Thread: The Ultimate Imaginary Friend

The quote below is from a Wiki article entitled Imaginary Friend. Near the end of the article it mentioned that psychologists disagree as to whether this belief constitutes a serious psychiatric disorder. That aside I would like to concentrate on the possible religious aspect this predominantly mental disorder may hold. When you read the quote you will notice a strong resemblance to theistic belief. I would argue that the Imaginary Friend syndrome is not restricted to young people but is an adult illness as well. People tend to not include God belief as imaginary but if you read the quote below then it sounds hauntingly real that a majority of the world suffers from this malady. Why God belief is excluded is anyone's guess.

From Wiki: Imaginary friends and imaginary companions are a psychological and social phenomenon where a friendship or other interpersonal relationship takes place in the imagination rather than external physical reality. Imaginary friends are fictional characters created for improvisational role-playing. They often have elaborate personalities and behaviors. They may seem real to their creators, though they are ultimately unreal, as shown by studies.^[1] The first studies focusing on imaginary friends are believed to have been conducted during the 1890s.^[2]
Imaginary friends are made often in childhood, sometimes in adolescence, and rarely in adulthood. They often function as tutelaries when played with by a child. They reveal, according to several theories of psychology, a child's anxieties,fears, goals and perceptions of the world through that child's conversations. They are, according to some children, physically indistinguishable from real people, while others say they see their imaginary friends only in their heads. There's even a third category of imaginary friend recognition: when the child doesn't see the imaginary friend at all, but can only feel his/her presence.

Personally I have never had an imaginary friend. I am an atheist also. Is there a correlation? I'm sure there are atheists who did or still do have an imaginary friend. However the question is this: Is God real in the worldly sense (physical, spiritual) or is he only real in the mind of those who are affected by a mental disorder? I could easily understand God knowing He's a theist's imaginary friend. I could even accept God if I was convinced that His existence is really due to some internal wiring in the brain. I could not be critical of any theist if I knew they were afflicted in such a way.

What did you think about he last line of the quote? Does it relate to adulthood too?

Note to Moderator: if you feel this thread needs to be moved then be my guest.

Well my only issue is I'd wish you framed your all your questions in more of a scientific way which is really what this forum is for.

"Is God real in the worldly sense (physical, spiritual) or is he only real in the mind of those who are affected by a mental disorder?"
The first part is an invitation to discuss other than science. The second and this one :" Is God real in the worldly sense (physical, spiritual) or is he only real in the mind of those who are affected by a mental disorder? " fit well.

I'm not aware of linkages between childhood imaginary friends, other psychological issues and adult religiosity (in either direction)--there might be some research out there that would be interesting to read about.

We'll see how it goes--lets for once try to stick to the sciences.

I hesitate to use the word schizotypal to describe imaginary friend behavior because people might think that someone is labelling them schizophrenic or worse. I really think that religious belief is a byproduct of our imagination, something that evolution has bestowed upon us. Archaeological evidence of ritual burials & art reveal that our imaginations appeared somewhere in the distant past, I've read figures as early as 100,000 years ago. I don't think it's a coincidence that God and a host of other imaginary creatures appeared in our folklore since then. So I think the imaginary friend behavior has a good possibility of being an intrinsic trait.

Many articles differentiate between the child and adult states. There is also the possibility of gender specifics. Will this topic get that far, who knows?

Another question we could ask is why did humans evolve imagination? Surely it wasn't to connect with God, was it? It has to be beneficial to our survival, doesn't it? So if it is then I would assume that the imaginary friends have somehow aided humanity's ascendance to the top of the animal kingdom. However we may finally be getting to the stage where we realize that imaginary friends, and I include God along with other religious personalities, are not real. It could be that the evolution of our imagination is in progress and the benefits of imaginary friends have run their course.

