300 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

I'm an athiest, but I am happy to play an agnostic, or a religious character, provided their belief is based mostly in reason.

The world of DA may well have more evidence for religious belief than we do here on our plane of existance.

[CaptainBlackGold]

iSignIn wrote...

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.

Again, I would disagree with your definition of "faith" here, especially as to its implied application to religious thought (whether in Thedas, or the "real world").

Faith is not "believing things you know ain't true" at least in a theological sense. Faith is a response to certain explanations of phenomenon. It is the acceptance of certain axioms by which all other data is interpreted. The origins of the universe is a non-repeatable, non-reproducable phenomenon. It either had a personal, or impersonal beginning; take your pick whether you like your religion straight, or seasoned with something more exotic.

I also disagree that Thedas simply has a few extra laws of physics. There is a whole metaphysical realm that operates of completely different criteria than the physical world. The "faith" component is just as important as in our world because there are widely divergent explanations for that metaphysical reality - e.g., is it the work of the Maker, the Old Gods, or something completely different? Take your pick of which explanation you prefer - but realize that all of them involve "faith."

If I wrote fanfic I would do a story about the first, real, materialist scientist in Thedas who attempts to explain the existence of demons and spirits from a strictly materialist worldview. Everything goes fine until he unintentionally summons a demon who then turns him into an abomination...

[Plaintiff]

StElmo wrote...

I'm an athiest, but I am happy to play an agnostic, or a religious character, provided their belief is based mostly in reason.

The world of DA may well have more evidence for religious belief than we do here on our plane of existance.

Well, more than nothing is still nothing.

[BlueMagitek]

Plaintiff wrote...

StElmo wrote...

I'm an athiest, but I am happy to play an agnostic, or a religious character, provided their belief is based mostly in reason.

The world of DA may well have more evidence for religious belief than we do here on our plane of existance.

Well, more than nothing is still nothing.

Uh, more than nothing cannot be nothing. :/

If x is greater (more) than 0, x cannot equal zero.  >.>

[Plaintiff]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

StElmo wrote...

I'm an athiest, but I am happy to play an agnostic, or a religious character, provided their belief is based mostly in reason.

The world of DA may well have more evidence for religious belief than we do here on our plane of existance.

Well, more than nothing is still nothing.

Uh, more than nothing cannot be nothing. :/

If x is greater (more) than 0, x cannot equal zero.  >.>

'Nothing' and 'zero' are not the same. 'Nothing' is not a mathematical term, for starters.

[Phatose]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
I also disagree that Thedas simply has a few extra laws of physics. There is a whole metaphysical realm that operates of completely different criteria than the physical world. The "faith" component is just as important as in our world because there are widely divergent explanations for that metaphysical reality - e.g., is it the work of the Maker, the Old Gods, or something completely different? Take your pick of which explanation you prefer - but realize that all of them involve "faith."

If I wrote fanfic I would do a story about the first, real, materialist scientist in Thedas who attempts to explain the existence of demons and spirits from a strictly materialist worldview. Everything goes fine until he unintentionally summons a demon who then turns him into an abomination...

The realm of the fade is an clearly extension of physical reality, not a separate realm.  The beings of that plane regularly manage to manifest in Thedas, and when the magisters successfully sent a man physically into that realm, all grounds for it being separate vanished.  A place which can be entered physically is by definition part of physical reality.

Pretty sure Dagna beat you to the punch on being the first materialist studying things of that nature too.

[daaaav]

It's a little quixotic to demand the right to adopt the atheistic position in a world bursting with phenomena that we can only call supernatural isn't it?

Being able to say that you don't believe in the maker specifically or that the maker seems to be a moron is all I would expect.

[Plaintiff]

daaaav wrote...
It's a little quixotic to demand the right to adopt the atheistic position in a world bursting with phenomena that we can only call supernatural isn't it?

It's not supernatural, though. Thedas has its own laws of nature that have nothing to do with ours.

