300 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

Xilizhra 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.

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

Alternative interperetations and outright disbelief in the Maker have been part of Dragon Age world since the very first chapter of Origins.

Zobo wrote...

Any real life examples of scepticism leading to fanaticism?

The Reformation.

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.

The ancient Greek brand of "atheism" (where persons revere their religious myths/doctrines/theology/whatever without necessarily believing them) has been very much a part both DAO and DAII through both the player character and various companions, with zero indication that DAIII would be any different.  So arguing for its inclusion would seem to be pointless.

Modifié par General User, 20 novembre 2012 - 07:15 .

[Xilizhra]

Alternative interperetations and outright disbelief in the Maker have been part of Dragon Age world since the very first chapter of Origins.

All right. So, if someone didn't believe in the Maker and lacked a cultural background for belief in any of the other systems of Thedas, that would make them...?

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Alternative interperetations and outright disbelief in the Maker have been part of Dragon Age world since the very first chapter of Origins.

All right. So, if someone didn't believe in the Maker and lacked a cultural background for belief in any of the other systems of Thedas, that would make them...?

No cultural background?  Raised by wolves perhaps?  Well, that would make them a very special individual indeed.  They would (most likely) construct their own belief system.  There is zero resason it should be atheism though.

Modifié par General User, 20 novembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[General User]

Filament wrote...

Now in my pathetic attempt to stay on the topic of DA, I would add that I may have reached a little far to say there is "no evidence" in the sense that nothing could possibly be interpreted as evidence for the Maker in Thedas. However it is all subjective, too much IMO to constitute anything "groundbreaking" in favor of his existence.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Not that that's gonna stop me from trying… 

Anyway, since there is evidence, but no proof, of the Maker in Thedas, does it not follow that the best course of action would be to allow the player to express doubt in and/or disagreement with most any particular dogma, doctrine, or interpretation we happen to encounter, much as we often could throughout the previous two games?

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Alternative interperetations and outright disbelief in the Maker have been part of Dragon Age world since the very first chapter of Origins.

All right. So, if someone didn't believe in the Maker and lacked a cultural background for belief in any of the other systems of Thedas, that would make them...?

No cultural background?  Raised by wolves perhaps?  Well, that would make them a very special individual indeed.  They would (most likely) construct their own belief system.  There is zero resason it should be atheism though.

I.e. someone who was raised in a basically Andrastian society but didn't believe in the Maker.

[LobselVith8]

xsdob wrote...

I think in the dragonage universe, where darkspawn, archedemons, actual demons, spirits, ghost, the spirit world, and all this other spiritual occurrences are not one shot events with no proof but actual physically observable occurrences that everyone knows about and can prove exist, that being atheist and proclaiming that nothing supernatural or spiritual exist in the world is a very illogical choice.


Atheist: I don't belive in the maker or in demons.
Normal person: But theres a demon attacking your villiage right now.
*Rage demon burns down house*
Atheist: Nope, doesn't exist. That's just more of your peoples mumbo jumbo religious bs.

There was already a discussion in Dragon Age about this, where a character dismissed the idea that spirits and magic necessitate the existance of a god or higher power:

Leliana: I'm wondering Morrigan... do you believe in the Maker?
Morrigan: Certainly not. I've no primitive fear of the moon such that I must place my faith in tales so that I may sleep at night.

Leliana: But this can't all be an accident. Spirits, magic, all these wondrous things around us both dark and light. You know these things exist.

Morrigan: The fact of their existence does not presuppose an intelligent design by some absentee father-figure.

Leliana: So it is all random, then? A happy coincidence that we are all here?

Morrigan: Attempting to impose order over chaos is futile. Nature is, by its very nature, chaotic.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Filament wrote...

Blight Nug wrote...

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. 

It wasn't meant to be a jab. I think all this discussion of relative amounts of evidence goes more toward an atheists' framing which does a disservice to religious belief, because faith isn't about if there's evidence for it. That's the point of having faith. And that's fine.
[Interesting stuff snipped}
However when people like to throw out the assertion that all beliefs are equally valid according to the evidence because evidence is subjective, to try to discredit atheists with their own framing, I have to disagree with that.

