140 réponses à ce sujet

[Mihilz]

SheffSteel wrote...

Sorry if I didn't state my position more clearly. I feel that in a world where the supernatural and the existence of supernatural beings can so easily be demonstrated, belief in a deity is much more rational compared to an atheistic standpoint. That's not to say that one must believe the teaching of a specific group such as the Chantry.

Rational belief in a deity would have to stand up on it's own merits. It can't come in through the back door just because we accept that magic exists in the game world.

[TuringPoint]

I'm with Mihilz on this one.

Here's my insight about "supernatural," take it or leave it.

There is quite a bit of reality out there that is not truly encompassed by science. I believe it is, ironically, a logical fallacy to assume scientific, or natural, physical fact are the only reality that exist.

That doesn't mean I believe in goblins and magic missiles in real life - just that the "supernatural" exists in a form our western culture wants to ignore.

Modifié par Alocormin, 29 octobre 2009 - 07:41 .

[Taleroth]

Alocormin wrote...

I'm with Mihilz on this one.

Here's my insight about "supernatural," take it or leave it.

There is quite a bit of reality out there that is not truly encompassed by science. I believe it is, ironically, a logical fallacy to assume scientific, or natural, physical fact are the only reality that exist.

That doesn't mean I believe in goblins and magic missiles in real life - just that the "supernatural" exists in a form our western culture wants to ignore.

I want to make a point here.  Science is not inherently "physical."  Science is an attempt to describe how things behave.  For something to violate scientific fact, it'd have to behave so chaotically as to be incapable of description.

The things that are currently unable to be understood scientifically are not in violation of science, they are simply something we are incapable of measuring for some reason or another.

Modifié par Taleroth, 29 octobre 2009 - 07:51 .

[JTwizzy88]

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

JTwizzy88 wrote...
That's ridiculous, the word supernatural refers to an order of existence beyond the scientific universe.  Since magic exists in Thedas and MAGIC by its very definition is clearly supernatural then it would imply that other supernatural creations and entities (such as gods) quite likely exist. 

FYI the meaning of supernatural is not subjective unless the laws of science in any given universe are somehow changed to account for things such as demons and magic.  As far as we know, Thedas has the same scientific laws as our universe.

Magic exists in Thedas, but it's part of the natural world around them. Therefore, obviously not SUPERnatural. You're talking about the definition of magic and the supernatural from an inherently non-supernatural viewpoint. I think that anyone in Thedas would disagree with you.

Unless you subscribe to the belief that magic is inherently chaotic and therefore unable to subject to the scientific method, magic can be entirely scientific in nature. Speaking for a in-universe context, of course. Natural law in Thedas is obviously very different from here. Magic is an integrated part of the universe. You even go to the fade in dreams.

Taleroth wrote...
The existence of magic itself implies the scientific laws are different.   As our scientific laws do not allow for it.

For it to exist within a world, the laws must be different.  It's only supernatural within the context of a world where it can't possibly exist.  The fridge logic here is that supernatural is self-defining as impossible to exist.  Which also provides that where it does exist, it's not supernatural.

Excellently put.

You obviously don't know the definition of magic...

Magic: the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.

Just because magic exists in Thedas it does not mean that magic can be or is scientifically explained.  Magic by its very definition is SUPERnatural.

Modifié par JTwizzy88, 29 octobre 2009 - 07:53 .

[Taleroth]

JTwizzy88 wrote...
You obviously don't know the definition of magic...

Magic: the art of producing a desired
effect or result through the use of incantation or various other
techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural
agencies or the forces of nature.

Just because magic exists in Thedas it does not mean that magic can be or is scientifically explained.  Magic by its very definition is SUPERnatural.

Your definition of magic only applies to the world in which we live, a world in which magic does not exist practically by the nature of its own definition.  If any of the things we consider magic came into being, that simple act would cause them to cease being magic.

In a world where magic does exist, its definition would change.  The simplest adjustment to the definition to make it function, would be simply remove the "of supernatural agencies or."  It would still be "magic" as it shares the presentation of what we consider magic to be.  Fireballs, lightning bolts, mind control, etc.


The fact that it can be studied and taught direclty indicates that it can be scientifically understood.  Otherwise replication would be impossible, as science is first and foremost description.  If you can determine what incantation and motions produce the fireball, you've fit a fireball into the beginning of a scientific framework.

Modifié par Taleroth, 29 octobre 2009 - 07:59 .

[Mihilz]

JTwizzy88 wrote...

You obviously don't know the definition of magic...

Magic: the art of producing a desired
effect or result through the use of incantation or various other
techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural
agencies or the forces of nature.

