126 réponses à ce sujet

[frayjog]

Ahh, video game forums. Where the intellectuals go to debate.

[Wicked 702]

My final point on the subject, as it was not my intention to get into a creation debate with all of you but merely to expand the discussion as I saw it, is that we need to take a step back for a second. So I apologize for anything said that was offensive.

However, I can liken this scientific discussion to many things in history. It is fatally apparent to me that at all times in man's scientific development he always seems to think, "aha! now I have the answer." What I knew before was wrong but now I've FOR SURE got it right." Take Opium and Morphine for example. Not that many years ago (society wise) doctors were giving this stuff away to people like gangbusters in the form of Laudanum. Everyone thought that it was the greatest thing. And safe too! But through knowledge and time we discovered that this stuff wasn't so safe. In fact, it is quite dangerous. NOW, we know better right?

Evolution and other creation ideas are the same thing. Right now, we THINK evolution is great because it fits the mold we have to work with. But who's to say in 100 years we won't have discovered something new that puts the theory to shame? Personally, I don't think that will happen. What I do think will happen, however, is that we will make discoveries that will end up revising the theory as it is now to account for the things we don't yet know. All I am trying to say is, to the people who scream from the highest rooftop that "evolution is settled science!", Opium used to be a safe drug too. But eventually, we learned better.

Edit: Grammar mistake.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 03 avril 2010 - 02:16 .

[redhead1979]

Dawkins uses much more than evolution to justify his atheism, just fyi. However, evolution can be used as a justification for atheism, regardless of its stance on abiogenesis, since the observations and experimental data which confirm the fact of evolution are in direct conflict with most, if not all, religious creation myths and literal interpretations of religious texts.

You would be correct in asserting that Dawkins would be wrong if his ONLY justification for his atheism was evolution. It is not. If you pick up some of his books he explains, in great detail, the justification for his atheism.

EDIT:  Wicked, I agree with everything in your post above mine 100%.  In 100 years the scientists will look back on our caveman-like ways and laugh at our ignorance.  Evolution will no doubt be improved and expanded upon.  That is the nature of science.  However...

The issue that arises with IDers (I know you are not one) is that they assert that ID is on the same scientific "level" as evolution, which is patently false.  The theory of evolution is backed up by mountains of observational data from many different fields of study.  All this data points to the fact that things evolve over time.  The ID hypothesis has no such data, experiments or evidence to back it up.  Zero.  Nada.  Zip.  If you peruse the pro-ID/creation science sites you will find not one drop of evidence that makes ID preferable to evolution.  You will only find strawman mischaracterizations against evolution which goes to support the fals dichotamy which they have erected.

Modifié par redhead1979, 03 avril 2010 - 02:28 .

[Wicked 702]

redhead1979 wrote...

Dawkins uses much more than evolution to justify his atheism, just fyi. However, evolution can be used as a justification for atheism, regardless of its stance on abiogenesis, since the observations and experimental data which confirm the fact of evolution are in direct conflict with most, if not all, religious creation myths and literal interpretations of religious texts.

You would be correct in asserting that Dawkins would be wrong if his ONLY justification for his atheism was evolution. It is not. If you pick up some of his books he explains, in great detail, the justification for his atheism.

Damn, you try to go away but they suck you back in!

Just a quick note. A person does not need to subscribe to a creation myth in order to believe in God. God doesn't necessarily have to be a being that creates. God can simply be a creature on a higher plane of existence. Perhaps something like the Ancients in Stargate SG1 if you follow my reference. So it does bother me when people use "evolution" to disprove "God". Evolution may disprove organized faith based creation beliefs and their ilk, but it is certainly not the final nail in the coffin in ANYTHING spiritual related. Of course, I freely admit that this is my opinion on the subject.

Edit: Extra word.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 03 avril 2010 - 02:27 .

[CptPatch]

The thing that gets me about the Intelligent Design argument is that it usually comes with the disclaimer, "We are NOT trying to put God back into the classroom.  It's just that we note that the human organism is soooooo complicated that there's simply no way that it could have occurred 'naturally'.  Somewhere there must have been an Intelligence that shaped what we are.  Just saying.... "

BUT, that _still_ begs the question, "If there is a Maker, Watchmaker, Creator, Whatever that is responsible for essentially creating the human race (along with _everything_ else), then if not God, then who or what is the God that created **Him**?"  Which leads back to the concept of a God/Creator having been responsible for having started the chain of events.  Which is to say, the argument inevitably leads to discussions about God in the classroom once again.

Which in all probability was the ultimate goal of formulating the ID argument in the first place.