OK, I got to respond to the bolded part. "Faith" is not "belief in the absence of evidence;" the issue is what kind of "evidence" provides "convincing proof." I previously mentioned that outside of a very narrow field (mathematics for example), almost everything we "believe" to be true is based on the presuppositions we already have. Thus different people evaluate the same "evidence" but can some to completely different conclusions.

The fact that the evidence that one person finds compelling, may completely fail to convince another says nothing at all about the "truthfullness" of any assertion. Furthermore, remember that "credibility" is a sociological phenomenon, not a logical one. We find things "credible" because they fit within a pre-existing worldview and the worldview of those around us. Sociological studies have demonstrated that when people go from a religious worldview to a more secular one, seldom was it because of a rational analysis of the two perspectives. Instead, people increasing found themselves in social situations where the religious worldview was no longer widely accepted so they quiety dropped it.

Granted, there are "credulous" people who believe anything/everything without subjecting it to any critical analysis. I once wrote a satrical piece poking fun of some religious friends of mine, "proving" that Santa Claus was in fact the Anti-Christ. (For example, "Santa" is an anagram of "Satan" - how much more "evidence" do you need?). I was shocked when some of them actually accepted the analysis!

That supernaturalists find "evidence" to be compelling that materialists reject, does not mean that supernaturalists rely on faith while the materialist relies on "fact." But rather their different presuppositions determine what is a fact, what is credible evidence, and that determination depends on their fundamental presuppositions (and the people with whom they associate).

Hence it is very unlikely that atheism as we know it would exist in Thedas. Different people might well reject the chantry's explanation of the "evidence" (the Qunari, Dalish and Dwarfs all do). But that illustrates the point; the evidence is there - but there are different interpretations based on different presuppositions. Furthermore, the "fact" that demons/spirits exist as recognizably individual personalitys, would mitigate against them ever regarding the physical universe as being impersonal and therefore, "materialistic."

[LobselVith8]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Is Morrigan really an atheist? Yeah she denied the afterlife but she believes in the old gods, unless she doesn't believe them to be literal gods as the Tevinter Imperium worshiped them.

Also inb4lockdown.

In Xil's thread, Gaider said that Morrigan is not an atheist as we use the term.

He didn't elaborate, but he did say that.

Gaider said that atheism was about wanting to destroy all religion. I don't think he understands what atheism means.

[Zobo]

General User wrote...

Zobo wrote...

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.

The ancient Greek brand of "atheism" (where persons revere their religious myths/doctrines/theology/whatever without necessarily believing them) has been very much a part both DAO and DAII through both the player character and various companions, with zero indication that DAIII would be any different. So arguing for its inclusion would seem to be pointless.

No, I'm talking about ancient Greek brand of atheism where the existence of Gods was simply discarded with no revere at all. It was a part of DAO, yet DA2 failed in this regard a couple of times sadly, which actually led for those topics to be created. That plus an assumption that DA3 Inquisition is a Chantry's tool.

[Lennard Testarossa]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
Furthermore, the "fact" that demons/spirits exist as recognizably individual personalitys, would mitigate against them ever regarding the physical universe as being impersonal and therefore, "materialistic."

There's no reason why it should.

[General User]

Zobo wrote...

General User wrote...

Zobo wrote...

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.

The ancient Greek brand of "atheism" (where persons revere their religious myths/doctrines/theology/whatever without necessarily believing them) has been very much a part both DAO and DAII through both the player character and various companions, with zero indication that DAIII would be any different. So arguing for its inclusion would seem to be pointless.

No, I'm talking about ancient Greek brand of atheism where the existence of Gods was simply discarded with no revere at all.

You must be refering to a different ancient Greeks than the one's I'm familiar with then.  I was refering to the chaps who regarded the ancient myths as allegorical tales to illustrate and illuminate the human condition and/or celebrate Hellenic culture without being literal truths.

It was a part of DAO, yet DA2 failed in this regard a couple of times sadly, which actually led for those topics to be created.

Hawke, lacking reason but not passion, has the opportunity to question and even denouce the Chantry's doctrine and dogma, particularly with regards to magic, on numerous occasions.  DAII didn't provide the player with the opportunity to go off on too many foaming-at-the-mouth-rabid anti-Chantry tirades, but aloofness?  Incredulity?  Irreverence?  Hell, there was an entire dialogue branch dedicated to that, including in regards to the Chantry. 