[Silfren]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

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.

This is decidedly off topic from the discussion of atheism within Thedas, but I'm gonna address it regardless. 

Simply put, speak for yourself.  My life is neither plush nor boring, and I vastly prefer books with genuine moral complexity in my escapist fantasy.  We live in a world where certain groups of people try their damnedest to pretend that the world is black and white when it most assuredly is not and never has been.  I find it refreshing to read authors who get that fact of life, but consider authors who want to write books with morally black-and-white settings to be eye-rollingly self-righteous and their books equally so, not to mention boring.  I find morally ambiguous stories to be vivid and engaging and thought-provoking, not depressing in the least.  Stories featuring black-and-white morality, I have always found to be boring and too artificial to be remotely believable.  If I can't suspend my disbelief, or I find the book to be overly self-righteous, or attempting to hit me over the head with a specific moral lesson--which is precisely what many, arguably most, black-and-white morality stories are trying to do--then the book is a waste of my time.  I can't escape in something I consider too ludicrous or self-righteous or heavy-handed to keep reading.

It is inaccurate to suggest that escapist fantasy is by definition morally black-and-white.  ALL fantasy--all fiction, really--is escapist--and a GREAT DEAL of it is morally complex.

[Silfren]

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.

God bless but I hate it when people try to make some snarky non-point by hacking out context.  My irritation is making me butt in.

Yeah, uh, they didn't say "no cultural background," they said "no cultural background FOR BELIEF IN ANY OF THE OTHER SYSTEMS..."  World of difference between what was written and what you're trying to imply they wrote.  It ain't hard--it's asking about someone raised in an Andrastian society who doesn't believe in the Maker but also doesn't have the cultural background to believe in the elven Gods or the Dwarven Stone or anything else. 

[daaaav]

Plaintiff wrote...

daaaav wrote...
It's a little quixotic to demand the right to adopt the atheistic position in a world bursting with phenomena that we can only call supernatural isn't it?

It's not supernatural, though. Thedas has its own laws of nature that have nothing to do with ours.

True, but I think this all boils down to the fact that whilst atheism is very well defined in our reality, being the lack of belief in a god, god's themselves are usually not very well defined at all.

In Thedas, where the supernatural (in our terms) is now natural, what is a god? Is it something now beyond even the supernatural? Does the maker himself even meet the description of a god? We don't know because once again, god's are very, very hard to define... 

[daaaav]

Plaintiff wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

StElmo wrote...

I'm an athiest, but I am happy to play an agnostic, or a religious character, provided their belief is based mostly in reason.

The world of DA may well have more evidence for religious belief than we do here on our plane of existance.

Well, more than nothing is still nothing.

Uh, more than nothing cannot be nothing. :/

If x is greater (more) than 0, x cannot equal zero.  >.>

'Nothing' and 'zero' are not the same. 'Nothing' is not a mathematical term, for starters.

Null set 

[ultimatekotorfan]

xsdob wrote...

Silcron wrote...

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.

Atheist means you don't believe in a supreme being, or several. In DA you would know demons are real, but there's no real proof the Maker exists. You just wouldn't believe the maker or whoever religion's god exists.

Why not just say can we choose to not believe in the maker? That would be a much easier, less charged, less massive conotations to it implication that the term atheist.

I'm agnostic myself, not enough things to convince me but there are some stuff that's a little too strange to just chalk up to cooincidence, so I'm on the fence about god and what type of god or gods there are.

That said, atheism from what I've seen has pretty much been against anything that can't be proven either scientifically or empirically, and that incluces the afterlife, magic, demons, spirits, the supernatural, and all of that.

It just seems much easier to say "let us be able to not believe in the maker" than to use the word associated with disbelieving all these things and working to prove they don't exist.

It's just a gripe, but I feel a different word would work better in this instance than the term atheist, but that's just me. Espically since you kinda prove the existence of jesus in this game back in dragon age 1.

