Which Came First the Imagination or the Religion?

[Davin]

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! )

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, and for going off on an assumption. Though I did think that, that is what you meant by "awe."

[Shine]

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, and for going off on an assumption. Though I did think that, that is what you meant by "awe."

No need to apologize; my thoughts are so convoluted that a misunderstanding is unavoidable.   lol )  Maybe I am going in the same vein of declarations which say that experiencing reciprocal love, joy, or other intense emotions are valuable parts of the human experience?

[Kylyssa]

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.  

Intense emotions are so powerful that people feel the need to give them a different designation - spiritual feelings.  If you think about it, the things people describe as spiritual tend to involve situations that evoke powerful emotions; the birth of a child, viewing a stunning natural vista, being in love, etc.  These "divine emotions" you are speaking of are just strong feelings.  We are all overcome with emotion from time to time and there's no shame in it that needs to be covered up with some suggestion that it came from God and is thereby excusable.

Don't worry, assuming you are a normal human being you will feel intense emotions whether you have a religion or not.

[Davin]

No need to apologize; my thoughts are so convoluted that a misunderstanding is unavoidable.   lol )  Maybe I am going in the same vein of declarations which say that experiencing reciprocal love, joy, or other intense emotions are valuable parts of the human experience?

From my perspective, intense emotions are not necessary to being human. Just because a majority of humans experience something does that make the outliers any less human? Are those who do not experience powerful emotions any less human? Does being more sensitive to emotions make one more human? I think strong emotions are something that a majority of humans experience but I don't think that it's necessary in order to be human. I understand how insignificant I am in the universe without feeling any kind of emotion, not even the first time I realized it. There has been nothing in my life that has generated any kind of strong emotion or any emotion above "hey, you're a tiny bit irritated."

Don't think I'm trying to change this into anything else: the "human experience" is a term used to describe all the various things one experiences as a human. To say that something is a necessary human experience is essentially the same thing as saying that those who don't experience that thing, are either less than human or not human because they are not experiencing it. I would say be careful of blanket statements, and stereo typing (even if the entire human race is the stereo type). I think the only necessary human experiences are to be born and to die, other than those two things humans can experience or not experience a great many things but none of those things are necessary.

[Tank]

Even atheists feel this divine awe.

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

Me too.

[Shine]

From my perspective, intense emotions are not necessary to being human.  

I think that we are expressing two very different things.  I said that the experience of awe is a truly valuable part of the human experience; I never said that it was necessary for the human experience.  I think that a lot of things are truly valuable to the human experience that come from the wide gamut of emotional, sensory, and intellectual faculties of our species.  However, I would not call any of these events necessary to the human experience.

Just because a majority of humans experience something does that make the outliers any less human?  

So because some people do not share an experience, is it then less valuable?  

Are those who do not experience powerful emotions any less human? Does being more sensitive to emotions make one more human? I think strong emotions are something that a majority of humans experience but I don't think that it's necessary in order to be human. I understand how insignificant I am in the universe without feeling any kind of emotion, not even the first time I realized it. There has been nothing in my life that has generated any kind of strong emotion or any emotion above "hey, you're a tiny bit irritated."

I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I thought people who did not experience something which I consider valuable are somehow less human than I am.  While I appreciate that you are free to your own interpretation of my words, I cannot help but feel as though you have twisted my sentiment into something unrecognizable.  My initial statement was that awe is truly valuable to the human experience; I never made any claims about those who do not experience awe, except perhaps the inferred claim that they are missing out on a valuable experience.  I cannot see how missing out on something valuable would necessarily mean that one is less than human.

Don't think I'm trying to change this into anything else: the "human experience" is a term used to describe all the various things one experiences as a human. To say that something is a necessary human experience is essentially the same thing as saying that those who don't experience that thing, are either less than human or not human because they are not experiencing it. I would say be careful of blanket statements, and stereo typing (even if the entire human race is the stereo type). I think the only necessary human experiences are to be born and to die, other than those two things humans can experience or not experience a great many things but none of those things are necessary.

If the term "human experience" only necessarily comprises the events of birth and death, then the term itself is meaningless.  By this definition, every living creature could be said to participate in the "human experience."  While I also would be hesitant to label any specific events as necessary to the human experience, I do not think that this invalidates the idea that we can label various events as valuable or beneficial to the human experience.  I just do not think that valuable should be conflated with necessary or essential.

But now that I think about it, maybe certain things are necessary.  Is a certain level of cognition necessary to the human experience?  If birth and death are the only requirements, could we then say that an infant who dies in their first week of life has really had the human experience? While I agree that emotions themselves may not be requirements, it just seems that the definition of what we consider human becomes meaningless if we restrict it simply that which exists between the parameters of birth and death.  In that case, then the "human experience" would simply be synonymous with "life."