Just because magic exists in Thedas it does not mean that magic can be or is scientifically explained.  Magic by its very definition is SUPERnatural.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Mass Effect has biotic powers which are almost indistinguishable from magic. If a medieval race had the same powers they would refer to them as magic even though there would be a scientific explanation that they were unaware of.

Modifié par Mihilz, 29 octobre 2009 - 07:59 .

[Varenus Luckmann]

Taleroth, if you keep posting, I may have to leave the forums in sheer shame over not being able to respond to things as fast. Again, I have nothing to add. Excellent points, both posts.

Mihilz wrote...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Mass Effect has biotic powers which are almost indistinguishable from magic. If a medieval race had the same powers they would refer to them as magic even though there would be a scientific explanation that they were unaware of.

And obviously, the scientifc method or some variant of it can be applied to magic, otherwise casting would naturally be impossible. There must be a repeatable number of steps to conjure a fireball, for example. If it was erratic & chaotic, magic wouldn't be able to be reproduced.

Modifié par Varenus Luckmann, 29 octobre 2009 - 08:03 .

[JTwizzy88]

Taleroth wrote...

Your definition of magic only applies to the world in which we live, a world in which magic does not exist practically by the nature of its own definition.  If any of the things we consider magic came into being, that simple act would cause them to cease being magic.

In a world where magic does exist, its definition would change.  The simplest adjustment to the definition to make it function, would be simply remove the "of supernatural agencies or."  It would still be "magic" as it shares the presentation of what we consider magic to be.  Fireballs, lightning bolts, mind control, etc.

Your logic is circular and makes no sense.

You're saying that the supernatural by virtue of being supernatural would cease being supernatural if it actually existed.  WHY?

[JTwizzy88]

Mihilz wrote...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Mass Effect has biotic powers which are almost indistinguishable from magic. If a medieval race had the same powers they would refer to them as magic even though there would be a scientific explanation that they were unaware of.

Different universe and biotic powers were scientifically explained as being from element zero or some such.  Are you trying to tell me that the mages of Thedas are actually latent psychics, the demons are actually some extra-solar species bent on the destruction of humans, that the Darkfiends are products of a genetic mutation gone horribly wrong and that the Fade is some sort of psychic mass generated by a the collective unconcious of milliions of sleeping citizens of Thedas?  Ridiculous.

[RooksBailey]

Wow, this is an interesting debate.  I don't play very many fantasy RPGs, so I guess I never thought about the idea of "magic" from such a scholarly perspective.

I do have a wrinkle, though, to the above proposition that magic (maybe sorcery is a better term?) would actually be "science" in an alternate realm.  Well, what about this:

What is the formula for a fireball was known, but only one out of one hundred people could follow the formula and get it to work?  In other words, an ordinary joe could combine element A with element B and get nothing.  But a "trained sorceror" (and by a trained sorceror, I mean not an person with some sort of extra scientific training, but someone schooled in the proper incantataions and whatnot) could combine the same ingredients and get the desired results....would sorcery then still be considered just a different part of science?  Or would the scientific methods inability to account for this discrepancy remove sorcery from the realm of the merely physical? 

Modifié par RooksBailey, 29 octobre 2009 - 08:19 .

[FlintlockJazz]

At least one of my characters is going to be deeply religious, and I like how religion works in this game.



That is all.

[Mihilz]

JTwizzy88 wrote...

Your logic is circular and makes no sense.

You're saying that the supernatural by virtue of being supernatural would cease being supernatural if it actually existed.  WHY?

Because calling something "supernatural" is just an excuse for being unable to support an extraordinary claim.

[SheffSteel]

I think that if you believe "supernatural = impossible, by definition" that speaks more about the world in which you live, and your view of it, than the game world... which ties in with the previous point I was trying to make.

Atheism makes more sense in a world without magic, spirits, or demons, than in one which does have them. Taking a scientific, atheist or materialistic attitude that's the product of (long story short) The Age Of Reason and applying it to a relatively backwards world may not give you a very good insight into how that world's inhabitants would view theistic belief.



None of this should be taken as challenging or criticising anyone's real world belief or faith.

[Lotion Soronarr]

HEh...you want evidence of God (or Allah..whatever yo uchoose to call him..doesn't really matter)?



Take a gander at the creation of the universe.

No one can explain it. Sure, the scientists are TRYING, but their theories hold no water...and frankly, they are getting more esoteric and stupid with each iteration. Some of the theories I read make GlitterHoof (the magical miniature-gaint robot pony god) look completely sane in comparison.