My view of imagination, and consciousness, is that this is simply a planning mechanism. A big brained organism can role play situations mentally before encountering them in real life. For example, a Cro-magnon man might work out in his head what he will do if he encounters a sabre tooth cat. Then he does not have to pause to think out his actions when it happens. This clearly a survival trait.

An imaginary friend might be the equivalent for pre-planning social encounters. The person who thinks a lot about social interactions may well be better equipped to get along with other people.

How does this apply to a belief in deity? As imaginary friend perhaps? As a pre-planning basis for getting along with the real Daddy in his/her life?

An imaginary friend might be the equivalent for pre-planning social encounters. The person who thinks a lot about social interactions may well be better equipped to get along with other people.

Imagination's prime role will turn out to be social, I expect. Putting yourself 'in another's shoes' is essential for maintaining relationships. And in hunter-gatherer societies, working out who you can rely on and who is unreliable is life or death stuff.

As for gods. One of our most important facilities is pattern recognition. And we don't just 'recognise' them, we actively seek them as helpful or explanatory processes. Here we should note the names given to constellations of stars. Can you see a bear or an archer? No. You need someone to point out the features that gave rise to these names. Perfect examples of looking for patterns that are only there when you force the issue - looking for things that look like things you already know.

This is fine and dandy for looking for the details which help us recognise when certain plants are or aren't edible at different times of the year, or we can expect that some plant or animal is edible/ dangerous/ poisonous because it looks so much (un)like another. Not so marvelous for explaining the vicissitudes of illness, stillborn calves, accidental death and other misfortune, or mysterious earthquakes, eclipses and flash floods - or simply that others seem to have apparently better lives or circumstances than we do when we don't know how the world works (in scientific terms).

So we seek out correlations and explain certain things in those terms. And then our intelligence leads us onto further and further elaborations of such ideas until they eventually bear no resemblance to the simple observations that started the whole process off. That's when we finish up with deep and meaningful discussions about angels dancing on the head of a pin based on river flows or the colour of someone's eyes or other completely fantastical constructions.

Originally Posted by adelady

Here we should note the names given to constellations of stars. Can you see a bear or an archer? No. You need someone to point out the features that gave rise to these names.

Even worse for you and I, adelady, since we live in the southern hemisphere, and all the constellations are upside down from our perspective. We need our own constellations. I am sure you will recognise the group of stars called 'The Pot' which is high in the sky by complete darkness this time of year. No-one in the north is likely to recognise that very obvious 'constellation', since it is a peculiarly southern one.

But of course you are right in that humans are constantly seeking patterns, and finding them whether they really are there or not.

What came first.... imagining a god or an image in the night sky? Did our ancestors connect-the-dots prior to introducing gods? I'd have to think that the sky presented quite an awesome canvas for creativity once man developed imagination. I think I can see how early homo sapiens might have started believing in gods after noticing the random placement of stars resembled images of daily life. Does anyone know if star field imaginations preceded god belief?

Zinj
There is no way to know.
However, let me say this. The stars in the night sky would have been of enormous importance to our more 'primitive' ancestors. When nightfall meant squatting around a campfire, rather than retreating indoors under the light of electricity, then the stars in the sky would be much noticed and much discussed.

I can imagine how superstitious hunter/gatherer stone age peoples would have talked of the stars, when sitting still at night. Undoubtedly, they invented stories about the stars, and about the imaginary shapes from the random patterns in the sky. Stars and constellations would become vitally important to their social lives.

You're asking if god is only a delusion within everyone's minds? That would depend on whether god really existed or not. The problem with your assertion that god only exists in the brains of theists is that it is based on the assumption of naturalism ie there is no such thing as the supernatural. Naturalism is a philosophical position just like all the religions, there is no empirical proof for any of them.

Originally Posted by seeker123

You're asking if god is only a delusion within everyone's minds? That would depend on whether god really existed or not. The problem with your assertion that god only exists in the brains of theists is that it is based on the assumption of naturalism ie there is no such thing as the supernatural. Naturalism is a philosophical position just like all the religions, there is no empirical proof for any of them.