[redhead1979]

Wicked, I agree with you 100% on our continuous gain in knowledge. In 100 years the scientists will look back on our caveman-like ways and laugh at our ignorance. Evolution will no doubt be improved and expanded upon. That is the nature of science. However...

The issue that arises with IDers (I know you are not one) is that they assert that ID is on the same scientific "level" as evolution, which is patently false. The theory of evolution is backed up by mountains of observational data from many different fields of study. All this data points to the fact that things evolve over time. The ID hypothesis has no such data, experiments or evidence to back it up. Zero. Nada. Zip. If you peruse the pro-ID/creation science sites you will find not one drop of evidence that makes ID preferable to evolution. You will only find strawman mischaracterizations against evolution which they use to support the false dichotamy which they have erected.

It is impossible to disprove god, or any "supernatural" being for that matter. For instance, you cannot disprove that there is not a Sock Goblin who makes all my left-footed socks vanish into the Squartipoop Dimension.

Out of curiosity, what reinforces your belief that other planes of existance exist? (not being snarky, genuinly curious).

EDIT: spleling and bad grammar

Modifié par redhead1979, 03 avril 2010 - 02:42 .

[Grovermancer]

monkeycamoran wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...


Here is the codex entry -- the Maker's First Children.


It's found where that spirit Guardian in the Ashes temple asks you about your regrets.

So, is that a cultural view of creation or a universal one?

I assume since DA is largely based on 'Western' archetype (a'la Judeo/Christian/Islamic and thus, Tolkien themes) it's a purely cultural one.

In an Eastern view, there doesn't seem to be such stark examples of separation, "the fall," the need for punishment and retribution, and other motifs that always recur in Western myths and religions.

(ps.  BTW, too tired to go into it, but there's an inherent flaw w/ the DA creation myth; if the Fade spirits were w/o self-consciousness (thus the Maker's need to create humans/elves/qunari as the 'second children'), then how did they become aware, much less jealous, of the 'second' children?  -- there's no Lucifer/Morgoth figure to corrupt the spirits w/ self-conscious drives)

(oh, and glad someone else already commented on the fallibility of the "Maker" -- isn't noteworthy how "God" always seems to act more like man than G-d?  Hmmmm.  Wonder why?  Can you say "projection?") 



--------------------------

On the "other topic" which has emerged...
(I actually made a short film about this, but will not link it as I need to maintain my anonymity just in case I break in the biz!)


If you're not sure "which side is right," I'm curious how you gather information...?

- what feels good
- what people around you all say
- what your grandma told you when you were 5


Versus

- Logic
- Observable data
- Honest extrapolation based on observable data


And can you live with not having every detail given to you and not knowing everything this very instant?


:innocent:



Oh, yeah.  This was an amazingly entertaining (and award-winning) episode that no doubt had the aliens laughing even harder at us:
http://www.pbs.org/w...sign-trial.html

Modifié par Grovermancer, 03 avril 2010 - 02:49 .

[Wicked 702]

Being raised religious of course. I subscribe to no particular faith at this point. I suppose agnostic is probably the closest thing to what I am. I do agree that life ran its course in its own way and that evolution makes 100% sense. Existence feels to me like a grand science experiment. As such, I have a personal belief that there is something, or someone, that set the wheels in motion. Beyond that, I try not to pretend that I know what is going on. But I also agree that it is just as likely that everything happened randomly, albeit against all things mathematical, and that everything is just a coincidence. I'm not "afraid" that there isn't anything, I simply think it would be illogical for existence to end so simply given the truly miniscule amount of knowledge we really have about everything.

Edit: Keeping my mind open to the possiblities.....at least I think I'm trying.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 03 avril 2010 - 02:47 .

[AlanC9]

frayjog wrote...

Ahh, video game forums. Where the intellectuals go to debate.

Heh. I've seen what happens in RPG threads when the intellectuals take over. Believe me, this is much better.

Edit: meaning the kind of "intellectuals" who think mostly about RPGs, of course.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 avril 2010 - 03:10 .

[CptPatch]

Wicked 702 wrote...
 A person does not need to subscribe to a creation myth in order to believe in God.

Whether the Creator or just the one that kicked the first rock that led through the sequence that results in the formation of humanity, I think the foundation of religion is the speculation about just how involved is that entity with the day-to-day drivel of human life?  People generally want to feel _special_, much like children want their parents to pay attention to them.   Better a god that lobs thunderbolts at the undeserving, causes earthquakes just to make people "Listen up!" than a diety that simply is not there, ever.

