Happy Atheist Forum

I made this post (http://happilyfreethinking.blogspot.com/2010/05/which-came-first-imagination-of.html), and thought that it could be a good discussion:

All things can speculatively be linked to religion just like all things can speculatively be linked to sex. Can we say that Egyption, Greek or Norse mythology are how the people of those times were able to conceive god? The problem is that even if those people imagined a god different than the gods imagined by Christianity, Islam, Judaism... etc., they're still using their imagination. I think it's a farther imaginative leap to imagine the Christian god as Zeus than imagining that Zeus is the cause for lighting by hurling it from Olympus Mons. So the question is: how can you determine if the religion is the cause of imagination if all the beliefs in god(s) are so varied? Given that there is no reasonable evidence for any kind of god, the idea that imagination comes from god is a farther leap than saying religion comes from imagination.

Humans don't often come up with a completely original concept of anything, mostly we just build upon existing knowledge and concepts. We see something and say "what if it worked this way instead?" Even as a huge fan of Einstein, I doubt he would have developed the theory of relativity without the work of Newton (whom I'm also a huge fan), and Newton would have been farther behind if first mathematics hadn't been built up to point it was when he started... etc. So the idea that people build upon things isn't necessarily because of religion, in fact Galileo might have something different to say about imaginative discovery and religion. Galileo came up with his concept of how the planets move in spite of the religious teachings, not because of.

We use stories to instill and explain the importance of acting certain ways, not exclusively for that purpose but I'm going down a more specific road here. I hardly think that Dr. Seuss was in the business of writing religious stories, I would have to say that the stories are very secular. There is no mention of god, no mention of sin, just story explanations of good and bad things that happen to the characters in the stories because of the actions that they took (or sometimes didn't take). To imagine a world of imagination without religion, just look at all the things created without references to religion or religious principles.

Quote from: "Davin"So the question is: how can you determine if the religion is the cause of imagination if all the beliefs in god(s) are so varied?

Okay, so that's the question. My answer is in the form of another question: who ever said that religion is the cause of imagination? That's a pretty weird idea. It's like saying that Beethoven's fifth symphony was the cause of him composing it.

It doesn't take much imagination at all to conclude that religion is the product of, well, the human imagination. I mean, what do you think? That religion was lying around waiting for someone to discover it, that discovery being the cause of human imagination? Weird!

Sorry, maybe I'm just completely missing your point.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Sorry, maybe I'm just completely missing your point.

I understand, it's an argument I recently heard again and was discussing. The argument was that things like art wouldn't exist if religion weren't there to inspire people and I was asked if I could think of a world without religion that retained all the imaginative things we now know. Examples are given of the renaissance artists who created, in my opinion, some beautiful pieces of art that were religiously themed.

Quote from: "Davin"...renaissance artists who created, in my opinion, some beautiful pieces of art that were religiously themed.

Artists in the Renaissance were inspired to create religious works of art, all right-- by the money paid them by the church.  I think it would have been difficult, if not impossible in those days to be an entirely secular artist.  Back then the church was a huge power bloc in European society, in all senses, including politically.  You messed with the church at peril of your life, and artists were not excepted.

I would suggest that imagination has it's origins firmly embedded in our ancestors ability to predict effect from cause, the better our ancestors became at that trick the better they survived. Imagination is just a highly developed ability to create fantastical versions of effect from cause. If this is so and one blends in the hierarchical nature of growing up, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that religion was the invention of imagination, not the other way around. Please do not take this post too seriously!

On an even more basic level, imagination is an inherent characteristic of problem solving species.  I think that there's no question that imagination was in the "mental tool box" of our ancestors long long before we invented deities.

[youtube:32repq5n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGKxuxk8a_0[/youtube:32repq5n]

Does a crow believe in gods?

Yeah, I agree with you guys... I guess I was hoping for some kind of perspective from the (at least two semi-active) theists we have here.

Over thousands of years I can see how our ability to predict things could start to get distorted into some else. Like the big dark clouds usually bring rain (and wind and lightning), starts to become a single name for the dark clouds, then over time the dark clouds become (in their perception) and active agent that chooses when and where to strike with lightning... etc. Which would fit into what we find with all the ancient religions having a god for almost everything out of their control.

If only this weren't just my speculation, then it would really be something.

Quote from: "Recusant"Does a crow believe in gods?

Don't know, can't get any information like that out of them.

