881 réponses à ce sujet

[Who Knows]

all religions are invested in the conversion of non-believers

 

There is nothing immoral about attempting to show the "truth" to those who have no been exposed to it.  Immorality may arise when wars over the religion and conversion erupt.

 

Or its the Maker's way of recognizing his own

It isn't the conversion alone. It is the Chantry idea that the world cannot be saved unless most/all of the world believes.
That means even believers won't be saved entirely unless everyone/almost everyone else believes as they do.

 

Also, not all religions actually involve proselytizing as part of their doctrine, let alone something as extreme as the Chantry.

[Steelcan]

It isn't the conversion alone. It is the Chantry idea that the world cannot be saved unless most/all of the world believes.
That means even believers won't be saved entirely unless everyone/almost everyone else believes as they do.

 

Also, not all religions actually involve proselytizing as part of their doctrine, let alone something as extreme as the Chantry.

And there is nothing wrong with believing that or spreading it peacefully

 

All religions are interested in gaining new adherents, through either proselytizing or having children who grow up in the faith.  Many religions may not actively preach, but they still must have new adherents

[Who Knows]

And there is nothing wrong with believing that or spreading it peacefully

Too bad the Chantry has already used to violence to spread.

 

All religions are interested in gaining new adherents, through either proselytizing or having children who grow up in the faith.  Many religions may not actively preach, but they still must have new adherents

The distinction here is that the Chantry believes the Maker won't return until their religion is spread to all corners of the earth. What you are describing is not the same.

[Steelcan]

Too bad the Chantry has already used to violence to spread.

 

 

 

The distinction here is that the Chantry believes the Maker won't return until their religion is spread to all corners of the earth. What you are describing is not the same.

And the Qun launched a violent invasion the second it appeared in Thedas

 

The Tevinter Old God Pantheon was built on the the blood of countless slaves

 

The Dalish invaded Orlais and sacked Val Royeaux after religious tensions became full blown war

 

 

The Chantry is no worse than any of the alternatives in Thedas, and it is significantly better than most of them

[HK-90210]

A religion that bases the salvation of the world on conversion is inherently incredibly dangerous, if not outright immoral.

 

I would argue that a religion that does not base itself on conversion lacks strong principles. What does it say about a belief system if the people within that system don't consider people outside the faith worth the effort of conversion? It is a unique aspect of monotheistic faiths. If you truly believe that there is only one god, then ALL other religions are false. And if this is true, then converting people means you are saving them from a Hellish fate. Since religion involves such important aspects as one's very soul, what kind of monster would you have to be to consider everyone outside of your religion not worth saving? I don't advocate conversion by the sword, but conversion is a necessary aspect of every strong faith. No faith that ignores those outside its congregation is worth my time.

 

Hence why the Elven Pantheon and Stone Worship are weak and unworthy religions, in my view. They ignore the outside world. The Dalish don't really care what happens to the dwarven souls or humans. The dwarves don't care about the elves or the humans. Andrastians, however, show a great propensity to at least give a **** about races other than their own. Yes, humans are racist(Cue Mass Effect turian quotes), but at least some of them will care enough about the dwarves and the elves to try and help them save their souls. Even if they are wrong, they still care.

 

That is why the only religion(in Thedas) that holds a candle to Andrastianism, IMO, is the Qun. And the Qun is a very ba----nope, not going on the tangent. Suffice to say, I despise it. But at least the Qun cares about those outside the faith, even if it is in a different way than Andrastianism.

[Br3admax]

Too bad the Chantry has already used to violence to spread.

Source?

[Who Knows]

And the Qun launched a violent invasion the second it appeared in Thedas

 

The Tevinter Old God Pantheon was built on the the blood of countless slaves

 

The Dalish invaded Orlais and sacked Val Royeaux after religious tensions became full blown civil war

 

 

The Chantry is no worse than any of the alternatives in Thedas, and it is significantly better than most of them

"They do it too" is not a good defense.

[Steelcan]

"They do it too" is not a good defense.

So instead Thedas should sit on its hands and wait for a religion to pop up that manages to have the universal appeal of Andrastianism, the infrastructure to protect its practitioners, and the ability to spread itself?

 

Meanwhile hoping the Qunari don't try again?

[Who Knows]

I would argue that a religion that does not base itself on conversion lacks strong principles. What does it say about a belief system if the people within that system don't consider people outside the faith worth the effort of conversion? It is a unique aspect of monotheistic faiths. If you truly believe that there is only one god, then ALL other religions are false. And if this is true, then converting people means you are saving them from a Hellish fate. Since religion involves such important aspects as one's very soul, what kind of monster would you have to be to consider everyone outside of your religion not worth saving? I don't advocate conversion by the sword, but conversion is a necessary aspect of every strong faith. No faith that ignores those outside its congregation is worth my time.