Whether an accident of chemistry and climate conditions, or the product of a Humanity 2.0 program from some mighty being MUCH greater than ourselves, where we have come from is not as nearly important as what we have become.  Or will become.  Or not. 

It's all a serious case of, "What have you done for/to us lately?"

[Wicked 702]

CptPatch wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...
 A person does not need to subscribe to a creation myth in order to believe in God.

Whether the Creator or just the one that kicked the first rock that led through the sequence that results in the formation of humanity, I think the foundation of religion is the speculation about just how involved is that entity with the day-to-day drivel of human life?  People generally want to feel _special_, much like children want their parents to pay attention to them.   Better a god that lobs thunderbolts at the undeserving, causes earthquakes just to make people "Listen up!" than a diety that simply is not there, ever.

Whether an accident of chemistry and climate conditions, or the product of a Humanity 2.0 program from some mighty being MUCH greater than ourselves, where we have come from is not as nearly important as what we have become.  Or will become.  Or not. 

It's all a serious case of, "What have you done for/to us lately?"

Yeah, I agree 100%. I try to remind myself every day that free will is paramount. And if there is a higher plane of existence, it's not their damn job to get involved. I much prefer self-accountability.

[Mlai00]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Mlai00 wrote...
2. And then you posted your erroneous follow-up, right after I said "Evolution is not abiogenesis."

What part about me saying "that I agree with you in part", did YOU not understand....
You seem intelligent enough that I didn't need to spell that out. I'm sure we can both respect each other in this aspect.

Right, because "Bzzz!  Wrong answer Bob!" is so intelligent and respectful.
Please.

[redhead1979]

On topic: I have a feeling that the Maker and The Black/Golden City will be a big plot point/twist in future DA games. The BioWare writers have yet to fail me on any of their games when it comes to story, and I have a feeling that all may not be as it seems concerning the Maker and the fade.



At least, that's my hope. With all the story components concerning the Black City it would be a shame if we never got to visit it and learn what REALLY happened.

[TheComfyCat]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Damn, you try to go away but they suck you back in!

Just a quick note. A person does not need to subscribe to a creation myth in order to believe in God. God doesn't necessarily have to be a being that creates. God can simply be a creature on a higher plane of existence. Perhaps something like the Ancients in Stargate SG1 if you follow my reference. So it does bother me when people use "evolution" to disprove "God". Evolution may disprove organized faith based creation beliefs and their ilk, but it is certainly not the final nail in the coffin in ANYTHING spiritual related. Of course, I freely admit that this is my opinion on the subject.

Edit: Extra word.

Then what you're saying is you believe in (a) god(s) without any basis for that belief? Because without a "creation myth" to base your belief on, there's no reason to subscribe to any particular idea of god, aside from whatever ideal "god" you yourself come up with.

And if you're going with the "'god' might actually be some ancient life force" type idea, that just brings up the obvious questions: "then what created them?" and "why call it them gods?" also "why care about them/ worship them?"

Evolution (by means of natural selection) gives a scientific mechanism by which life could originate without god(s), so it pretty much destroys the once popular teleological argument for god's existence. To say that it doesn't harm the argument for your own personal, arbitrary "god like being's" existence... well, we're in flying spaghetti monster territory now.

[Gill Kaiser]

As far as Dragon Age lore goes, I personally believe that Andraste was a mage (whether she knew it or not), who came into contact with a powerful Fade spirit that she believed to be the creator of all (whether it told her that it was itself or whether it was her own interpretation, I don't know). At this point she either became a 'good' abomination like Wynne, a 'neutral'/symbiotic abomination like Flemeth, or she simply had her magical abilities enhanced by the spirit without possession. She may have interpreted her powers as divinely-given, but I strongly suspect they were magic and Fade-based.

[Wicked 702]

senorfuzzylips wrote...

Evolution (by means of natural selection) gives a scientific mechanism by which life could originate without god(s), so it pretty much destroys the once popular teleological argument for god's existence. To say that it doesn't harm the argument for your own personal, arbitrary "god like being's" existence... well, we're in flying spaghetti monster territory now.

No, it actually doesn't. And that's what we've been talking about here. Attempting to use evolution as an explanation for the creation of life is an absolute bastardization of the theory, even if you are 100% atheist, and it's completely wrong. Evolution does not explain life creation. Evolution, as it stands NOW, requires complex life to already exist in order to function. In the future, perhaps it will be modified to explain the missing pieces. But for now, this assumption is just as bad as saying "God did it all".

Edit: So far, this is the one point I've been able to agree with people on. I guess I'm not terribly agreeable. Oh well.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 03 avril 2010 - 03:07 .