That plus an assumption that DA3 Inquisition is a Chantry's tool.

The idea the game being called "Inquisition" in any way indicates that the player will be a "Chantry's tool" is just plain absurd.

Modifié par General User, 20 novembre 2012 - 11:21 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Alternative interperetations and outright disbelief in the Maker have been part of Dragon Age world since the very first chapter of Origins.

All right. So, if someone didn't believe in the Maker and lacked a cultural background for belief in any of the other systems of Thedas, that would make them...?

No cultural background?  Raised by wolves perhaps?  Well, that would make them a very special individual indeed.  They would (most likely) construct their own belief system.  There is zero resason it should be atheism though.

I.e. someone who was raised in a basically Andrastian society but didn't believe in the Maker.

If they voiced that opinion with a shrug, a joke, or a bit of hedging (which would make them like most of our companions), they would be either non-believers or open-minded.  If they angrily and/or loudly proclaimed that the Maker didn't exist then they would be either an idiot or a lunatic.  If they disagreed with the perceived Chantry's orthodox interpretation of the nature and will of the Maker then they would apparently be none too rare a person at all.  We've seen all of those types such people in the games and had more than a few opportunities to fill those shoes ourselves.

Modifié par General User, 20 novembre 2012 - 11:28 .

[Ianamus]

If I remember the general consensus from the old thread was that atheism wouldn't really make any sense in the context of Dragon Age but skepticism about the maker might be an option (sort of like Avelines uncertainty I guess).

I can sort of see where people were coming from to be honest. Considering the Tevinter imperium worshiped the old gods at a point (and they very much exist) you could argue that even Morrigan is technically not an atheist. She seems to be more along the lines of knowing that creatures such as the old gods do exist and are incredibly powerful but refusing to worship them, which is something else entirely.

Modifié par EJ107, 20 novembre 2012 - 11:34 .

[Xilizhra]

If they voiced that opinion with a shrug, a joke, or a bit of hedging (which would make them like most of our companions), they would be either non-believers or open-minded. If they angrily and/or loudly proclaimed that the Maker didn't exist then they would be either an idiot or a lunatic. If they disagreed with the perceived Chantry's orthodox interpretation of the nature and will of the Maker then they would apparently be none too rare a person at all. We've seen all of those types such people in the games and had more than a few opportunities to fill those shoes ourselves.

So you don't see any variance between "a bit of hedging" and being angry/loud? What about something quiet but firm?

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

If they voiced that opinion with a shrug, a joke, or a bit of hedging (which would make them like most of our companions), they would be either non-believers or open-minded. If they angrily and/or loudly proclaimed that the Maker didn't exist then they would be either an idiot or a lunatic. If they disagreed with the perceived Chantry's orthodox interpretation of the nature and will of the Maker then they would apparently be none too rare a person at all. We've seen all of those types such people in the games and had more than a few opportunities to fill those shoes ourselves.

So you don't see any variance between "a bit of hedging" and being angry/loud?  What about something quiet but firm?

Then they'd be one degree or another of a fool or an idealogue depending on how quietly they go about being firm and how firmly they go about being quiet.

[General User]

Filament wrote...

They have different presuppositions in the sense that anecdotal, unfalsifiable, unreproducible evidence qualifies as credible.

What about history?  It relies heavily on antecdotal evidence to reach conclusions which are very often unfalsifiable about persons and events which are, by nature, unreproducible.  And yet it is (or can be, rather) credible. One could make similar claims about most all the humanities really.

Modifié par General User, 21 novembre 2012 - 12:33 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

General User wrote...

Filament wrote...

They have different presuppositions in the sense that anecdotal, unfalsifiable, unreproducible evidence qualifies as credible.

What about history?  It relies heavily on antecdotal evidence to reach conclusions which are very often unfalsifiable about persons and events which are, by nature, unreproducible.  And yet it is (or can be, rather) credible. One could make similar claims about most all the humanities really.

Exactly!

I like this human; he gets it...

[Yuoaman]

General User wrote...

Filament wrote...

They have different presuppositions in the sense that anecdotal, unfalsifiable, unreproducible evidence qualifies as credible.