It's true most atheists don't believe in a god or anything supernatural, but that's based off of evidence (or the lack thereof) as it is today. In the world of Dragon Age, magic, demons, and spirits are observable and therefore can be proven scientifically and empirically in the DA world.

In this case I think you might be applying the term atheist to broadly. Atheism doesn't reject the existence of anything supernatural, simply the existence of a supreme deity.

[Warden661]

Is this about being atheists or just plain non-religious? Religion and atheism can overlap. For example the Qunari are atheists. All atheism is is the belief that there are no deities. Not the rejection of religion.

Modifié par BoBear, 21 novembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[Warden661]

Plaintiff wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

StElmo wrote...

I'm an athiest, but I am happy to play an agnostic, or a religious character, provided their belief is based mostly in reason.

The world of DA may well have more evidence for religious belief than we do here on our plane of existance.

Well, more than nothing is still nothing.

Uh, more than nothing cannot be nothing. :/

If x is greater (more) than 0, x cannot equal zero.  >.>

'Nothing' and 'zero' are not the same. 'Nothing' is not a mathematical term, for starters.

Nothing means not one thing or not anything. If you have more than nothing than you have more than not one thing. More than not one thing would be at least one thing. More than nothing is not nothing.

Also, zero (0) is in fact a synonym for nothing. They're the same thing.

Modifié par BoBear, 21 novembre 2012 - 07:05 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

StElmo wrote...

I'm an athiest, but I am happy to play an agnostic, or a religious character, provided their belief is based mostly in reason.

The world of DA may well have more evidence for religious belief than we do here on our plane of existance.

Well, more than nothing is still nothing.

Uh, more than nothing cannot be nothing. :/

If x is greater (more) than 0, x cannot equal zero.  >.>

'Nothing' and 'zero' are not the same. 'Nothing' is not a mathematical term, for starters.

I could have sworn 0 was the mathmatical representation of nothing.

[Zobo]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

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.

Not really. It is a statement of evidence and probability. I don't have faith in history. I have a currently most probable scenario that may be truth on X%, should it change tomorrow based on new evidence I'm not going to have a faith crisis over it.
Saying everything is fallible thus information based on facts and research should be in the same category as information based on myth and fairytales and approached with the same degree of trust is not productive and not logical.

General User wrote...

Zobo wrote...

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.

Still there were two instances where they failed:
1). Hawke tells Merrill that his dead mother is with the Maker, the only dialogue alternative a player can choose to that line is to basically shout on Merrill in anger like a total jerk. So Hawke is either a theist, either a scum. Screws my role-play regardless of the choice.
2). Hawke tells Feynriel that he hopes the Maker guides him.
Funny thing is, both Merrill and Feynriel subscribe to the elven pantheon of gods, not to the Maker, which makes Hawke's case even worse.

General User wrote...

Zobo wrote...

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.

So we are talking about different ancient Greeks then.

Modifié par Zobo, 21 novembre 2012 - 09:51 .

[Swagger7]

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.

History and science do not have the same standards of evidence.  Also, a historian worth his/her salt will admit that many historical positions are merely statements about what seems most likely given the evidence that is available.  To a scientist, a claim with that little support would only be a hypothesis.  The things historians argue over are much more mundane and therefore require much less supporting evidence to at least appear plausible than claims of the existence of a diety.  You are equating mountains and mole hills.

[Swagger7]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

iSignIn wrote...

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.

Again, I would disagree with your definition of "faith" here, especially as to its implied application to religious thought (whether in Thedas, or the "real world").

Faith is not "believing things you know ain't true" at least in a theological sense. Faith is a response to certain explanations of phenomenon. It is the acceptance of certain axioms by which all other data is interpreted. The origins of the universe is a non-repeatable, non-reproducable phenomenon. It either had a personal, or impersonal beginning; take your pick whether you like your religion straight, or seasoned with something more exotic.

