289 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Lukertin wrote...

For the record the only times in history people have done incredibly horrible things over religious conviction started directly with (either because of or as a direct result of) monotheism. 

Tell it to the Aztecs.

[Steingrimur Steingrimsson]

Nice, a topic in my line of study, Disappointingly, yet not surprisingly, religion plays a very small role in Mass Effect. The closest you come to it is with the hanar, and they are basically there for comic relief and to seem alien to the player. Sure, if you read the codex, you can learn all sorts of things about religion for the different races, but you never really see it practiced.

The reason for human religion, especially human-centric religion like the Abrahamic religions, not falling completely apart after the discovery of sentient life outside our solar system is because humans aren't as logical as we think ourselves to be, Quite far from it. We are to a great extent driven by emotion. If something we strongly believe in turns out to be false, we experience something called cognitive dissonance. The world does not live up to our idea of how it should be and thus we are left in a very unpleasant state. Thos does not only fit on religion. Let's say you're a student and you believe yourself to be a genius. Yet, you keep getting bad grades at your exams. There seems to be a gap between what you think you are and the reality of the matter. Now the mind does not easily accept that it's a failure. Thus comes a rationalization process. It is indeed the university that does not recognize your genius, it is because you are bad at exams, but in reality your a genius. Likewise with religion, you try to rationalize it, if you are preseted with facts that contradict it. Christian exegesis is actually just an invention made to minimize the cognitive dissonance that comes with believing in a religion that is ancient and does not fit with contemporary society. In the ME case, you could argue that all living beings are the children of God and that the Bible should not be taken to litterally. Or you could argue that the Bible is right, and that aliens are demons or that the aliens are a test set by God, in order to find his truly chosen people. Either way you solved the problem and can move on.

My own Shepards are mostly agnostic, like myself. They cannot deny the existence of a higher being, but they can doubt that any religion is actually right. They will repect religious practices, but will not practice or believe in any religion, since it is impossible to know whether any of them are the right one. Other than those, I have the Renegade atheist. But this does not really matter much in the game, since there is so little religion in it.

[VioletSparks]

he believes in the maker! so do some of the npcs (if i remember that scientist woman on eden prime)... lol, i guess he's like me. for all intents and purposes agnostic, but believes there is something more (and if you've seen the perseus veil, standing on the bridge of a ship that has taken you uncountable distances from earth, to float happily whilst munching on a packet of pickled onion monster munch... how could you not believe there's something more?) ,teehee

[MidnightRaith]

The Bible never mentions life beyond Earth, really. Many Christians say that the earth wasn't created in literal seven days (namely because there wasn't really a way to measure days when the sun didn't exist) so what's to say that in the time that it took God to create the sun in the Sol system, he wasn't off creating other races that weren't in his image? My thinking on if aliens ever showed up on my planet is that just because my teachings on religion never mention them, doesn't mean they don't exist or are impossible to exist. It's hard for something that is never addressed in a religion to shatter a religion.

[Wardog15]

Definitely Agnostic Theist, my Shepard believes there is a god that created the universe and it's basic principles, he also has some interest in ancient Christian ideas. Though he does not go as far as to say that there is a huge chance. About the same as mine, but I consider myself Agnostic Christian.

Modifié par Wardog15, 22 avril 2011 - 12:21 .

[Olwydd]

My Shep is atheistic, and considers herself a secular humanist (or whatever the contemporary pan-species equivalent is).

[VioletSparks]

MidnightRaith wrote...

(namely because there wasn't really a way to measure days when the sun didn't exist)

lol, and that's definitely the only hole in the theory really..

Modifié par VioletSparks, 22 avril 2011 - 01:43 .

[Black Raptor]

If we ever did find aliens, seeing what sort of religion they have would be very insightful. If it conforms to one of the ones we have here on Earth, then that would be compelling evidence for that particular belief.
However, if they had a completely different religion then that would throw a major wrench into all the major monotheistic religions we have. Sentient life with no chance of reaching heaven simply because the creator decided not to bother with them? Or is the alien religion the right one?

Either way, my Shephard is an atheist, not that religion plays much of a part in ME

[MidnightRaith]

VioletSparks wrote...

MidnightRaith wrote...

(namely because there wasn't really a way to measure days when the sun didn't exist)

lol, and that's definitely the only whole in the theory really..

What do you mean by that?

[Black Raptor]

MidnightRaith wrote...

VioletSparks wrote...

MidnightRaith wrote...

(namely because there wasn't really a way to measure days when the sun didn't exist)

lol, and that's definitely the only whole in the theory really..

What do you mean by that?

He means that religious creation myths are so laughably wrong, that picking out a single point and trying to explain it away is like the Turian counciller explaining away the Reapers.

Literally nothing in Genesis even remotely coheres to what is actually true. Even with the days not being days thingy, the order is still completely wrong and it doesn't get much better after that. 

Modifié par Black Raptor, 22 avril 2011 - 01:12 .

[Warlocomotf]

Black Raptor wrote...

He means that religious creation myths are so laughably wrong, that picking out a single point and trying to explain it away is like the Turian counciller explaining away the Reapers.

Literally nothing in Genesis even remotely coheres to what is actually true. Even with the days not being days thingy, the order is still completely wrong and it doesn't get much better after that.

What is actually true? I hope you realize that what science does is:
Observe "4"
Hypothesize that 2+2 could have led to 4, so it's likely what happened.

Not a whole lot of "what we (or, scientists) know" of acient history is supported by more than "x would lead to y".

You're right, Genesis doesn't make sense in terms of science- because if it did make sense in terms of science there would be no miracle and no God would be required. The idea that it should, or could, make sense in a scientific manner- is outright silly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tell you what's true or what happened. Frankly that's for everyone themselves to decide- but to say that a 'miracle' doesn't make scientific sense is... Silly.

[Torhagen]

Warlocomotf wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

He means that religious creation myths are so laughably wrong, that picking out a single point and trying to explain it away is like the Turian counciller explaining away the Reapers.

Literally nothing in Genesis even remotely coheres to what is actually true. Even with the days not being days thingy, the order is still completely wrong and it doesn't get much better after that.

What is actually true? I hope you realize that what science does is:
Observe "4"
Hypothesize that 2+2 could have led to 4, so it's likely what happened.

Not a whole lot of "what we (or, scientists) know" of acient history is supported by more than "x would lead to y".

You're right, Genesis doesn't make sense in terms of science- because if it did make sense in terms of science there would be no miracle and no God would be required. The idea that it should, or could, make sense in a scientific manner- is outright silly

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tell you what's true or what happened. Frankly that's for everyone themselves to decide- but to say that a 'miracle' doesn't make scientific sense is... Silly.

Science does way more than observe like the LHC.
Any sufficiently advanced Technology is indistinguishable from magic

[R3c0nn4155nc3]

You go back with a gun and shoot a knight, they'll think you are a sorcerer. You go back with an energy sword from the Halo series, they'll run on sight. And if you have a cloacking device they'll bow down to you.

[Vyse_Fina]

Get your religious discussion out of my Mass Effect forum.

Seriously guys:
Nobody is going to persuade anyone when it comes to religion.
If there is one topic where nobody will ever back down, this is it. ESPECIALLY ON THE INTERNET!

There is a reason why there have been, murders, betrayals, wars and whatnot in the name of religion. Starting something like this in the forum can only lead to the endless back and forth we're having right now and from my experience it can only get more hostile over time.

Just let it be, okay?

[mereck7980]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Get your religious discussion out of my Mass Effect forum.

Seriously guys:
Nobody is going to persuade anyone when it comes to religion.
If there is one topic where nobody will ever back down, this is it. ESPECIALLY ON THE INTERNET!

There is a reason why there have been, murders, betrayals, wars and whatnot in the name of religion. Starting something like this in the forum can only lead to the endless back and forth we're having right now and from my experience it can only get more hostile over time.

Just let it be, okay?

There is a reason these forums have rules about discussing religion outside the scope of the ME franchise.  Religion is the single most devisive subject on Earth and the ME forums aren't the best place to debate the science vs religion, monotheism vs polytheism, deist vs theist, Christianity vs Islam, etc. 

I think that it is great that this thread hasn't gotten truly nasty yet, but lets not play with fire.  

[Black Raptor]

Warlocomotf wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...

He means that religious creation myths are so laughably wrong, that picking out a single point and trying to explain it away is like the Turian counciller explaining away the Reapers.

Literally nothing in Genesis even remotely coheres to what is actually true. Even with the days not being days thingy, the order is still completely wrong and it doesn't get much better after that.

What is actually true? I hope you realize that what science does is:
Observe "4"
Hypothesize that 2+2 could have led to 4, so it's likely what happened.

Not a whole lot of "what we (or, scientists) know" of acient history is supported by more than "x would lead to y".

You're right, Genesis doesn't make sense in terms of science- because if it did make sense in terms of science there would be no miracle and no God would be required. The idea that it should, or could, make sense in a scientific manner- is outright silly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tell you what's true or what happened. Frankly that's for everyone themselves to decide- but to say that a 'miracle' doesn't make scientific sense is... Silly.

Your ignorance of science is astounding. All theories have surpassed the stage "x would lead to y".They are called theories because they have found evidence to support them and are therefore no longer hypotheses. 

What would have been a miricle is if Genesis had got it all right long before science found the real answer. Had the evidence collaborated with what a religion had said, then that would be miraculous. 

[Whereto]

I think people are missing a key difference between science and religion. Science is based on observation and hypotheses, religion is based on faith. As steingrimur said, people do not take well to a belief being proven wrong, and yes this occurs in both religion and science, though in science when a theory is proven wrong or less accurate, you are told to get over it and move one unless you can prove otherwise, in which case you theory wouldn't be paved over so easily. So what makes religion so different? Well mainly it isn't based on theories, it's based on "facts" believed to be true. Now in the mass effect world, science has moved so far forward that religion would struggle with accepting many of it's closely held beliefs wrong. For u see both religion and science are a way of explaining the world, religion is the easier and far more understandable version which uses God(s) to explian much of the unexplainable, science is much harder as one man can not know all and it is very common for a explanation of a single factor of our world( which is explained by a god In religion) to change a lot before it is finally accepted as the best current understanding

So what does this have to do with the mass effect world? It's as simple as the fact, science has explained so much by then, religion hasn't got much to explain, which will cause people to suddenly not feel a need for a god. Of course I take all religion on it's merits myself and not it's beliefs, if anything from religion should stay are some of the morals( that are not effected by a religious belief rather a humanitarian belief)

[Warlocomotf]

Torhagen wrote...

Science does way more than observe like the LHC.
Any sufficiently advanced Technology is indistinguishable from magic

I'm not arguing that it's magic, I'm pointing out that we're looking at the evidence and creating theory that matches our evidence. We then (if possible) test if that theory would indeed lead to what we're seeing. A good theory will hold up even when new evidence surfaces, others will often end up either discarded or adjusted over time.

Example:

But, when Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, he realized that gravity is always attractive. Every object in the universe attracts every other object. If the universe truly were finite, the attractive forces of all the objects in the universe should have caused the entire universe to collapse on itself. This clearly had not happened, and so astronomers were presented with a paradox.

 When Einstein developed his theory of gravity in the General Theory of Relativity, he thought he ran into the same problem that Newton did: his equations said that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing, yet he assumed that the universe was static. His original solution contained a constant term, called the cosmological constant, which cancelled the effects of gravity on very large scales, and led to a static universe. After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder."

Both incredibly intelligent people that I admire immensely (And you could learn something from Einstein on the topic of spirituality), but we seek a theory that matches the evidence. The evidence does not mean the theory is correct, it means the theory could be correct, or alternatively it means the theory is likely correct.

That is not to say we can't say a lot of things with high certainty, we can. We can see light from billions of lightyears away, which means the lighyt was probably emitted billions of years ago. We can see the levels of Carbon decay in dinosaur skeletons and say they're probably roughly 65 million years old. Even if we end up needing to make further adjustments to what we know about the speed at which light travels and carbon decay dating, truth is that we're not going to find either one of these to fit a biblical timeline.

What would have been a miricle is if Genesis had got it all right long before science found the real answer. Had the evidence collaborated with what a religion had said, then that would be miraculous.

That would've been impossible, it is in direct conflict with a God entity that wants to be believed as opposed to proven. If the God from the bible created the universe, he would have avoided being so easily 'proven'.

[Black Raptor]

Warlocomotf wrote...

Torhagen wrote...

Science does way more than observe like the LHC.
Any sufficiently advanced Technology is indistinguishable from magic

I'm not arguing that it's magic, I'm pointing out that we're looking at the evidence and creating theory that matches our evidence. We then (if possible) test if that theory would indeed lead to what we're seeing. A good theory will hold up even when new evidence surfaces, others will often end up either discarded or adjusted over time.

Example:

But, when Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, he realized that gravity is always attractive. Every object in the universe attracts every other object. If the universe truly were finite, the attractive forces of all the objects in the universe should have caused the entire universe to collapse on itself. This clearly had not happened, and so astronomers were presented with a paradox.

 When Einstein developed his theory of gravity in the General Theory of Relativity, he thought he ran into the same problem that Newton did: his equations said that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing, yet he assumed that the universe was static. His original solution contained a constant term, called the cosmological constant, which cancelled the effects of gravity on very large scales, and led to a static universe. After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder."

Both incredibly intelligent people that I admire immensely (And you could learn something from Einstein on the topic of spirituality), but we seek a theory that matches the evidence. The evidence does not mean the theory is correct, it means the theory could be correct, or alternatively it means the theory is likely correct.

That is not to say we can't say a lot of things with high certainty, we can. We can see light from billions of lightyears away, which means the lighyt was probably emitted billions of years ago. We can see the levels of Carbon decay in dinosaur skeletons and say they're probably roughly 65 million years old. Even if we end up needing to make further adjustments to what we know about the speed at which light travels and carbon decay dating, truth is that we're not going to find either one of these to fit a biblical timeline.

What would have been a miricle is if Genesis had got it all right long before science found the real answer. Had the evidence collaborated with what a religion had said, then that would be miraculous.

That would've been impossible, it is in direct conflict with a God entity that wants to be believed as opposed to proven. If the God from the bible created the universe, he would have avoided being so easily 'proven'.

There is a difference between being proven right and being completely and utterly wrong. Genesis didn't have to have all the scientific formulae written out in full, but it could have done with getting at least something right. 

Besides, you are missing the point. The strength of science lies with its ability to predict future events. Newton looked at the evidence then formulated his theory of gravity that can predict the orbits of planets far into the future. Unfortunately, his theory fell short when trying to predict Mercury's orbit, but Einstiens theory was able to do so. 
They didn't make stuff up to fit the evidence. Their theories work because they can predict. 

It isn't just "X would lead to Y", its "if X leads to Y, then Y leads to Z". If Z is later found to lead on from Y then that theory works. Even though at the time Z had yet to be discovered, the theory based on the evidence XY was able to predict it. 
We are able to use the theory of gravity to predict eclipses far into the future. This isn't simply making stuff fit the evidence. The evidence fits the theory.  

I'd also like to point out that you don't use carbon dating for dinosaur fossils. Carbon dating only works on things that have died in the last 60000 years and ate on the surface (not underwater). Dinosaurs died 65million years ago and their bones no longer contain any carbon. 

Modifié par Black Raptor, 22 avril 2011 - 03:23 .

[Warlocomotf]

Black Raptor wrote...

There is a difference between being proven right and being completely and utterly wrong. Genesis didn't have to have all the scientific formulae written out in full, but it could have done with getting at least something right. 

Besides, you are missing the point. The strength of science lies with its ability to predict future events. Newton looked at the evidence then formulated his theory of gravity that can predict the orbits of planets far into the future. Unfortunately, his theory fell short when trying to predict Mercury's orbit, but Einstiens theory was able to do so. 
They didn't make stuff up to fit the evidence. Their theories work because they can predict. 

It isn't just "X would lead to Y", its "if X leads to Y, then Y leads to Z". If Z is later found to lead on from Y then that theory works. Even though at the time Z had yet to be discovered, the theory based on the evidence XY was able to predict it. 
We are able to use the theory of gravity to predict eclipses far into the future. This isn't simply making stuff fit the evidence. The evidence fits the theory.  

I'd also like to point out that you don't use carbon dating for dinosaur fossils. Carbon dating only works on things that have died in the last 60000 years and ate on the surface (not underwater). Dinosaurs died 65million years ago and their bones no longer contain any carbon.

How can you say they don't make their theories based on existing evidence? That is exactly what they do. And yes, when they're right then the theory will also allow thm to predict future events.

However, proving that a theory correctly explains what we see today does not prove that the theory is what happened in the past, it only proves it's a likely/possible candidate.

As for genesis, genesis more or less exclusively describes what are to be perceived as miracles- miracles should not make scientific sence. As for carbon dating- you're right.

[jamesp81]

Pwener2313 wrote...

High time someone took the balls and made the dreaded religion thread. There are too many things to discuss with this topic so Let's start with Earth and Humans in general.


Humans:

Religion for humanity seems to have not changed at all in 200 years. From Christianity to Buddhism, humans are as culturally diversed as ever. The only hint to Shepard's religion is made when talking with Ashley in ME1, where the only options are to deny God's existance (Atheism), say you believe in God (Catholic, Christian, ect.) or to play coy and tell Ash to not discuss the topic openly (???).

Wathever Shepard's religion is seems to be left for the player to fill indirectly. So quick question; What religion is your Shepard and what have you done to support that?

I myself had hoped that this issue would have been explored deeper in ME2, yet no such luck was found. I'd also like to point out that when it comes to games like ME where alien species are introduced with they're own religions, the existence of God and any other human religion goes out the window. Why? Because if God created all, why do aliens have they're own religions? Why didn't he intervene with those species? So in ME, it seems to be safe to assume that God doesn't exist. When this problem presented, no one dares to explore it for wathever reason.

Maybe ME3 will go deeper into the religious aspects of characters..... or not. If this topic takes off, maybe we can discuss alien religions, like the Turian multireligious culture or the Asari Goddess religion.

My Shepard is a Christian.  He does believe God created all and he also believes that He intervened with those species.  They might call Him something else, but He was there.

I doubt ME3 will explore religious themes much.  BW wants to sell games, and a good way to ****** off your userbase is to talk about religion.

[jamesp81]

FearedZero wrote...

I thought the Reapers were the gods. My Shepard believes in the Reapers.

The Reapers are not gods.  When this happened:



any idea that they were gods was refuted.  If they can simply die, they are not worthy of the title.

[jamesp81]

2kgnsiika wrote...

I, as a Catholic Christian, see the Mass Effect universe as contradictory to certain Christian dogmas.

Anyone who has read C.S. Lewis' space trilogy, for example, will know what I'm talking about. Since no other race seems to have a similar notion of God as Christian humans do, Christianity cannot be objectively true in the Mass Effect universe. If the doctrine of the Fall, for example, were true in the ME universe, you'd expect to find at least some unfallen races, and among those who have fallen you'd expect to have.

The existence of true AIs also contradicts the Christian notion of rationality, which is a quality only endowed by God to certain creatures, as opposed to something that can be artificially reproduced.

So I myself think of Mass Effect as a kind of atheistic materialist fantasy, but a very enjoyable fantasy, nonetheless.
And don't think I'm trying to debate Christianity vs. any other world view (like atheism) here. I'm just saying that in the ME universe, Christianity cannot be objectively true.

Here are my counterpoints:

BW didn't go into enough detail about alien religion to know for sure if they have a similar notion of God or not.  All we know about Asari religion, for example, is that there are two major ones: one a monotheistic faith, the other a kind of nature worship.

Actually, if the doctrine of the fall were true (and I think it is) I would NOT expect to find nonfallen races.  The aliens have a lot of the same impulses and problems that humans do.  It's not realistic to me to think that they wouldn't, at some point, eat from that tree (or whatever).

A true AI doesn't refute the existence of God, IMO.  If mankind constructed such a thing, God might just decide "hmm, let there be life."  Is this so different from how children are born?  A fertilized embryo doesn't come into existence through any miraculous event, it's completely a mundane process easily described by science.  What's miraculous is that, when it happens, God looks upon it and says let there be life.

The writers probably did go for a materialistic viewpoint in ME, but they want to sell games, so they left it open enough to be RP'd more to the player's taste.

[jamesp81]

didymos1120 wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

For the record the only times in history people have done incredibly horrible things over religious conviction started directly with (either because of or as a direct result of) monotheism. 

Tell it to the Aztecs.

Or Baal worshippers, for that matter.

[jamesp81]

MidnightRaith wrote...

The Bible never mentions life beyond Earth, really. Many Christians say that the earth wasn't created in literal seven days (namely because there wasn't really a way to measure days when the sun didn't exist) so what's to say that in the time that it took God to create the sun in the Sol system, he wasn't off creating other races that weren't in his image? My thinking on if aliens ever showed up on my planet is that just because my teachings on religion never mention them, doesn't mean they don't exist or are impossible to exist. It's hard for something that is never addressed in a religion to shatter a religion.

Truth spoken here.

Although, if there are sentient aliens, my instinct would be to say they ARE created in God's image.  I think "God's image" has more to do with knowing right from wrong, good from evil, and be a thinking being with true free will.  It's not so much about physical appearance, IMO.