335 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You misunderstand: If I may clarify:

To do anything else but accepting her claim that she doesn't believe in higher powers as a genuine expression of what she believes, is intellectually dishonst unless we have a reason to believe it may not be genuine.

This has nothing to do with how things actually are in the divine realm. Of course Morrigan can be wrong and there may be higher powers. What I am arguing here is that we should take her statement seriously as an expression of herself and that this statement is actual evidence of what she believes and that thus, any claim that she does believe differently needs clarification. It has been a habit in this thread to casually dismiss her statement as meaningless.

k.

But don't forget that any potential about face of her beliefs could be due to her acquiring knowledge from Flemeth's grimoire or from the realm beyond the fade.

Plus people tend to dismiss her statement due to her being shown to be fallible.

[Ianamus]

I found those comments very confusing at the time as well.

Morrigan had always made it clear that she did not believe in the existence of the Maker or any such gods (The old gods definitely exist, are mostly dead and are no longer worshiped, so they are not really deities).

The Qunari similarly follow a concept that is spiritual in nature but has no deities. Since it is not a theistic religion the Qunari are, by definition, atheist.

And then in the more recent Dragon Age 2 we have Aveline, who outright states that she is uncertain if she believes in the Maker's existence or not.

Gaiders sudden implication that lack of belief in deities or doubt in the existence of deities doesn't exist in Dragon Age came across as incredibly strange considering all of the above, who very clearly either don't believe in deities or doubt in the existence of one.

It was all sort of cleared up in the end, however. I can't remember what he said exactly though. 

Modifié par EJ107, 25 janvier 2014 - 08:50 .

[Hellion Rex]

Found here @ 14:11

"Don't get your knickers in a twist, sweet cheeks. I don't know how mystical this Urn really is. The lyrium veins in these walls are richer and purer than any I've sensed in a while. It's...doing things. Changing this temple and everything in it."

[Ieldra]

eluvianix wrote...

Found here @ 14:11

"Don't get your knickers in a twist, sweet cheeks. I don't know how mystical this Urn really is. The lyrium veins in these walls are richer and purer than any I've sensed in a while. It's...doing things. Changing this temple and everything in it."

That's interesting. He can sense it. So it's not just a remote possibility he speaks of.

[Iakus]

EJ107 wrote...

I found those comments very confusing at the time as well.

Morrigan had always made it clear that she did not believe in the existence of the Maker or any such gods (The old gods definitely exist, are mostly dead and are no longer worshiped, so they are not really deities).

The Qunari similarly follow a concept that is spiritual in nature but has no deities. Since it is not a theistic religion the Qunari are, by definition, atheist.

And then in the more recent Dragon Age 2 we have Aveline, who outright states that she is uncertain if she believes in the Maker's existence or not.

Gaiders sudden implication that lack of belief in deities or doubt in the existence of deities doesn't exist in Dragon Age came across as incredibly strange considering all of the above, who very clearly either don't believe in deities or doubt in the existence of one.

It was all sort of cleared up in the end, however. I can't remember what he said exactly though. 

I think the point is their are beings like the Maker, the Old Gods, the Dread Wolf, and such.  But what they are exactly is a question.  Are they "gods" or powerful fade spirits/demons, or something even stranger?

They may exist, but are they worthy of worship?

[Br3admax]

Ieldra2 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Found here @ 14:11

"Don't get your knickers in a twist, sweet cheeks. I don't know how mystical this Urn really is. The lyrium veins in these walls are richer and purer than any I've sensed in a while. It's...doing things. Changing this temple and everything in it."

That's interesting. He can sense it. So it's not just a remote possibility he speaks of.

Wait what, he can sense lyrium, being a dwarf from Orzammar, but he never said that he could sense it in the Urn, nor did he say anything for certain. Personally, I don't believe in the Maker, but a back and forth over assumptions doesn't make either of you right. 

[Rotward]

The urn may or may not be mystical, but we do know that the temple's state is at least partially a byproduct of lyrium.

[Ieldra]

The Hierophant wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You misunderstand: If I may clarify:

To do anything else but accepting her claim that she doesn't believe in higher powers as a genuine expression of what she believes, is intellectually dishonst unless we have a reason to believe it may not be genuine.