Science is naturalism. It has yet to discover the supernatural. Not wishing to engage in philosophical debate let me say that no proof of the supernatural will ever be found. It's like saying you can enter another reality when in fact it is still your reality. Let's stick to naturalism for science's sake.

Strange said

I can imagine how superstitious hunter/gatherer stone age peoples would have talked of the stars, when sitting still at night. Undoubtedly, they invented stories about the stars, and about the imaginary shapes from the random patterns in the sky. Stars and constellations would become vitally important to their social lives.

I'm trying to think of the moment when imagination affected the basic instinctual behavior of our ancestors. Take the pecking order for example: aggression and strength are useful attributes to gain social status but at some point ancient man saw these as special. Why him and not me? They may have started to understand that not all men are created equal. Not understanding the science behind everything we do, then it may have been possible that reverence for human hierarchy spawned god beliefs. Especially when leaders could not affect natural occurrences.

Science is naturalism. It has yet to discover the supernatural. Not wishing to engage in philosophical debate let me say that no proof of the supernatural will ever be found. It's like saying you can enter another reality when in fact it is still your reality. Let's stick to naturalism for science's sake.

Science is not naturalism, naturalism is a philosophical position which claims all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Science, however is not a philosophical position, or even a conclusion, rather, it is a particular methodology for gaining knowledge.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

The idea that science as a methodology is not equipped to answer questions about the supernatural, or that it will "never" discover proof of the supernatural is a narrow perspective on both the infinitude of reality and the effectiveness and scope of the scientific method itself.

It is paradoxical that on the one hand you ask a question about whether god is real, but then insist on staying strictly within the bounds of naturalism. Yet given the naturalistic limitations imposed by you, the only possible conclusion you can reach is that god is a product of the brain. This is not a scientific attitude, or method, by any definition.

Let's stick to real science and open minded enquiry for truths sake.

Originally Posted by seeker123

Science is naturalism. It has yet to discover the supernatural. Not wishing to engage in philosophical debate let me say that no proof of the supernatural will ever be found. It's like saying you can enter another reality when in fact it is still your reality. Let's stick to naturalism for science's sake.

Science is not naturalism, naturalism is a philosophical position which claims all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Science, however is not a philosophical position, or even a conclusion, rather, it is a particular methodology for gaining knowledge.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

The idea that science as a methodology is not equipped to answer questions about the supernatural, or that it will "never" discover proof of the supernatural is a narrow perspective on both the infinitude of reality and the effectiveness and scope of the scientific method itself.

It is paradoxical that on the one hand you ask a question about whether god is real, but then insist on staying strictly within the bounds of naturalism. Yet given the naturalistic limitations imposed by you, the only possible conclusion you can reach is that god is a product of the brain. This is not a scientific attitude, or method, by any definition.

Let's stick to real science and open minded enquiry for truths sake.

Moderator: I was hoping to stay away from philosophy but if this topic needs to be moved then please arrange.

Maybe I shouldn't have said I was an atheist.

Check the OP, I'm merely asking questions regarding a Wiki article. I assume that you think God is supernatural and beyond science. If you want to argue philosophic then post something in the Philosophy subform.

I'll will ask again. Is God to be included within the realm of imaginary friends? Does graduation into adulthood preclude you from what the Wiki article says?: "Imaginary friends and imaginary companions are a psychological and social phenomenon where a friendship or other interpersonal relationshiptakes place in the imagination rather than external physical reality. Imaginary friends are fictional characters created for improvisational role-playing."

Psychology, the last time I checked , was a science. The article suggests that imaginary friends are psychological phenomenon and observed as such. Imagination's historical rise is what I was focussing on. I'm interested in how the first imaginary friend may have originated. I'm not attempting to prove God is or isn't and in no way am I making assumptions regarding naturalism.

I suggest reposting this as a survey.