[elliebean]

I think having arms and legs is valuable to human experience, yet people born without them are equally human. *shrugs*



Have I misapprehended the point in dispute?  

[Quinn Mander]

Have I misapprehended the point in dispute?

I don't believe so.  That appears to me to be the crux.  Without wanting to presume too much of someone else's intentions or thoughts...

(...oh, and Hi.  I'm new here.  I look forward to embarrassing myself in front of each and every one of you...I very much hope the experience thereof will help to improve the clarity of my thinking, as well as my writing)

...I think I agree with Shine , and appreciate how she (I think Shine is a she, apologies if I have assumed incorrectly) clarified the terms.  There are, perhaps, two concepts here.  The idea of the essential and the idea of the beneficial.  Shine and Elliebean basically have already expressed this, but - what is beneficial to an organism, or to anything really, is not necessarily an essential component of the identity of that organism.  One can be enriched by a powerful emotional experience, without that experience necessarily increasing or decreasing one's "humanness."  But that, of course, as I think Shine went on to say, depends upon what you mean by "human."  Strictly speaking, and from one point of view, every member of Homo Sapiens is human.  Is that a trivial observation?  If we really mean that to be "Human" with a capital "H," one must have a certain level of cognitive capacity or breadth of experience, then the game perhaps changes. If you have not experienced a particular emotion, you might of course think there is nothing to miss.  But someone who had benefitted from that emotional experience, and had appreciated it, would perhaps be forgiven for thinking, "you don't know what you're missing."  But where do we set that line?  What I took from what elliebean wrote was that one must be careful what properties one assigns as necessary to being "Human."  But I may be way off the mark here.  I'm warming up to this...please be gentle.  

[i_am_i]

Strictly speaking, and from one point of view, every member of Homo Sapiens is human.  Is that a trivial observation?  If we really mean that to be "Human" with a capital "H," one must have a certain level of cognitive capacity or breadth of experience, then the game perhaps changes. If you have not experienced a particular emotion, you might of course think there is nothing to miss.  But someone who had benefitted from that emotional experience, and had appreciated it, would perhaps be forgiven for thinking, "you don't know what you're missing."  But where do we set that line?  What I took from what elliebean wrote was that one must be careful what properties one assigns as necessary to being "Human."  But I may be way off the mark here.  I'm warming up to this...please be gentle.  

Very astute, Quinn, and I'm glad that you're here.

To me the big difference, the thing that seperates human beings one from another, is largely a matter of fortune. I am fortunate that I've had the life I've had. Good things have happened to me and my attitude is generally upbeat and cooperative. And there are plenty of unfortunate people who "don't know what they've missed."

I'm a musician, I've been one all my life, and there are some musicians that you very much look forward to working with and some that you dread working with. Some people have atrocius attitudes, they are obviously very unhappy people and they tend to abuse others. But they're human, it's just that I'm convinced that such people haven't been as fortunate as I have. Perhaps they never felt loved, perhaps they never found their "place in life," perhaps they're just in need of help, mental help.

In the time I've spent looking into psychology and mental health issues it's been made clear to me that the human mind is a mystery yet to be solved. The study of humanity is the study of the mind, I am convinced, and that study represents the true final frontier of human exploration.

Some people are very much "more human" than others, if you want to put it that way, but why? Humanity will never get very beyond where we are now, however you may interpret "where we are," until we focus more, much more, on the study of man, the study of the human mind.

We don't know what makes up tick, so to speak, and we never will until we begin to seriously examine the human mind and what makes it healthy and what makes it sick. If we could all know as much about our minds as we do about, say, regular exercise and a healthy diet, then we'll be well on our way to eliminating the need for all these supernatural explantions for basic human experiences and desires, and much closer to the day when we can all just get along with each other as brothers and sisters sharing this planet.

[Davin]

Lot's of good stuff, just removed for trying to not fill up a few pages of text.

My only objection doesn't seem to be something that you disagree with: I don't think that there is anything that one must value in life. As for missing out, I've experienced a lot of things that people have said I was missing out on only to find that I could have lived my life without ever experiencing it and have been fine. Even knowing fully what the experience entailed, I would never have missed it. I don't think that any one thing is necessary for all humans, not even a human must find at least one thing necessary or valuable.

[Quinn Mander]

The study of humanity is the study of the mind, I am convinced, and that study represents the true final frontier of human exploration.

I completely agree.  In particular, I'm convinced (for now) that a real appreciation of consciousness will go far in explaining what it is to be sentient and to have sentient experiences.  And I've JUST NOW returned from a talk by Giulio Tononi on the neurological basis of consciousness - part of the World Science Festival here in NYC.   So.  Friggin.  Awesome.  Well.  The FESTIVAL is awesome.  The talk was very slightly underwhelming, unfortunately.  