This has nothing to do with how things actually are in the divine realm. Of course Morrigan can be wrong and there may be higher powers. What I am arguing here is that we should take her statement seriously as an expression of herself and that this statement is actual evidence of what she believes and that thus, any claim that she does believe differently needs clarification. It has been a habit in this thread to casually dismiss her statement as meaningless.

k.

But don't forget that any potential about face of her beliefs could be due to her acquiring knowledge from Flemeth's grimoire or from the realm beyond the fade.

Yes. I am - I don't know why I must repeat this a hundred times before people get it - not saying it isn't possible that she changed, nor am I denying that there could be plausible reasons for it. The fact that she can is completely irrelevant to the point I am making:

The problem is that Morrigan explicity expresses disbelief in all higher at some point in her story and we have no reason to believe she's not genuine, which means that atheism does indeed exist on Thedas at that point in time. We have Word of God explicitly contradicting an unambiguous piece of lore, and that needs clarification. It does not matter how this apparent contradiction is resolved, only that it is. Well, it does matter to me somewhat because I would hate it if she turned Andrastean, but that's not the point of this thread. 

Plus people tend to dismiss her statement due to her being shown to be fallible.

Being fallible has nothing to do with it. Sane people are usually not wrong about the content of their own minds. This is about the belief itself, not the truth or falsehood of it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 09:42 .

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...
I think the point is there are beings like the Maker, the Old Gods, the Dread Wolf, and such.  But what they are exactly is a question.  Are they "gods" or powerful fade spirits/demons, or something even stranger?

They may exist, but are they worthy of worship?

In the context of David Gaider's statement, the question is "what is a god?"

If power and mystery beyond the mortal ken makes you a god, then gods do exist and atheism in the sense that you don't believe they exist makes no sense at all.

If being worthy of worship makes you a god, then it's perfectly possible to be atheist since if you consider none of those beings whose existence we can strongly infer as worthy of worship, then they are not gods.

Furthermore, David Gaider's statement can mean that atheism as a systematically developed philosophy does not exist, including things like formal debate rejecting religious claims and using tools like propositional logic and the systematic study of fallacies, but that it's still possible to not believe in any gods. This may be true, but the term really means nothing more than disbelief in gods. Systematic reflection is not required.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 09:55 .

[Ianamus]

iakus wrote...

I think the point is their are beings like the Maker, the Old Gods, the Dread Wolf, and such.  But what they are exactly is a question.  Are they "gods" or powerful fade spirits/demons, or something even stranger?

They may exist, but are they worthy of worship?

Theres nothing to say that the Maker or the Dread Wolf exist in any form outside of mythology and culture. 

The Old gods definately do/did, and with them it really is a question of if they classify as gods or not. Of course, the majority of them are outright dead, their souls destoryed, so I'd lean towards 'don't'. 

And then there's Flemeth. She doesn't exactly seem divine as much as an incredibly powerful mortal, but she probably comes the closest of anything we know exists outside of the Old Gods. 

Modifié par EJ107, 25 janvier 2014 - 10:16 .

[Ieldra]

EJ107 wrote...
The Old gods definately do/did, and with them it really is a question of if they classify as gods or not. Of course, the majority of them are outright dead, their souls destoryed, so I'd lean towards 'don't'.

On the other hand, Dumat's altar still works, so some doubt about their death may be appropriate, which points towards a "yes" since it raises the possibility that killing them didn't really kill them, for lack of a better description. If, by "god" we mean being beyond mortal limitations in some way and spiritual significance is not required.

I'm really curious how this mystery will be answered. On one hand the death of an archdemon by the hand of a Grey Warden destroys the Old God's soul which should be rather final even for a being beyond mortal limitations, on the other Dumat's altar still works.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 10:32 .

[The Hierophant]

Being fallible has nothing to do with it. Sane people are usually not wrong about the content of their own minds. This is about the belief itself, not the truth or falsehood of it.

For clarity's sake there's unintentional fallibility (ignorance) and intentional fallibility (dishonesty). I can't blame people for believing the latter in regards to Morrigan's character, no matter how nonsensical it might seem.