[Nukenin]

Without reading any of this discussion (it looks to be all serious and such ), I have to say the topic title needs to be a Codex entry.  Perhaps a book found in the Circle Tower, stashed under some apprentice's mattress… 

…and now back to all yer serious-face.  

[Sigma Tauri]

Grovermancer wrote...

I assume since DA is largely based on 'Western' archetype (a'la Judeo/Christian/Islamic and thus, Tolkien themes) it's a purely cultural one.

In an Eastern view, there doesn't seem to be such stark examples of separation, "the fall," the need for punishment and retribution, and other motifs that always recur in Western myths and religions.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure if I was being clear. Basically, what I'm saying is the Chantry creation myth true, not true, or contains elements where are some are true? I've somewhat answered my own question by the plurality of religious opinion in Thedas mimicking our own religious pluraity and the views of spirits coming from the Fade. But, it's not enough of an answer because I'm wondering if there are a cosmological constants that is reflected in Thedas that underlies a greater truth, even when the Chasind, the Elves, or the Qunari differ.

...

I don't know if I'm making sense.

(ps.  BTW, too tired to go into it, but there's an inherent flaw w/ the DA creation myth; if the Fade spirits were w/o self-consciousness (thus the Maker's need to create humans/elves/qunari as the 'second children'), then how did they become aware, much less jealous, of the 'second' children?  -- there's no Lucifer/Morgoth figure to corrupt the spirits w/ self-conscious drives)

Self-consciousness? I'm not sure if the spirits of the Fade are automatons, but merely lack the capability to understand human imagination.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 03 avril 2010 - 03:14 .

[TheComfyCat]

Wicked 702 wrote...

senorfuzzylips wrote...

Evolution (by means of natural selection) gives a scientific mechanism by which life could originate without god(s), so it pretty much destroys the once popular teleological argument for god's existence. To say that it doesn't harm the argument for your own personal, arbitrary "god like being's" existence... well, we're in flying spaghetti monster territory now.

No, it actually doesn't. And that's what we've been talking about here. Attempting to use evolution as an explanation for the creation of life is an absolute bastardization of the theory, even if you are 100% atheist, and it's completely wrong. Evolution does not explain life creation. Evolution, as it stands NOW, requires complex life to already exist in order to function. In the future, perhaps it will be modified to explain the missing pieces. But for now, this assumption is just as bad as saying "God did it all".

Edit: So far, this is the one point I've been able to agree with people on. I guess I'm not terribly agreeable. Oh well.

"Evolution (by means of natural selection) gives a scientific mechanism by which life could originate without god(s)"

I bolded the relevant qualification in my original statement. And the teleological argument is not strictly about the origin of life (though it might have sounded that way in my earlier post), but rather the argument that it seems that everything appears too perfectly suited to its environment for life to have ended up this way by chance. And evolutionary theory does destroy that argument as a basis for the belief in god.

Edit: I only mentioned the teleological argument at all because it used to be considered by intellectuals to be one of the strongest arguments for god's existence. I'm not saying evolution is clearly, without doubt the answer to all of our questions regarding the origin of life on earth, I'm just saying it's a possible scientific explanation for it. As a scientifically minded individual, I'm always skeptical, but I only respect information that can be backed scientifically/ logically.

Modifié par senorfuzzylips, 03 avril 2010 - 03:23 .

[Gill Kaiser]

I agree, we defiantely don't know for certain how the earliest forms of life arose from inanimate matter, although there are some good theories. This is a seperate discussion, however. All I'm saying is that evolution is an extremely strong theory that is all but a given nowadays, there is just too much evidence supporting it. It will be modified over the next centuries, but I severely doubt it'll be disproven.

[Fate Elixir]

Heres a thought... If nothing, why something? If at a point there was nothing (its not even debatable that this all started at some point) then how did something as beautiful and incredible as the universe and all that dwells within it come to be? I remember in school the books said "in the beginning, there were a mixture of elements, and gases" (something along those lines). The point is where did that mixture come from if there was nothing before it? Even Dawkins can't provide an answer. Don't get me wrong, this isn't proof of existence, but it is something we must address. The point is to simply consider these unanswerable questions to realize that we don't have it all figured out and are nowhere close.

The Big Bang by the way is not even debated anymore. It is considered sound science. Especially considering that Scientists have concluded the universe is moving. This implies there was a beginning, which in turn implies there will be an end. Therefore something created that beginning. I refuse to believe with how intricately designed and incomprehensibly elaborate all life is,  that this was all a result of natural selection (the new words for chance) .