 

Hence why the Elven Pantheon and Stone Worship are weak and unworthy religions, in my view. They ignore the outside world. The Dalish don't really care what happens to the dwarven souls or humans. The dwarves don't care about the elves or the humans. Andrastians, however, show a great propensity to at least give a **** about races other than their own. Yes, humans are racist(Cue Mass Effect turian quotes), but at least some of them will care enough about the dwarves and the elves to try and help them save their souls. Even if they are wrong, they still care.

 

That is why the only religion(in Thedas) that holds a candle to Andrastianism, IMO, is the Qun. And the Qun is a very ba----nope, not going on the tangent. Suffice to say, I despise it. But at least the Qun cares about those outside the faith, even if it is in a different way than Andrastianism.

The Chantry is additionally dangerous because it's not just about personal salvation, but collective salvation. They believe the Maker will not restore the world to former glory unless the Chantry is spread everywhere. That means trying to convert foreigners is not only about their salvation, but also yours. Such a belief system is particularly vulnerable to the lure of using violence, which is what has been happening.

I think trying to convert others in such a manner as the Chantry has done is a mark of hubris rather than integrity, especially given the role of self-interest I have mentioned.

[Br3admax]

So, no source then? 

[Darkly Tranquil]

I would argue that a religion that does not base itself on conversion lacks strong principles. What does it say about a belief system if the people within that system don't consider people outside the faith worth the effort of conversion? It is a unique aspect of monotheistic faiths. If you truly believe that there is only one god, then ALL other religions are false. And if this is true, then converting people means you are saving them from a Hellish fate. Since religion involves such important aspects as one's very soul, what kind of monster would you have to be to consider everyone outside of your religion not worth saving? I don't advocate conversion by the sword, but conversion is a necessary aspect of every strong faith. No faith that ignores those outside its congregation is worth my time.

Hence why the Elven Pantheon and Stone Worship are weak and unworthy religions, in my view. They ignore the outside world. The Dalish don't really care what happens to the dwarven souls or humans. The dwarves don't care about the elves or the humans. Andrastians, however, show a great propensity to at least give a **** about races other than their own. Yes, humans are racist(Cue Mass Effect turian quotes), but at least some of them will care enough about the dwarves and the elves to try and help them save their souls. Even if they are wrong, they still care.

That is why the only religion(in Thedas) that holds a candle to Andrastianism, IMO, is the Qun. And the Qun is a very ba----nope, not going on the tangent. Suffice to say, I despise it. But at least the Qun cares about those outside the faith, even if it is in a different way than Andrastianism.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

[TheKomandorShepard]

So, yeah, proving the point. Saying that because mages have done something, any or all mages will do something, is a fallacy. 

Nope. Hawke doesn't stop Patrice once during the story, while the Grand Cleric clearly knew the qunari were there. 

Hawke knew Anders was an abomination and allowed him to roam free, but constantly went after the smallest of treats in the city. Yeah, Hawke let Anders do what he did, and it's Hawke's fault that thing went out of control. 

You don't need to know what he's up to, to tell the Grand Cleric to watch the rogue mage that's in the Chantry, clearly identified by dressing like he's from Tevinter. 

Did i ever said that all will do something? I said simple mages and many of them will do damage and that many mages already do and did is only prove of that.

Sure but still s/he is not responsible for what petrice did at only he failed at preventing qunari conflict and grand cleric wanted lave it to maker so he could solve this so well...

And yet hawke wasn't responsible for anders actions as above he only failed to achieve third act goal. 

You need to know because in-universe characters didn't had idea what he was planned was he dangerous yep would it be wise for pro-templar hawke kill anders yep but his plan was surprise.

[HK-90210]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

 

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. - the man that C.S. Lewis swore to his dying day was his personal Lord and Savior.

[Darkly Tranquil]

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. - the man that C.S. Lewis swore to his dying day was his personal Lord and Savior.

But he never advocated that it be done at the point of sword, which is exactly what the chantry does to anyone who doesn't tow the line.

[KoorahUK]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Which countries in Thedas are goverened by the Chantry again?

[HK-90210]

But he never advocated that it be done at the point of sword, which is exactly what the chantry does to anyone who doesn't tow the line.