I also disagree that Thedas simply has a few extra laws of physics. There is a whole metaphysical realm that operates of completely different criteria than the physical world. The "faith" component is just as important as in our world because there are widely divergent explanations for that metaphysical reality - e.g., is it the work of the Maker, the Old Gods, or something completely different? Take your pick of which explanation you prefer - but realize that all of them involve "faith."

If I wrote fanfic I would do a story about the first, real, materialist scientist in Thedas who attempts to explain the existence of demons and spirits from a strictly materialist worldview. Everything goes fine until he unintentionally summons a demon who then turns him into an abomination...

There are two definitions here which seem to be hanging you up.

You have an odd definition of the word faith that I've never heard before.  This is a definition I have been unable to find in any online dictionary with a brief internet search.  If you really must make up new meanings for extant words please do not expect the rest of us to know and accept them.  Faith is either:  Belief despite the lack of evidence, a religion, trust or confidence in something (without reference to evidence), or a few other expressions (Acting in good faith, etc)  When used in a religious context, faith almost always refers to the first two definitions I gave. 

The other definiton is of the word "evidence".  When atheists uses the term evidence (especially in conjunction with religion), they are typically refering solely to scientific evidence, which is able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.  Religious people may have many reasons to believe their religion which they can call evidence, but it rarely seems to be of the scientific variety.  Thus, a religious person and a scientific atheist may look at that religious person's faith and one may say "See, you believe without evidence" while the other says "I do too have evidence".  Neither is wrong in their statement because they are using different definitions of the word.

[Swagger7]

General User wrote...

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. 

I'm going to call BS on this.  Skepticism by its nature requires rejection of that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence.  If you want to get a good guage of the effects of skepticism on religious belief look at the rolls of the various skeptics' societies.  You will find a significantly reduced ratio of theists there, even though many skeptical societies ban or at least frown upon religion being addressed.  Of the religious members, every one who's ever written anything that's come to my attention has admitted that they do not have the same amount of evidence for their religion as they would demand for other less outlandish claims.  Therefore in order to be both a skeptic and a religious person they have had to avoid applying their skepticism to their religion.  This doesn't sound like something that can "just as often lead to devout, even fanatical, religious belief."

[CaptainBlackGold]

Swagger7 wrote...

SNIPPED

There are two definitions here which seem to be hanging you up.

You have an odd definition of the word faith that I've never heard before.  This is a definition I have been unable to find in any online dictionary with a brief internet search.  If you really must make up new meanings for extant words please do not expect the rest of us to know and accept them.  Faith is either:  Belief despite the lack of evidence, a religion, trust or confidence in something (without reference to evidence), or a few other expressions (Acting in good faith, etc)  When used in a religious context, faith almost always refers to the first two definitions I gave. 

The other definiton is of the word "evidence".  When atheists uses the term evidence (especially in conjunction with religion), they are typically refering solely to scientific evidence, which is able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.  Religious people may have many reasons to believe their religion which they can call evidence, but it rarely seems to be of the scientific variety.  Thus, a religious person and a scientific atheist may look at that religious person's faith and one may say "See, you believe without evidence" while the other says "I do too have evidence".  Neither is wrong in their statement because they are using different definitions of the word.

It is a good idea not to depend on on-line dictionaries when trying to define a word, especially when a word has a technical meaning in its own field as well as a popular meaning.

All I did was specify what meaning applied to the discussion at hand.

For example, I just picked up my copy of Websters New World Dictionary that I keep by my desk. It is a down and dirty dictionary not a technical one. Here is the definition of "faith" as applied to our discussion.

origins: "confidence, belief, to persade..."

"Anything believed....

"Trust, confidence or reliance..."

As well as the more common (as opposed to "technical") definitions.

In Christian theology, it translates the Greek word "pistis" which means "firm persuasion, a conviction based on hearing; akin to "reitho" to persuade (Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words - again my down and dirty quick reference guide).