Plus it's not that Morrigan is wrong but people claiming she's not an atheist because atheism would require her to dismiss the classification of the Old Gods as being deities on top of the deities from the Dalish, Avvar and Chasind pantheons, and the Stone.

Plus there are different types of deities/gods other than the omniscient and omnipotent Muslim-Judeo-Christian God. Morrigan not believing in the Maker's existance when her stance on Old God's classification as deities are unknown, on top of her pov on the Avvar, Chasind, and the Dalish's pantheons are unknown.

[Ieldra]

The Hierophant wrote...

Being fallible has nothing to do with it. Sane people are usually not wrong about the content of their own minds. This is about the belief itself, not the truth or falsehood of it.

For clarity's sake there's unintentional fallibility (ignorance) and intentional fallibility (dishonesty). I can't blame people for believing the latter in regards to Morrigan's character, no matter how nonsensical it might seem.

Plus it's not that Morrigan is wrong but people claiming she's not an atheist because atheism would require her to dismiss the classification of the Old Gods as being deities on top of the deities from the Dalish, Avvar and Chasind pantheons, and the Stone.

Plus there are different types of deities/gods other than the omniscient and omnipotent Muslim-Judeo-Christian God. Morrigan not believing in the Maker's existance when her stance on Old God's classification as deities are unknown, on top of her pov on the Avvar, Chasind, and the Dalish's pantheons are unknown.

Morrigan doesn't just reject belief in the Maker, she says she doesn't believe in any sort of higher power (quote in the OP). Which does indeed mean that she doesn't classify the Old Gods, about whose existence she knows, under "higher power". Her statement is really rather unambiguously atheist.

Also, I find it rather odd to classify dishonesty under fallibility.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 11:15 .

[The Hierophant]

Ieldra2 wrote...


Morrigan doesn't just reject belief in the Maker, she says she doesn't believe in any sort of higher power (quote in the OP). Which does indeed mean that she doesn't classify the Old Gods, about whose existence she knows, under "higher power". Her statement is really rather unambiguously atheist.

She specifically singled out the Maker because that's who Leliana harrassed her about and not the Old Gods who despite not being omnipotent are confirmed to exist. I didn't see an argument against the Old Gods deserving their classification as deities.

Also, I find it rather odd to classify dishonesty under fallibility.

Depends if you view being dishonesty as being intentionally erroneous (fallible).*shrugs*

[Ieldra]

The Hierophant wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


Morrigan doesn't just reject belief in the Maker, she says she doesn't believe in any sort of higher power (quote in the OP). Which does indeed mean that she doesn't classify the Old Gods, about whose existence she knows, under "higher power". Her statement is really rather unambiguously atheist.

She specifically singled out the Maker because that's who Leliana harrassed her about and not the Old Gods who despite not being omnipotent are confirmed to exist. I didn't see an argument against the Old Gods deserving their classification as deities.

Leliana: So you truly do not believe in any sort of higher power?
Morrigan: It has been bothering you, I see. No, I do not. Must I?

I don't see any restriction to the Maker here. And, just in case you were not aware of it, she knows about the existence of the Old Gods (we know that because of the Dark Ritual conversations), and if she knows that and still says she doesn't believe in any higher powers, then that means by extension that she doesn't think the Old Gods are higher powers. Unless she's so stupid that this very basic piece of logic escapes her. Which she isn't.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 janvier 2014 - 08:04 .

[Rotward]

Morrigan believes in gods, she just knows she's one of them.

Modifié par Rotward, 26 janvier 2014 - 07:29 .

[The Hierophant]

Ieldra2 the convo is a direct continuation about a creator god aka the Maker aka higher power. The convo is always about that type deity and doesn't equate to the OGs.

Leliana: So you truly do not believe in any sort of higher power?

Morrigan: It has been bothering you, I see. No, I do not. Must I?

Leliana: What do you believe happens to you after you die then? Nothing?

Morrigan: I do not go sit by the Maker's side, if that's what you mean.

Leliana: Only those who are worthy are brought to the Maker's side. So many other sad souls are left to wander in the void, hopeless and forever lost.