Also interesting are the parallels between the second law of thermodynamics that states that you never have order result from chaos. That all energy is finite. The beginning - nothing - chaos gave way to something - order, therefore violating the second law of thermodynamics. We can therefore conclude this is highly illogical and implausible.  I challenge someone to give one example of order stemming from chaos. It is always the other way around.

Wicked 702 is correct that ID is not properly understood because there is a lot of intolerance in the world from those who do not understand those with differing viewpoints. I actually don't believe ID should be taught in school, but I don't think evolution should either. One does have a lot of hidden religious activists involved, and one has a lot of hidden atheist activists involved.

Modifié par Fate Elixir, 03 avril 2010 - 03:33 .

[Wicked 702]

I'm afraid I'm not ready to give evolution such a wide berth as to acknowledge the reality that it somehow extends back to simple life form changing into complex ones. That extrapolation never was a part of Darwin's work and is not related to his theories of natural selection. This addition to his theory is something that has been added by modern man and I fail to see the correlation.

I suppose anything is possible. But that just doesn't make logical sense to me. By the way, I have a BS in Chemistry so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about....maybe not much but some.

[Sigma Tauri]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

As far as Dragon Age lore goes, I personally believe that Andraste was a mage (whether she knew it or not), who came into contact with a powerful Fade spirit that she believed to be the creator of all (whether it told her that it was itself or whether it was her own interpretation, I don't know). At this point she either became a 'good' abomination like Wynne, a 'neutral'/symbiotic abomination like Flemeth, or she simply had her magical abilities enhanced by the spirit without possession. She may have interpreted her powers as divinely-given, but I strongly suspect they were magic and Fade-based.

That could mean mortal life and the recent course of history exists merely to be manipulated play things for the spirits of the Fade. I don't mind the idea because it infuses the supernatural into the Mundane world, but it means we're far less closer to understanding why Dragon Age's mortal realm exists.

[Mlai00]

@ Wicked:

Agreed. Evolution does NOT explain abiogenesis. That is not a failure, because that was never its job. Evolution does NOT pretend to explain abiogenesis. It just get dragged up involuntarily, in philosophical debates. Philosophy is not science. Being a philosopher does not make you a scientist. IDers are philosophers.

For abiogenesis, go watch that excellent Youtube video link on the previous page.

As for your private opinions... you need to be more careful of muddling philosophy with science. You fall dangerously close to that slippery slope.



@ Gill Kaiser:

I don't feel atheism needs to apply to Thedas. Maybe the Maker is an ultra-powerful entity who created both the Fade and the physical world. At the very least, the supernatural is natural in Thedas, and an intimate part of ppl's lives. And the Black City is definitely something significant.

It's as if... the sun is definitely a chariot pulled by flaming horses, and lightning bolts are definitely the spears of a cloud-striding entity... but the ancient Greeks are debating amongst themselves whether that's Apollo and Zeus, or just some magic-wielding giants.

And no, there is no logic gap in the spirits having "human emotions" like jealousy. Because they don't. They're merely reflecting human emotions.

[Andorfiend]

senorfuzzylips wrote...

Then what you're saying is you believe in (a) god(s) without any basis for that belief? Because without a "creation myth" to base your belief on, there's no reason to subscribe to any particular idea of god, aside from whatever ideal "god" you yourself come up with.

And if you're going with the "'god' might actually be some ancient life force" type idea, that just brings up the obvious questions: "then what created them?" and "why call it them gods?" also "why care about them/ worship them?"

Evolution (by means of natural selection) gives a scientific mechanism by which life could originate without god(s), so it pretty much destroys the once popular teleological argument for god's existence. To say that it doesn't harm the argument for your own personal, arbitrary "god like being's" existence... well, we're in flying spaghetti monster territory now.

Most if not all of the old polytheistic religeons greek/babylonian/sumerian, etc do not have the current crop of gods as the creators of the world. Some elder race of beings did it before the new gods came around and beat them up. Sometimes they made the world out of the elder gods. So they were not the creators per se.

And you worshipped them for the same reason you bowwed to the king. They were more powerful than you were and if you didn't suck up you might get you head lopped off or your home town destroyed by a volcano. Good and evil don't enter into it.

By that same note I notice most people seem to project modern monotheistic expectations of God as the source of all goodness onto the Maker when it's quite plain he's nothing of the sort. As portrayed by the Chantry He is some extremely powerful and bored being who created the world to amuse himself. When he got bored with his toy he wandered off. Now Woody and Buzz are trying to spread the Chant to the corners of the world so Andy will come back and play with them some more. That's all that's happening here.