Imagination is a passed time of the MIND. It is a way for the Mind to entertain itself consciously and unconciously. Imagination is also a relative to Dreams. The question is which came first Imagination or the Religion. The answer is RELIGION. The GODS are all the same be they from whaterver culture the only thing that changes are the name given to them as they are pick up by another group. I think that one question which may replace the above is: which came first the mythology or the Religion. Now mythology is base on the Imagination for this is story telling around the camp-fire. The Orator, was great at it and able to convince its audience with his imagination to the extend as to having the audience actullay believing the stories to be real events. In this case the Imagination will arise first then the Religion will gradually take its forms. In other cases the Religion will always followed an IDEA. Ideas have their roots in IMAGINATIONS. Religion is not something imagine if the events that support the Religion are true. If I imagine a God and I built a Religion around such a God then the Imagination came first. If I claimed that an Angel was send by God and gave me a message to passed on to others, that will not be something imagine even if it was in a dream. There is a thin line between the two: Imagination and religion.

At some point in time a primitive humanoid must have imagined what he'd have if he sharpened the end of a big stick. He imagined, in his primitive way, himself killing an animal to eat, he imagined being able to better protect himself. His imagining led him to make a tool. Actually he made two tools, a spear and a sharpening device. Such a device would also come in handy for removing the flesh from the animal he'd killed with his spear, and then someone else imagined a good way to cook that flesh over a fire, and someone else imagined a way to take the animal's hide to make clothing and to use the animal's teeth and bones to make other tools and so on.

The human imagination was most likely working long before anyone took the time to come up with supernatural explanations for natural occurances. I imagine that our primitive ancestors were far too busy with keeping about the business of staying alive to spend much time wondering what it was all about.

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see how religion could precede imagination.  Religion, at its most basic, is to endorse abstract concepts as reality.  Abstract concepts--by which I mean ideas completely devoid of any presence in the physical universe--are necessarily products of the imagination; in the absence of any physical presence, a description of an abstract concept can only be a conceptual endeavor.  Religious beliefs are therefore impossible without the possession of an imagination.

Quote from: "Shine"Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see how religion could precede imagination.  Religion, at its most basic, is to endorse abstract concepts as reality.  Abstract concepts--by which I mean ideas completely devoid of any presence in the physical universe--are necessarily products of the imagination; in the absence of any physical presence, a description of an abstract concept can only be a conceptual endeavor.  Religious beliefs are therefore impossible without the possession of an imagination.

Don't even worry about it, I thought the topic was more interesting. Turns out, I'm not even interested any more. Maybe I should spam this on a bunch of Christian forums... not seriously, it just seems like something they would spam on us in the reverse.

Quote from: "Shine"Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see how religion could precede imagination.  Religion, at its most basic, is to endorse abstract concepts as reality.  Abstract concepts--by which I mean ideas completely devoid of any presence in the physical universe--are necessarily products of the imagination; in the absence of any physical presence, a description of an abstract concept can only be a conceptual endeavor.  Religious beliefs are therefore impossible without the possession of an imagination.

I would agree with what you have written, makes perfect sense to me.

Quote from: "Davin"Maybe I should spam this on a bunch of Christian forums... not seriously, it just seems like something they would spam on us in the reverse.

I agree, Davin, I think that this is the sentiment that religious people are using in the Argument from Beauty for God's existence.  Like you mentioned earlier in the thread, there is the tendency to attribute artistic works to divine influence and thereby credit creativity to God.  Taken to its logical end, attributing creativity to God would lead one to attribute the imagination itself to God and thereby suggest that the worship of God preceded the power of imagination.  I think that what you have done is better elucidate a theist's Argument from Beauty, or perhaps provided half of its refutation.  All that I did was carry the refutation all the way through.  (I think; I may be bungling the specifics of that argument.)

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.

Quote from: "AntiAtheist"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.

It's very easy to understand your claim, however there is no evidence to support you claim is there?

Quote from: "AntiAtheist"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?

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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

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.  

Quote from: "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.  

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).

Quote from: "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.  

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.

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

Quote from: "Myoslnev"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.

Quote from: "Myoslnev"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.

Quote from: "Myoslnev"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

Quote from: "Myoslnev"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.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Myoslnev"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.  

Quote from: "Myoslnev"Even atheists feel this divine awe.

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

Quote from: "Myoslnev"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:

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "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! )

Quote from: "Shine"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."

Quote from: "Davin"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?

Quote from: "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.  

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.

Quote from: "Shine"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.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Myoslnev"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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?  

Quote from: "Davin"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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."

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?  

Quote from: "elliebean"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.  

Quote from: "Quinn Mander"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.

Quote from: "Shine"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.

Quote from: "i_am_i"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.

Quote from: "Quinn Mander"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.

Quote from: "i_am_i"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.

Quote from: "Davin"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.)

Quote from: "Quinn Mander"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. :blush: