomfortable. I would consider myself to be a hypocrite if I were to say that any one thing I like must be something that everyone needs to appreciate if they value being human.

But any time that we say something is "valuable," isn't it implied that it is according to what we personally consider enjoyable?  I was only agreeing with a certain sentiment of the poster's comment; I was not seeking to establish an absolute value judgment.  Perhaps I should have said that it is a truly valuable part of my human experience.

Also, I just want to clarify what sort of "awe" I am talking about.  I do not necessarily mean some existential experience of staring into the night sky and feeling "one" with the universe.  I only mean that sense of realizing a world beyond the limits of one's own ego whether it be an awareness of nature, humanity, or any other entity in which the individual is only a portion of the greater whole.  In my opinion, it is valuable for the human psyche to experience this sense of diminutive independence from--yet concurrent integration with--the surrounding cosmos. (Massive disclaimer: As I am not a psychologist, I am only opining and not laying down indubitable truths about what is or is not beneficial for the human psyche.  Maybe I only mean that I think that it is valuable for my human psyche to experience this sense of awareness beyond my own concept of self.  However, I guess that I am tempted after all to proffer this as an absolute value judgment for the human experience.  I need to think it over more! )