[RooksBailey]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

At least one of my characters is going to be deeply religious, and I like how religion works in this game.

That is all.

Mine, too.  A knight without faith is like a knight without armor.  Just my 2 cents....:innocent:

[Mihilz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

HEh...you want evidence of God (or Allah..whatever yo uchoose to call him..doesn't really matter)?

Take a gander at the creation of the universe.
No one can explain it. Sure, the scientists are TRYING, but their theories hold no water...and frankly, they are getting more esoteric and stupid with each iteration. Some of the theories I read make GlitterHoof (the magical miniature-gaint robot pony god) look completely sane in comparison.

Or in other words: "Scientists don't know everything, therefore I do know everything, therefore everything I want to be true is true. QED.":huh:

[FoolFodder]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Take a gander at the creation of the universe.
No one can explain it. Sure, the scientists are TRYING, but their theories hold no water...and frankly, they are getting more esoteric and stupid with each iteration. Some of the theories I read make GlitterHoof (the magical miniature-gaint robot pony god) look completely sane in comparison.

Bloomin' 'eck are you TRYING to get this thread locked? :innocent:

[Maria Caliban]

SheffSteel wrote...

I think that if you believe "supernatural = impossible, by definition" that speaks more about the world in which you live, and your view of it, than the game world... which ties in with the previous point I was trying to make.
Atheism makes more sense in a world without magic, spirits, or demons, than in one which does have them. Taking a scientific, atheist or materialistic attitude that's the product of (long story short) The Age Of Reason and applying it to a relatively backwards world may not give you a very good insight into how that world's inhabitants would view theistic belief.

None of this should be taken as challenging or criticising anyone's real world belief or faith.

Quite right. The idea that nature and science is everything that exists and that everything that exists is part of nature and science is a modern viewpoint.
If I'm a peasant living in 14th century Greece and I believe that there’s a vampire visiting my daughter at night because she’s fallen ill, I both believe that 1) this creature exists and 2) it’s unnatural. Nature has its own rules and order, and that which is outside of that is supernatural.

Even modern people use the words ‘natural’ and ‘nature’ this way. If I say that cars, trains, and skyscrapers are not natural, no one stares at me in confusion. If I say that there’s a ghost in my house and I’ve experienced supernatural phenomenon, only someone on the internet would inform me that if that ghost really exists then it’s not supernatural.

[JackDresden]

Well how you act and interact with people is what defines your character I doubt very much they would give you no option but to act a a devout follower of the chantry religion...



But I don't think it's maked on your character sheet, the choices you make and what dialog options you select will define how you character fits into the world to a large degree I would think.

[Taleroth]

JTwizzy88 wrote...

Your logic is circular and makes no sense.

You're saying that the supernatural by virtue of being supernatural would cease being supernatural if it actually existed.  WHY?

I'm saying that anything that exists or occurs is, by definition, natural.  An event that is supernatural, beyond natural, can only fit a definition other than natural by not existing or not occuring.

Because that is the definition of natural.



Supernatural does not mean "unexplained."  It does not mean "unexplainable."  It does not mean "beyond science."  Mass is still unexplained, mass is beyond current science to explain.  We can conjecture on it, such as the proposed Higgs-Boson.  However we've observed mass.  Do we consider mass supernatural?  No, we don't.

If you can reliably, more often than by mere chance, reproduce the conditions for producing a magical fireball, it is officially a natural phenomen.  If your definition of "magical fireball" requires you to either consider it supernatural, then you either have to change your definition at this point or stop considering the fireball magical.

Modifié par Taleroth, 29 octobre 2009 - 09:15 .

[Mihilz]

And you could also say that magic isn't given any special treatment in the game and isn't portrayed as being "better" than good-old-fashioned combat. Bioware isn't implying that dwarves are somehow less important than humans or elves just because they don't do magic. They have other skills that make up for a deficiency in magic. You could equally say that mages have skills that make up for a deficiency in strength or armed combat. I don't think magic is considered to be any more special in the game than being good with a longsword.

Very well explained Taleroth, BTW

Modifié par Mihilz, 29 octobre 2009 - 09:18 .

[LaztRezort]

I just want to interject a few of my thoughts in here.

First, I think trying to sort out the supernatural vs. natrual in the game is bound to fail.  A rational case could be made for both -- unless the writers took particular care to resolve the issue somehow in the lore.

Second, I do think atheism would be very, very rare in a place like Ferelden, if real world history is to be used as a reference.  I'd expand on this, but I'll defer in the interest of keeping the thread from getting locked.