I cannot speak to how the word is used in Islam, or Buddhism. However, when we are talking about "faith" in connection with religious beliefs, we have to use the meanings that apply, in context, to that discussion. I am not making up new meanings, but rather, using the proper definitions when applied to a particular discipline. In all the courses I took, all the religious people I have known, all the books, essays and professional articles I have read on the nature of "faith" in regards to religious beliefs, no one would accept "belief despite the lack of evidence" as a accurate definition of their understanding of the word.

In Thedas, most people believe (have faith) that Andreste (SIC) was the bride of the Maker. The Chantry is dedicated to singing the chant and convincing others to do the same, to bring the Maker back. They have faith, but they also have "evidence;" i.e., no one disputes that she was a real historical figure and that at least in some measure, the chant is a reliable (though possibly distorted) summary of her views.

I fear discussing the nature of scientific evidence would get the thread locked by going off on a tangent (i.e. that "science" is merely a method of observation of repeatable phenomenom verified by statistical analysis). People have "faith" in science to answer the fundamental questions. They "believe" that it is a sufficient tool for understanding the natural universe. However, in my opinion, the jury is still out on these beliefs - can everyone say "global warming?"

However, I at least wanted to show you that I am using the terms properly, for their particular context. My whole point was that in this discussion, people tend to slip between various meanings of the word "faith" - the logical fallacy of equivocation. In doing so, they are distorting the discussion, albeit, unintentionally.

Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 21 novembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[Blight Nug]

Swagger7 wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

iSignIn wrote...

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.

Again, I would disagree with your definition of "faith" here, especially as to its implied application to religious thought (whether in Thedas, or the "real world").

Faith is not "believing things you know ain't true" at least in a theological sense. Faith is a response to certain explanations of phenomenon. It is the acceptance of certain axioms by which all other data is interpreted. The origins of the universe is a non-repeatable, non-reproducable phenomenon. It either had a personal, or impersonal beginning; take your pick whether you like your religion straight, or seasoned with something more exotic.

I also disagree that Thedas simply has a few extra laws of physics. There is a whole metaphysical realm that operates of completely different criteria than the physical world. The "faith" component is just as important as in our world because there are widely divergent explanations for that metaphysical reality - e.g., is it the work of the Maker, the Old Gods, or something completely different? Take your pick of which explanation you prefer - but realize that all of them involve "faith."

If I wrote fanfic I would do a story about the first, real, materialist scientist in Thedas who attempts to explain the existence of demons and spirits from a strictly materialist worldview. Everything goes fine until he unintentionally summons a demon who then turns him into an abomination...

There are two definitions here which seem to be hanging you up.

You have an odd definition of the word faith that I've never heard before.  This is a definition I have been unable to find in any online dictionary with a brief internet search.  If you really must make up new meanings for extant words please do not expect the rest of us to know and accept them.  Faith is either:  Belief despite the lack of evidence, a religion, trust or confidence in something (without reference to evidence), or a few other expressions (Acting in good faith, etc)  When used in a religious context, faith almost always refers to the first two definitions I gave. 

The other definiton is of the word "evidence".  When atheists uses the term evidence (especially in conjunction with religion), they are typically refering solely to scientific evidence, which is able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.  Religious people may have many reasons to believe their religion which they can call evidence, but it rarely seems to be of the scientific variety.  Thus, a religious person and a scientific atheist may look at that religious person's faith and one may say "See, you believe without evidence" while the other says "I do too have evidence".  Neither is wrong in their statement because they are using different definitions of the word.

CaptainBlackGold's definition of FAITH is not
odd. It does not conflict with the dictionary definitions and is superior,
since dictionary compilers are not always aware of what goes on in
philosophical debates. We all have faith in the scientific method, but the
method cannot be applied to itself, because it is not a physical phenomenon but
a method of interpreting physical phenomenon. We also have faith in the application
of logic, the reliability of our memory and etc. All these things cannot be
verified scientifically, because the scientific method only functions if we
assume these things to be truthful and reliable to begin with.