 

The mere fact that the Dalish still exist and have not been completely wiped out contradicts this. Merril's clan hung out in the same place for seven years with relatively little harassment by the Kirkwall Chantry. And this is with a pretty radical Knight-Commander in charge of the whole city for 3 of those years.

 

Edit: Let's not get into a Red Crossing argument, though. My point was only that the Chantry does not, as a general rule, convert by the sword. They generally seem to convert using social, cultural and economic pressure. But the Exalted Marches, the primary military actions by the Chantry, were seldom about conversions. Most of them were in defense of a military threat, not mere unbelief.

[KoorahUK]

But he never advocated that it be done at the point of sword, which is exactly what the chantry does to anyone who doesn't tow the line.

Example please? All I've seen the chantry do is call Exhaulted Marches against those that threaten Andrastian nations and people. Thats not conquering heretics because they do not believe in Andraste, thats defending those they have sworn to protect against external threats.

[Darkly Tranquil]

The mere fact that the Dalish still exist and have not been completely wiped out contradicts this. Merril's clan hung out in the same place for seven years with relatively little harassment by the Kirkwall Chantry. And this is with a pretty radical Knight-Commander in charge of the whole city for 3 of those years.
 
Edit: Let's not get into a Red Crossing argument, though. My point was only that the Chantry does not, as a general rule, convert by the sword. They generally seem to convert using social, cultural and economic pressure. But the Exalted Marches, the primary military actions by the Chantry, were seldom about conversions. Most of them were in defense of a military threat, not mere unbelief.

The fact that convert through pressure is the entire point, violence is simply the most extreme form of pressure. If the Chantry's ideology was actually appealing, it wouldn't need to resort to coercion to convert. The fact that it requires the use of various forms of bullying to get its way says everything you need to know about what lies at the heart of the Chantry. When you get down to it, the Chantry and the Qunari are barely different in their agendas or in their singlemindedness. The only real difference is that the Qunari are more honest about it. Both are out to convert everyone by hook or by crook.

[HK-90210]

The fact that convert through pressure is the entire point, violence is simply the most extreme form of pressure. If the Chantry's ideology was actually appealing, it wouldn't need to resort to coercion to convert. The fact that it requires the use of various forms of bullying to get its way says everything you need to know about what lies at the heart of the Chantry. When you get down to it, the Chantry and the Qunari are barely different in their agendas or in their singlemindedness. The only real difference is that the Qunari are more honest about it. Both are out to convert everyone by hook or by crook.

 

It's not about the Chantry's ideology being appealing. It's about whether or not it is more appealing that all the other options. If I lived in Thedas, I'd take Andrastianism in a heartbeat. Of the lands we know, most of the population in Thedas feels similarly. And just like in the real world, there's bound to be a lot of people that just don't care what god/gods they give lip service to. The Maker is as good as any other, and the Chantry have the loudest voices. That is the pressure that the Chantry uses, and who they use it on. If most of your neighbors are Andrastian, you're going to feel social and cultural pressure to do the same, if only so that people don't look at you funnily. You call this kind of pressure bad. All I see is a fantasy realm working the way the real world works. to me, it's neither good, nor bad. It's simply the way organized religion works in its most benevolent fashion, in a medieval setting. If they generally don't go about leading holy wars on a whim, killing heretics or heathens without cause, imposing their will over secular powers(As Meredith did in Kirkwall) then it's a fairly laid-back church.

 

We must realize that we are dealing with a very different kind of world. One in which our sense of modern morality has little standing. The Chantry shows a great deal of restraint compared to religions of the the medieval era in our world. Personally, I'm glad that Bioware decided to go that route. It allows people to explore religion in a fantasy realm, away from a lot of the real-world stuff that we tend to get into a tizzy over.

 

Just my two cents. My guess is that you and I have run out of debate for this little discussion. I think you and I both understand the other's view, but disagree. Good times.

[TTTX]

The mere fact that the Dalish still exist and have not been completely wiped out contradicts this. Merril's clan hung out in the same place for seven years with relatively little harassment by the Kirkwall Chantry. And this is with a pretty radical Knight-Commander in charge of the whole city for 3 of those years.

The chantry prefers to leave the Dalish alone mostly because the Dalish keep to themselves most of the time and they are hard as hell to track down because they move around the whole time and most of the clans don't know where the others are.

 

Most conflicts between humans and Dalish comes from when a human village discovers a Dalish camp nearby and their fear get the better of them or various of other reasons (like human bandits killing some of the Dalish, etc).

