300 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainBlackGold]

It is late and I should go to bed but a couple of recent comments deserve some feedback.

There is a difference between "proof," "evidence," and "belief." If the "Maker" in the DA universe suddenly manifested Himself as a glowing ball of fire and said, "I Am He" it would be evidence of a supernatural entity, but not necessarily "proof" that the Maker actually exists.

Maybe the glowing ball is just some sort of exotic manifestation of magic? Maybe it is an unknown spirit/demon? The Qunari (excuse me, I mean "Floating Cheese Wheels") would reject these claims because it goes against their preconceived ideas. The Dalish would do the same, as well as the Dwarfs. Evidence does not necessarily constitute "proof" because the presuppositions of the witness, determines how the "evidence" is being interpreted.

"Proof" technically speaking is a process in mathematics and strict logic - that the conclusion is a necessary results of the premises - i.e., if A=B, and B=C, then C=A. However, outside of those limited fields, data seldom comes to us in such clear, unambiguous terms that we can say with logical, mathematical certainty, that something is "true."

I just finished reading a review in a British newspaper of a new book written by the supposed mistress of Lee Harvey Oswald claiming that he was a deep cover intelligence agent, who was framed for the assassination of President Kennedy. Do her claims and the evidence she provides "prove" anything? No, at best it may give evidence - but how the evidence is interpreted will depend on any number of presuppositions the individual holds, but few if any can be independently verified as "true."

Yet, every time a religion topic creeps up, the same tired old canards keep reappearing, as if a belief in strict materialism is somehow more rational than a belief in the supernatural. These good folk fail to appreciate that their own deeply held beliefs about the nature of ultimate reality are just as arbitrary, as the most extreme fundamentalist of any religion.

The people of Thedas have almost daily evidence of something outside of a strict materialism (magic, healing, mages, etc.). Whether their beliefs about the nature of that supernatural world is accurate is yet to be seen. "Proof" whether in Thedas, or the "real world" is simply not on the table. They may all witness the same phenomenon, but may and do reach completely different conclusions because they begin with different presuppositions.

Whatever are they teaching in schools these days...

(Internet cookie for anyone who gets the literary reference)

[Gotholhorakh]

Ha, great question

1. Thedas is in fact the product of intelligent design, and in Thedas supernatural stuff exists and can be seen throughout the world every day. Basically, flying in the face of that would be irrational and delusional, so perhaps a few of the lunatics in the DA verse are atheist.

2. How plush and/or boring must the lives of people be, who want this kind of moral complexity in their escapist fantasy? Real life is complex, full of tortuous moral mazes, and actors in life who do others harm but cannot be challenged and called enemies. In the simplified world of escapist fantasy, morality is often black and white bar the occasional bit of flavour added by a good writer, if someone is a friend to you, they are a usually a faithful companion and friend in earnest, a traitor has their behaviour telegraphed or at least resolved into something morally unambiguous, and if someone is harming you, they are an evil turbo-ultra-bastard with horns that breathes fire, and you can legitimately hack their head off with a sword, loot their still warm corpse and enjoy a round of applause. The world is morally simple enough to easily accommodate a human being's fantasy, while being superficially complex enough to engage and delight.

I've got to admit - I'm shocked at how many people *say* they want to wrestle with complex sexual relationships and big moral questions about religion, although I do wonder how many of those people actually give a rat's ass about that stuff in game.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 20 novembre 2012 - 10:13 .

[Dave of Canada]

Game athiests? I agree, I doubt the game truly exists.

[Zobo]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Thedas is in fact the product of intelligent design...

That's meta-metagaming information, therefore it's irrelevant. By this logic every single fictional story ever made is a product of intelligent design of some author, therefore we must treat all fiction as such with an in-lore intelligent design concept, including science fiction written by atheists. That's just crazy. Stories usually does not recognize their authors in-lore, there are only a few exceptions to this.

Gotholhorakh wrote...

...and in Thedas supernatural stuff exists and can be seen throughout the world every day. Basically, flying in the face of that would be irrational and delusional, so perhaps a few of the lunatics in the DA verse are atheist.

1). Existence of supernatural does not automatically constitute existence of a god or intelligent design.
2). The term "supernatural" itself is vague. Some things considered to be supernatural in the past IRL are now considered to be natural phenomenons, some things still considered supernatural here may be absolutely natural in Thedas.

Gotholhorakh wrote...

How plush and/or boring must the lives of people be, who want this kind of moral complexity in their escapist fantasy?

Yeah, sure, who needs complexity in fiction. Fiction should be stupid and simple. Thanks for opening my eyes.

Modifié par Zobo, 20 novembre 2012 - 10:46 .

[esper]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Ha, great question

1. Thedas is in fact the product of intelligent design, and in Thedas supernatural stuff exists and can be seen throughout the world every day. Basically, flying in the face of that would be irrational and delusional, so perhaps a few of the lunatics in the DA verse are atheist.

2. How plush and/or boring must the lives of people be, who want this kind of moral complexity in their escapist fantasy? Real life is complex, full of tortuous moral mazes, and actors in life who do others harm but cannot be challenged and called enemies. In the simplified world of escapist fantasy, morality is often black and white bar the occasional bit of flavour added by a good writer, if someone is a friend to you, they are a usually a faithful companion and friend in earnest, a traitor has their behaviour telegraphed or at least resolved into something morally unambiguous, and if someone is harming you, they are an evil turbo-ultra-bastard with horns that breathes fire, and you can legitimately hack their head off with a sword, loot their still warm corpse and enjoy a round of applause. The world is morally simple enough to easily accommodate a human being's fantasy, while being superficially complex enough to engage and delight.

I've got to admit - I'm shocked at how many people *say* they want to wrestle with complex sexual relationships and big moral questions about religion, although I do wonder how many of those people actually give a rat's ass about that stuff in game.

Why do you automatically assumet that fantasy os only escapism for us?

As for me, I like moral complexity, black and white is boring. It just so happens to be that moral complexity, social problems and the like are something I enjoy thinking about and fantasy is a good universe to explore those aspect in without it hurting any real life person or physological instability/problems.

And yes, I do wrestle with those subjects in games when they give me the opportunety. In fact these are the games I enjoy most.

Modifié par esper, 20 novembre 2012 - 10:34 .

[Blight Nug]

Filament wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

*snip*

You seem to be conflating single pieces of evidence with whole bodies of evidence if you think that because the interpretation of an individual piece of evidence can be subjective, therefore believing in theories with tons of evidence in their favor is just as 'arbitrary' as believing an assertion made with no credible evidence in its favor. I can't say I agree with that.

If that wasn't a dig at established theories but rather at some odd notion that nothing outside the scope of our current understanding could possibly exist, then I suppose I could see what you were saying.

Of course, there's tons of evidence in DA for things we would generally call "supernatural" in real life, but it doesn't follow that therefore there's also evidence for the Maker. All of these claims need to be considered separately. As far as I can tell the DA verse was deliberately written so that evidence with regard to an omnipotent creator deity is pretty much on the exact same level as it is in our own world-- which is to say, there is none but for the faith of society that he exists.

I agree with your "...written so that evidence with regard to an omnipotent creator deity is pretty much on the exact same level as it is in our own world"
But I disagree when you say "...which is to say, there is none but for the faith of society that he exists"

The writers have tried to make it so that our assumptions dictate our interpretations of the obervation/evidecne; take the magical healing ashes and its guadian for example. All different worldviews try to make sense of the same observations and conclude all is consistent and well. This is also a perfect setting for RPGs, which allows us to roleplay both religious and non-religious characters, without having to label one of them as irrational with nothing but blind faith.

I also resent your jab at religions IRL. I will say no more than expressing my disaproval, as this is not the place for such disucssions. 

[Flamingdropbear]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I support the options to be Atheist, Theist and Agnostic.

I'm the OP and I support this statement

[General User]

Filament wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

*snip*

You seem to be conflating single pieces of evidence with whole bodies of evidence if you think that because the interpretation of an individual piece of evidence can be subjective, therefore believing in theories with tons of evidence in their favor is just as 'arbitrary' as believing an assertion made with no credible evidence in its favor. I can't say I agree with that.

If that wasn't a dig at established theories but rather at some odd notion that nothing outside the scope of our current understanding could possibly exist, then I suppose I could see what you were saying.

"And yet it moves." - Galileo Galilei (ap.)

Don't be so quick to look down on "single pieces of evidence", because they (let alone competing theories) can indeed overturn whole bodies of evidence and "established theories." 

But more to the point, ideally all things would be judged on their own merits, but people have historically shown a marked tendency to deny, reject, and suppress that which does not fit either the established orthodoxy or various the popular and personal prejudices of the time.  Why should the various peoples of Thedas be any different?

Of course, there's tons of evidence in DA for things we would generally call "supernatural" in real life, but it doesn't follow that therefore there's also evidence for the Maker. All of these claims need to be considered separately. As far as I can tell the DA verse was deliberately written so that evidence with regard to an omnipotent creator deity is pretty much on the exact same level as it is in our own world-- which is to say, there is none but for the faith of society that he exists.

Which is exactly why questioning and disagreeing with the various doctrines, dogmas and interpretations surrounding the Maker would be appropriate while, at the same time, an outright rejection of the Divine (let alone the supernatural itself) would not.  Or, put another way, skepticism and interpretation have places in Thedas (ones that Origins embraced heartily, as did DAII) but atheism almost entirely does not.

[esper]

General User wrote...

Filament wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

*snip*

You seem to be conflating single pieces of evidence with whole bodies of evidence if you think that because the interpretation of an individual piece of evidence can be subjective, therefore believing in theories with tons of evidence in their favor is just as 'arbitrary' as believing an assertion made with no credible evidence in its favor. I can't say I agree with that.

If that wasn't a dig at established theories but rather at some odd notion that nothing outside the scope of our current understanding could possibly exist, then I suppose I could see what you were saying.

"And yet it moves." - Galileo Galilei (ap.)

Don't be so quick to look down on "single pieces of evidence", because they (let alone competing theories) can indeed overturn whole bodies of evidence and "established theories." 

But more to the point, ideally all things would be judged on their own merits, but people have historically shown a marked tendency to deny, reject, and suppress that which does not fit either the established orthodoxy or various the popular and personal prejudices of the time.  Why should the various peoples of Thedas be any different?

Of course, there's tons of evidence in DA for things we would generally call "supernatural" in real life, but it doesn't follow that therefore there's also evidence for the Maker. All of these claims need to be considered separately. As far as I can tell the DA verse was deliberately written so that evidence with regard to an omnipotent creator deity is pretty much on the exact same level as it is in our own world-- which is to say, there is none but for the faith of society that he exists.

Which is exactly why questioning and disagreeing with the various doctrines, dogmas and interpretations surrounding the Maker would be appropriate while, at the same time, an outright rejection of the Divine (let alone the supernatural itself) would not.  Or, put another way, skepticism and interpretation have places in Thedas (ones that Origins embraced heartily, as did DAII) but atheism almost entirely does not.

Someone would logically take that skepticism to the logical extreme and claim that 'then no deity exist'. If a human begin doubting the Chantry's doctrine, then there might not be many steps to doubt if anything about it is right and in conclusion come to the facts that the Maker simply doesn't exist. If a human raised in the Andrastian society first comes to that point there are not much alternitve to the Maker.

The Chantry is good enough at alienating segments (the poor, the city elves, the mages, perhaps even some templars and seeker's now) that some would go all the way.

That said I think the options presented to us in da:o and daII is good enough.

[Rafficus III]

Can we in game proselytize Atheists in the DA universe to follow the Maker?

[Xilizhra]

Which is exactly why questioning and disagreeing with the various doctrines, dogmas and interpretations surrounding the Maker would be appropriate while, at the same time, an outright rejection of the Divine (let alone the supernatural itself) would not. Or, put another way, skepticism and interpretation have places in Thedas (ones that Origins embraced heartily, as did DAII) but atheism almost entirely does not.

One can be atheist and believe in the supernatural, although I suspect most who do so in our world would say that there is nothing supernatural, only things that science doesn't understand yet. I personally would say the same about DA, except their science is probably closer to understanding their physics than ours. However, there is no evidence for the Divine in DA any more than there is in our world.

Yet, every time a religion topic creeps up, the same tired old canards
keep reappearing, as if a belief in strict materialism is somehow more
rational than a belief in the supernatural. These good folk fail to
appreciate that their own deeply held beliefs about the nature of
ultimate reality are just as arbitrary, as the most extreme
fundamentalist of any religion.

You completely misunderstand atheism. While some probably are strict materialists, others like myself just don't possess an active belief in any god. It's you who has to provide the burden of proof, not us.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 novembre 2012 - 02:30 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Which is exactly why questioning and disagreeing with the various doctrines, dogmas and interpretations surrounding the Maker would be appropriate while, at the same time, an outright rejection of the Divine (let alone the supernatural itself) would not. Or, put another way, skepticism and interpretation have places in Thedas (ones that Origins embraced heartily, as did DAII) but atheism almost entirely does not.

One can be atheist and believe in the supernatural, although I suspect most who do so in our world would say that there is nothing supernatural, only things that science doesn't understand yet. I personally would say the same about DA, except their science is probably closer to understanding their physics than ours.

Thedan "science", such as it is, has more in common with a brand of mysticism than anything else.  Save for, seemingly, the qunari.  But they too only fit the label of "atheist" by a loose and selective definition.

However, there is no evidence for the Divine in DA any more than there is in our world.

Sure there is.  Quite a lot in fact.  On both accounts.  It's just that the evidence is subject to, once again, both skepticism and interpretation.

[Xilizhra]

Sure there is. Quite a lot in fact. On both accounts. It's just that the evidence is subject to, once again, both skepticism and interpretation.

I.e. atheism from many.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Sure there is. Quite a lot in fact. On both accounts. It's just that the evidence is subject to, once again, both skepticism and interpretation.

I.e. atheism from many.

I don't follow.  Skepticism and interpretation do not originate with, and most certainly are not exclusive to, atheism.  Depending on the person, they may not even be a component of it.  Nor does it follow that atheism is, or should ever be, the end result of a skeptical interpretation.

[Tootles FTW]

If we're forced to be religious in the game it would really put me off. I don't like the idea of worshipping ANYTHING, it squicks me out.

I'm not a huge DA lore person, though, so I only know in a vague sense that the Inquisition reports to the Chantry - I don't know how entwined in the actual religious aspect they are...it's quite possible that they're just an off-shoot branch unaffiliated with the beliefs of the parent agency.

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Sure there is. Quite a lot in fact. On both accounts. It's just that the evidence is subject to, once again, both skepticism and interpretation.

I.e. atheism from many.

I don't follow.  Skepticism and interpretation do not originate with, and most certainly are not exclusive to, atheism.  Depending on the person, they may not even be a component of it.  Nor does it follow that atheism is, or should ever be, the end result of a skeptical interpretation.

What I mean is that skepticism and interpretation frequently lead to atheism.

[Travie]

I tend to agree with Xilizhra on this one.

Whenever I think of playing a character who is a natural skeptic (for example a worldly rogue who sees the seedy underbelly of life and how things fit together, or a war veteran who knows politics; has seen war and peace; etc.) it lends heavily to an atheistic perspective.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Travie wrote...

I tend to agree with Xilizhra on this one.

Whenever I think of playing a character who is a natural skeptic (for example a worldly rogue who sees the seedy underbelly of life and how things fit together, or a war veteran who knows politics; has seen war and peace; etc.) it lends heavily to an atheistic perspective.

I am not sure if "atheist" is quite the right word here for the angst a DA character might feel in these situations. I may be wrong (and am certain that if so, someone will correct me!) but the DA Maker is almost completely removed from his creation. He does not answer prayers or the like.

So to "believe" in such a Maker, and "worship" him is in fact a greater act of "faith" then any "real world" Theist has to express - after all, real world Theists believe that "God" does hear and answer prayers- even if the answer is not always what they wanted.

Hence, if I understand the "theology" correctly, the DA characters might acknowledge that the Maker exists, but since he is not active in his creation, it becomes a "so-what" kind of situation. When the characters look at the misery, corruption and death around them, they have no doctrine of "providence" to give them any hope, comfort or encouragment during dark times - bad things just happen and they are stuck with it.

But that kind of world-weariness is not really the same thing as "atheism" is it?

[Lennard Testarossa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
People want proof of the existence of a supreeme God, but if they ever had such proof, they wouldn't regard him as God anymore.

No.

What Plaintiff said is wrong. If a supernatural thing is proven to exist, it does not cease to be supernatural. A supreme god is above any natural law. Proving him does not change that.

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
The people of Thedas have almost daily evidence of something outside of a strict materialism (magic, healing, mages, etc.).

Gotholhorakh wrote...
in Thedas supernatural stuff exists and can be seen throughout the world every day.

No. Neither magic, nor healing, nor ghosts, nor demons, nor the Fade are intrinsically supernatural. They can not be explained by real world physics, sure, but they might be explained by Thedas physics.

[Yuoaman]

I sure hope so, whether or not there's an option to declare it outright in all Bioware games I play an atheist - both Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age Origins did have dialogue responses that let you reveal this. Hopefully this game does as well.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Sure there is. Quite a lot in fact. On both accounts. It's just that the evidence is subject to, once again, both skepticism and interpretation.

I.e. atheism from many.

I don't follow.  Skepticism and interpretation do not originate with, and most certainly are not exclusive to, atheism.  Depending on the person, they may not even be a component of it.  Nor does it follow that atheism is, or should ever be, the end result of a skeptical interpretation.

What I mean is that skepticism and interpretation frequently lead to atheism.

They just as often lead to devout, even fanatical, religious belief.  That's because there is nothing inherent in having either a skeptical outlook towards any idea or group of ideas or an openness to varying interperetations that would, by needs, lead a person or a society to(wards) atheism.  Nor is skepticism an essential component of atheism itself in any special way.

Atheism in the modern world is the product, outgrowth and result of the interactions between a large number of political, religious, philosophical, technological, and economic events, movements, and theories that simply have not taken place in Thedas. 

[Xilizhra]

They just as often lead to devout, even fanatical, religious belief. That's because there is nothing inherent in having either a skeptical outlook towards any idea or group of ideas or an openness to varying interperetations that would, by needs, lead a person or a society to(wards) atheism. Nor is skepticism an essential component of atheism itself in any special way.

Not inherently leading towards it, but more frequently allowing it to exist than hewing to only one possible interpretation.

Atheism in the modern world is the product, outgrowth and result of the interactions between a large number of political, religious, philosophical, technological, and economic events, movements, and theories that simply have not taken place in Thedas.

We're probably working under different definitions of atheism again, so let me just say this: disbelief in the Maker. Would you allow this?

[Zobo]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What I mean is that skepticism and interpretation frequently lead to atheism.

They just as often lead to devout, even fanatical, religious belief.

Any real life examples of scepticism leading to fanaticism?

General User wrote...

Atheism in the modern world is the product, outgrowth and result of the interactions between a large number of political, religious, philosophical, technological, and economic events, movements, and theories that simply have not taken place in Thedas.

And atheism in Ancient Greece for sure was not based on our modern world recent realities.
Atheism is a lack of faith. No need to complicate the definition and no need to try to tie it up to the modern age exclusively.

Modifié par Zobo, 20 novembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[Zobo]

Double post, please delete this.

Modifié par Zobo, 20 novembre 2012 - 06:30 .