What I am curious about, is whether the Chantry has been fooled all this time.  I haven't delved into the lore of this game, but from the little I know it seems to still be an open question.  Perhaps the Maker turns out to be intentionally made up.  Or the religion could have started as a cult, then was taken over by the church as a ploy for power.  More interesting, perhaps there is a Maker, but he (it) is a charleton, not an omnipotent god.  I'd imagine a powerful demon (or spirit, or whatever) could easily trick humanity into worshipping him as a god, and given a long enough lifespan, could slowly lead people in whatever direction he chose.

If this turns out to be the case, it will make playing a Templar much more fun for me.

[Houkka]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Even modern people use the words ‘natural’ and ‘nature’ this way. If I say that cars, trains, and skyscrapers are not natural, no one stares at me in confusion.  

Now you're just explaining the difference between colloquial and scientific use of the term. In science, natural does not mean trees, lakes, snails, animals and all that. It means that it exists in the observable world and is describable by scientific methods. If you ask me, cars, trains and skyscrapers are very much natural. Not one single part of them is unnatural, why should the final product be anything else but natural?

The term 'magic', on the other hand, does indeed imply that it is "otherworldly" or "supernatural". Magic, as I see it, means doing things that are beyond natural and physical laws. This seems to be as supernatural as it gets. However, providing that in Dragon Age magic does indeed exist, the natural and physical laws by definition have to be different from ours. If natural and physical laws allow the existence of magic, then magic works within natural laws and can not logically be called supernatural. Wait, magic works within natural laws? Didn't I just say magic means things that are beyond them?

Yes, I did. This is a game, and I usually don't bother with this level of philosophical debate about things nobody even believes exist in real life, in this case, the world of Dragon Age. What if the people of Dragon Age call certain acts magic because they can't explain them even with god? After all, there are magic users with various beliefs, so the idea that they would come from a single god isn't exactly satisfying. I think we've already established that because magic exists in the world in question, it can hardly be called supernatural. Maybe it's called magic for the simple reason that nobody has a better name for it?

Now to somehow connect this post to the topic, I don't see why atheism shouldn't exist in Dragon Age. From the existence of a phenomenon like magic does not follow that there has to be a supernatural cause (god) for it. 

[Darkemorrow]

Maria Caliban wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

I think that if you believe "supernatural = impossible, by definition" that speaks more about the world in which you live, and your view of it, than the game world... which ties in with the previous point I was trying to make.
Atheism makes more sense in a world without magic, spirits, or demons, than in one which does have them. Taking a scientific, atheist or materialistic attitude that's the product of (long story short) The Age Of Reason and applying it to a relatively backwards world may not give you a very good insight into how that world's inhabitants would view theistic belief.

None of this should be taken as challenging or criticising anyone's real world belief or faith.

Quite right. The idea that nature and science is everything that exists and that everything that exists is part of nature and science is a modern viewpoint.
If I'm a peasant living in 14th century Greece and I believe that there’s a vampire visiting my daughter at night because she’s fallen ill, I both believe that 1) this creature exists and 2) it’s unnatural. Nature has its own rules and order, and that which is outside of that is supernatural.

Even modern people use the words ‘natural’ and ‘nature’ this way. If I say that cars, trains, and skyscrapers are not natural, no one stares at me in confusion. If I say that there’s a ghost in my house and I’ve experienced supernatural phenomenon, only someone on the internet would inform me that if that ghost really exists then it’s not supernatural.

It is true that there are multiple meanings of the word "natural" that we need to consider. As you pointed out we can basically define it in two ways:

1) The modern, scientific definition of "nature" as everything inclusive of everything that exists.

2) The more common use definition of "nature" as things that are non-artificial or man-made.

However, I think your own examples actually illustrate the fact that the word "supernatural" refers to the first definition of "nature" and not the second. After all, we do not refer to cars, trains and skyscrapers as "supernatural." I think its fair to say that anyone who calls their Chevy Tahoe a supernatural entity is either crazy or very confused about the meaning of the word.

Yes, if someone says "there is a ghost in my house, and I've experienced a supernatural phenomenon" we would understand what they meant. But that doesn't change the fact they are essentially spouting a logical contradiction. Then again, I would say that a person who claims to see ghosts in their house is being irrational in more ways than one .

[Maria Caliban]

Houkka wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Even modern people use the words ‘natural’ and ‘nature’ this way. If I say that cars, trains, and skyscrapers are not natural, no one stares at me in confusion.  

Now you're just explaining the difference between colloquial and scientific use of the term.

And the scientific viewpoint is a modern one, which was my point. There’s no compelling reason to expect a fantasy world based in medieval Europe would follow the a modern, scientific viewpoint.