Morrigan: And what evidence of this have you? I see only spirits, no wandering ghosts of wicked disbelievers.

Leliana: It must be so sad to look forward to nothing, to feel no love and seek no reward in the afterlife.

Morrigan: Yes, the anguish tears at me so. You have seen through me to my sad, sad core.

Leliana: Now you're simply mocking me.

Morrigan: You notice? It appears your perceptive powers know no bounds.

[Ieldra]

I don't know how to make the very, very, very basic logic clearer than it already is. Maybe a formal syllogism helps:

Premise 1: Morrigan doesn't believe in the existence of any higher powers.
Premise 2: Morrigan believes in the Old Gods' existence.

Conclusion: She believes the Old Gods are not higher powers.

You can bet Morrigan is aware of this when she says that because it is really very, very basic logic. So basic, in fact, that I'm having serious trouble to understand why you don't understand it. To illustrate just how basic, imagine what rejecting this syllogism as meaningless in the context of the conversation would mean: "I don't believe in higher powers but I believe in the Old Gods and they are possibly higher powers". That makes no sense.

Now, my point was that this would make her atheist unless you posit you don't need to be a higher power to be a god. Which is quite possible but points toward a difficulty speaking about these things in worlds where intrinsically more-than-mortal entites do, in fact, exist.

There are three possibilities:

(1) Morrigan isn't atheist because she implictly uses the definition "A god is an intrinsically more-than-mortal entity but not necessarily a higher power". This would make the most sense and reconcile the conflicting statements neatly, but it needs some reflection to come up with and I don't know if I can assume that reflection was done before the statement that she isn't atheist was made.

(2) Morrigan has changed her beliefs since DAO. However, the context of David Gaider's statement (made more than a year ago after all) suggests that he meant "Morrigan isn't atheist" in the sense of "has never been atheist within the context of the story". He made that almost unambiguously clear when he said "Morrigan was never intended to be atheist".

(3) David Gaider didn't think things through when he made the statement that Morrigan isn't atheist, and it shouldn't be taken at face value. This is also quite plausible since he also said that atheism doesn't exist on Thedas, and that makes no sense if you define it as a simple absence of belief in gods.

Now, which one is it?

[The Hierophant]

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.

Leliana: I don't believe that. I believe we have a purpose. All of us.

Morrigan: Yours, apparently being to bother me.

Ieldra2 you are disregarding the context of the convo as it's a continuation of the above. Leiliana's mention of higher power is an allusion to her belief in a creator deity, the Maker who Morrigan doubts exists, not a general disbelief in gods.

[Ieldra]

The Hierophant wrote...
Ieldra2 you are disregarding the context of the convo as it's a continuation of the above. Leiliana's mention of higher power is an allusion to her belief in a creator deity, the Maker who Morrigan doubts exists, not a general disbelief in gods.

I give up. I haven't even said that. I said it means a general disbelief in gods if you equal "god" with "higher power" as we usually do but which she might not. And that conclusion is inescapable because the context does not limit the meaning of the statement. Ah, why do I even bother....

To make things short: To claim that Morrigan could conceivably say "I don't believe in higher powers but there are the Old Gods and they are possibly higher powers and I believe in them" makes no damned sense regardless of context. 

[The Hierophant]

You keep saying higher powers when it's actually higher power which is singular. You equate all deities/gods to higher power when Leiliana is only alluding to a Maker like being, a creator deity that Morrigan doesn't believe exists. The trilogy of convos are specifically about the existence of the Maker and not the validity of the existence of Thedas's supposed gods.

[The Elder King]

@TheHierophant: Leliana said 'any sort' of higher power, which should refer to deities in general, not strictly the Maker.

[The Hierophant]

hhh89

@TheHierophant: Leliana said 'any sort' of higher power, which should refer to deities in general, not strictly the Maker.

I think she's alluding to a specific type of deity a creator god like the Maker due to the convos being directly related. I think higher power should be taken as singular rather than plural as it directly references Morrigan's disbelief in the Maker's or a similar entity's existence. Plus if the statement is meant to convey multiple gods instead of a specific archetype (creator god) shouldn't Power be plural rather than singular?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 26 janvier 2014 - 11:43 .