As you say, very little is yet understood - but that is precisely why the field so thoroughly captivates me.  And, the contentious philisophical complexities notwithstanding (Philosophy of Mind is likewise a fascination of mine), I am convinced a real appreciation of the neurological basis of consciousness can only benefit the philosophical investigation of consciousness and mind.  Many disagree, of course.  And this is to say nothing of some of the larger psychological issues.  The more I learn of neurobiology and our currenting understanding of the brain, the more it becomes clear that more, much, much more, of importance goes on beneath conscious awareness, and directly influences conscious behavior and experience.  This, of course, is nothing new.  Freud said that.  But we're starting to gain a clearer picture of what, precisely, that "more" is.

Meanwhile, back in the original thread topic -

As an infidel, and non-theist, I of course feel strongly that the evidence indicates that religion is man-made.  So of course I would think that imagination preceeds religion.  The extrapolation of "divine intent" from natural events requires imagination, to say nothing of the extravagancies and embellishments later embroidered onto the original core supernatural belief.  But it could be argued  (by the believer, of course) that I am begging the question - presuming religion is man-made, which seems to entail that it comes from man's imagination.  If you beg the question in the other direction, and presume religion is truly a 'revelation,' then religion would not in any way depend upon imagination - it would be revealed fact.  And imagination would, presumably, be a gift from the "divine creator."  But, in actuality, even in that case, the exercise of that gift would not depend on the knowledge of the "revealed truth."  Presumably it could be exercised independantly of that knowlege - so I'm not sure in what sense, even in the hypothetical case that religion is "true," "religion" itself would "come before" imagination.The question is whether my belief that religion is man-made, is just that - a belief, or is it truly a conclusion supported, directly or indirectly, by evidence.  But maybe I'm not thinking clearly on this topic.

[i_am_i]

The question is whether my belief that religion is man-made, is just that - a belief, or is it truly a conclusion supported, directly or indirectly, by evidence.  But maybe I'm not thinking clearly on this topic.

In this case I would have to say no, you're not thinking clearly. All evidence supports the idea the religion is a man-made concept.  To me it's like saying that skyscrapers existed before they were built.

God is a human invention just as cave paintings are, and I have yet to see anyone show me differently. It is an impossibilty to show that God is not a human invention, and it really doesn't take years of research to become convinced of that. It is, of course, all too easy for some to be convinced that such is not the case.

[Quinn Mander]

All evidence supports the idea the religion is a man-made concept.

This is in fact how I see the origin of religion as well.  I think I'm right, and I think the evidence supports me (and you), and so there wouldn't be any question to ponder regarding which came first, religion or imagination.  In my last paragraph, I was just trying to unravel the logic of Davin's OP from both sides.  Hypothetically, as it were.

[Shine]

My only objection doesn't seem to be something that you disagree with: I don't think that there is anything that one must value in life. As for missing out, I've experienced a lot of things that people have said I was missing out on only to find that I could have lived my life without ever experiencing it and have been fine. Even knowing fully what the experience entailed, I would never have missed it. I don't think that any one thing is necessary for all humans, not even a human must find at least one thing necessary or valuable.

Davin, I've been thinking more about this discussion since yesterday (although today conspired to keep me away from the computer).  I think that I better understand what you are conveying about what can and cannot be considered valuable.  While I personally run on extremely intense emotions (not by choice) and therefore have experienced quite a bit of the human emotional spectrum, I am a habitual loner who generally prefers solitude.  Consequently, I do not experience the supposed joys of frequent socialization enjoyed by members of active social groups.  Although I always hear about the overwhelming benefits of social interaction, I personally just do not find an extensive social group to be a valuable thing. I do not enjoy social situations; I do not even know if I am capable of enjoying such events.  Regardless of how many people will find value in socialization, I do not; therefore, social interaction is not a valuable part of my human experience.  I better understand now the problems with the possible absolutist implications of my claim regarding the value of awe; if I have misunderstood, please excuse the presumption.

But I'm still stuck on the idea of what--if anything at all--could then be considered to define the human experience.  While we will all consider different things to be valuable to our experiences of being human, I'm still having problems defining the human experience as nothing more than that which exists between birth and death.  (Sorry again if I'm misunderstanding you.)  Is it purely a biological definition perhaps?  As in, maybe the human experience is any set of events lived by a member of our species?  I wonder if there are indeed limits to a human experience; besides the previous example of infant mortality, could a comatose individual be said to have the human experience?  (Note: I'm not suggesting that any living person is any less human than another nor any less deserving of life.  I realize that last sentence could head into tricky territory about the "value" of life.)

I think Shine is a she, apologies if I have assumed incorrectly

You assumed correctly!  It's actually funny how many people mistakenly address me as male, despite what I consider to be a feminine name and usually feminine avatars.  But I guess that this is actually a common occurrence with a lot of female posters on internet forums.