What about history?  It relies heavily on antecdotal evidence to reach conclusions which are very often unfalsifiable about persons and events which are, by nature, unreproducible.  And yet it is (or can be, rather) credible. One could make similar claims about most all the humanities really.

The thing about history, though, is that everything is falsifiable. Our understanding of Ancient Egypt for example has changed a ridiculous amount in a few short decades just because we've discovered proper records that fill in the blanks better than our previous suppositions did, and disprove other sources as being propaganda or the like. Even science isn't immune to this, most of what Darwin wrote about evolution isn't accepted as fact any more, due to the extensive research done in recent years. Our understanding of basically every topic will change over the years, not just the humanities. 

[Abraham_uk]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

No.

How about an athiest that only brings out their disbelief in any diety in passing. You know one that acts like a normal human being (like most athiests). The athiest protagonist would be no different to a thiest protagonist aside for one or two optional conversations about god. When the topic of god comes up, you can choose to avoid the topic (as a normal human being would).

If you want to impose your beliefs (thiest or athiest) you can. An normal human beings will react by trying to change the subject, because dare I say it, people don't talk about theiesm or religion.


About working for the Templars. An athiest can work for the templars. Anyone can be concerned about the power of mages and would want to work to control/destroy them.

About working in the Chantry. I hate to burst anyones bubble, given that there are plenty of Christian priests who don't believe in God (you'd be suprised how many there are), it is not such a big strech to find athiest members of the Chantry.




On a side not.
It really baffles me why an athiest would want to become a priest.

The pay isn't that great.
Preaching can get a little boring if you don't believe what you're preaching.
Priests are not very well respected anymore and are often laughed at an ridiculed (even by their own parish).

The only reason for an athiest to become a priest (that I can think of) is being a leader of a community.
Religions have come pretty impressive communities that can be both enticing and very rewarding for those who actually belong to them (simply going to a place of worship once a week doesn't make you part of the "community")

So perhaps an athiest would join the Chantry for the fellowship, activities and socialising.

[iSignIn]

EJ107 wrote...

Considering the Tevinter imperium worshiped the old gods at a point (and they very much exist) you could argue that even Morrigan is technically not an atheist. She seems to be more along the lines of knowing that creatures such as the old gods do exist and are incredibly powerful but refusing to worship them, which is something else entirely.

I know that black holes exist and are incredibly powerful but refuse to worship them.

Does that make me theist?

Modifié par iSignIn, 21 novembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[iSignIn]

Filament wrote...

None of this discussion really applies to the majority of supernatural phenomena in Thedas because, for instance magic and demons are all observable phenomena that could hypothetically be tested in a scientific way to understand the traits they possess and where they originate from. There's no need to bring the evidences of 'faith' to bear because these things all demonstrably exist. The Maker, however, is a supernatural element of Thedas more like the supernatural we're accustomed to in our own world.

Exactly. Magic and demons can be studied using the scientific method, which is a point made abundantly clear by people like the Tevinters and Morrigan. There're nothing more than a few extra laws of physics and a few exotic species in the world of Thedas. No "faith" is required to account for it.

Modifié par iSignIn, 21 novembre 2012 - 01:26 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Yuoaman wrote...

General User wrote...

Filament wrote...

They have different presuppositions in the sense that anecdotal, unfalsifiable, unreproducible evidence qualifies as credible.

What about history?  It relies heavily on antecdotal evidence to reach conclusions which are very often unfalsifiable about persons and events which are, by nature, unreproducible.  And yet it is (or can be, rather) credible. One could make similar claims about most all the humanities really.

The thing about history, though, is that everything is falsifiable. Our understanding of Ancient Egypt for example has changed a ridiculous amount in a few short decades just because we've discovered proper records that fill in the blanks better than our previous suppositions did, and disprove other sources as being propaganda or the like. Even science isn't immune to this, most of what Darwin wrote about evolution isn't accepted as fact any more, due to the extensive research done in recent years. Our understanding of basically every topic will change over the years, not just the humanities. 

Which means of course, that right now, little of what we "believe" to be true, is actually "true" since further research, study or investigation may overturn it. We do not really know, what we think we know...

If anyone asserts almost anything (outside of mathematics and the like) it is a statement of faith.