We also assume the physical world is intelligible,
and our understandings of the physical world to be mostly accurate. We assume
that our cognitive abilities are capable of finding out "truths" and
not just comfortable "illusions" that evolution has granted us for
the sake of our survival. All these things I have stated require "Belief despite the
lack of evidence". Because evidence cannot be gathered and analyzed unless
we assume the tools we use to analyze the evidence is reliable to begin with.
The tools being logic, our cognitive abilities...etc




Scientific evidence is not reserved for atheists
only. Religious people also apply the scientific method, but sometimes with
different initial assumptions. Atheistic initial assumptions are not more
scientific by definition. 

[Zobo]

Blight Nug wrote...

Scientific evidence is not reserved for atheists
only. Religious people also apply the scientific method, but sometimes with
different initial assumptions. Atheistic initial assumptions are not more
scientific by definition.

You are trying to demonstrate that theism and atheism are equally scientific, but that is a fallacy and not true at all. The burden of proof lies on those assuming something does exist, there are no proof of god available thus according to scientific principle of Occam's razor the whole question of god has nothing to do with science. That may change should someone find a proof in the future, until then - no.

[Xilizhra]

I also disagree that Thedas simply has a few extra laws of physics. There is a whole metaphysical realm that operates of completely different criteria than the physical world. The "faith" component is just as important as in our world because there are widely divergent explanations for that metaphysical reality - e.g., is it the work of the Maker, the Old Gods, or something completely different? Take your pick of which explanation you prefer - but realize that all of them involve "faith."

None of it actually requires faith; it's very possible to admit that you don't know how the Fade works or why it does, but want to learn more without conclusively deciding on it's origin. You seem to believe that the "materialist" view claims to know everything already, but that's extremely far from the case; the vast majority of things to know are not known.

If I wrote fanfic I would do a story about the first, real, materialist scientist in Thedas who attempts to explain the existence of demons and spirits from a strictly materialist worldview. Everything goes fine until he unintentionally summons a demon who then turns him into an abomination...

Your strawman preferences have been noted.

In Thedas, most people believe (have faith) that Andreste (SIC) was the bride of the Maker. The Chantry is dedicated to singing the chant and convincing others to do the same, to bring the Maker back. They have faith, but they also have "evidence;" i.e., no one disputes that she was a real historical figure and that at least in some measure, the chant is a reliable (though possibly distorted) summary of her views.

None of the things they possess evidence of are evidence for her being divine in any way.

I fear discussing the nature of scientific evidence would get the thread locked by going off on a tangent (i.e. that "science" is merely a method of observation of repeatable phenomenom verified by statistical analysis). People have "faith" in science to answer the fundamental questions. They "believe" that it is a sufficient tool for understanding the natural universe. However, in my opinion, the jury is still out on these beliefs - can everyone say "global warming?"

So you believe that religious dogma is more accurate than science? Based on what?

We also assume the physical world is intelligible,
and our understandings of the physical world to be mostly accurate. We assume
that our cognitive abilities are capable of finding out "truths" and
not just comfortable "illusions" that evolution has granted us for
the sake of our survival. All these things I have stated require "Belief despite the
lack of evidence". Because evidence cannot be gathered and analyzed unless
we assume the tools we use to analyze the evidence is reliable to begin with.
The tools being logic, our cognitive abilities...etc

And you make the same assumptions. It's kind of a necessity for trying to figure out basically anything, otherwise we might as well throw up our hands and say trying to figure out any information is pointless. But since we perceive a great deal of information to be useful in our own lives, we then extrapolate this into believing that we can discern information in general.

Scientific evidence is not reserved for atheists
only. Religious people also apply the scientific method, but sometimes with
different initial assumptions. Atheistic initial assumptions are not more
scientific by definition.

There are no "atheistic initial assumptions." What we start off with is nothing, and then we try to learn through observation what things are. The religious side, far too often, simply starts with assumptions that are impossible to prove.