[Seraphim24]

And the Qun launched a violent invasion the second it appeared in Thedas

 

The Tevinter Old God Pantheon was built on the the blood of countless slaves

 

The Dalish invaded Orlais and sacked Val Royeaux after religious tensions became full blown war

 

 

The Chantry is no worse than any of the alternatives in Thedas, and it is significantly better than most of them

 

I think that reflects more on the poor construction of the DA universe generally, rather than the strength of the Chantry. DA is rife with stupid organizations. 

 

Addressing the OP, there aren't a lot of things distinguishing the Chantry from Christianity and so all the same criticisms leveled at Christianity over the centuries (of which there are thousands at this point) basically apply. it's quite literally the most conservative entity I've ever seen in any Bioware game ever made, by a huge margin. 

 

I kind of even see it as a wholesale capitulation of Bioware's generally bleeding edge type games, they said screw it, this blase Christian impulse was fine all along. It's a sad thing to see, from my POV. 

[TTTX]

I think that reflects more on the poor construction of the DA universe generally, rather than the strength of the Chantry. DA is rife with stupid organizations. 

More like stupid people, doesn't matter what race they are they all have a fair share of A-holes and idiots.

[Ieldra]

Why is there a fundamental difference in these? 'Legitimacy' is a cultural conceit as arbitrary as any dogma- you just appear to like it more. Nor is there any inherent relationship between the sincerity of a closely-held cultural site and the distance involved.

 

If you don't want to be compared to the sort of archeologist who would break into the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository out of ignorance, it would behoove you to lay out an intellectual framework about why you wouldn't break into the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository out of ignorance. 'Legitimate ownership' doesn't cut it, not least because the point of the repository is a no-ownership scenario, nor does 'I would take great pains not to destroy anything' when accessing the knowlege within requires the destruction of the containment.

 

It doesn't help that you've so far set out a no-win scenario for any sort of 'legitimate' restriction authority. If it's a god who says so, it's an unjust and immoral, illegitimate restriction and should be strived to be overturn. If it's not a god but merely deemed a god (er, yeah, something like that), then it's illegitimate and should be overturned. If it's a  bunch of people, they have no right to do so and so are illegitimate and should be overturned.

 

After the last few years I've yet to see you lay out any 'legitimate' authority to forbid you from breaking open a secret. The only 'legitimate' restrictions I can ever recall you claiming to respect are just as arbitrary and culturally dependent as the dogma you vocally reject. That's far from a convincing distinction from someone who has in the past excused acting out of ignorance in the name of acting out of ignorance.

You're using a lot of awfully loaded words here. Let's cut through the rhetoric, shall we:

 

I. The Basics

 

First and foremost, what I actually do claim can only imperfectly be translated into a breaking-and-entering metaphor. Let's phrase this carefully:

 

I do not accept any authority to enforce an injunction that I may not inquire into certain areas of knowledge.

 

Now, the Maker in the story of the Golden City symbolically represents such authority, but the fact that it's presented as a breaking-and-entering metaphor is already part of the propaganda because it gives the attempt to enter an aura of illegitimacy before the real question is even addressed. In fact, since I do respect others' life and property, my refusal to accept such authority does not automatically translate into "I will break into your house to see the skeletons in your closet". What I'm prepared to do to circumvent attempted restrictions is still limited by ethical concerns, questions of risk vs. benefit and political concerns. I'll address those next.

 

II. Risk and Ignorance

 

You also attempt to discredit my arguments by claiming that the actions resulting from my philosophy are made in ignorance. Here's my answer to that:

 

If we act to acquire a piece of knowledge, we naturally and by definition act from a position of ignorance. Is that ignorance bad? Yes of course it is, that's why we act to change it. If you claim that this ignorance should be reason enough not to act, then you ultimately invalidate any kind of empirical knowledge acquisition. Any exploration and experimentation carries a risk because it is the point and the rationale that we do not already know the results. By saying that we should not explore and experiment because this may result in disaster you also invalidate any kind of empirical knowledge acquisition. Basically, any fundamental injunction based on this rationale ends with "We are forbidden to acquire any knowledge we do not already have".

 

Now, you may ask where is the point where reason and consideration for large-scale wellbeing and survival limits experimentation and exploration? There is really no hard answer to that. All we can do is to be as careful as we can, honestly evaluate the risks to the best of our ability and if need be, defer further exploration to the future, but there will never be a guarantee that we won't cause a disaster with the next tiny step into the unknown. If we are not prepared to accept that remaining risk, we will stay forever as ignorant as we are now. Some ideologies claim that we should, indeed, stay as ignorant as we are now. Like any claim about what should be, neither they nor those that oppose them can claim fundamental objectivity. Which is why this is, unfortunately, ultimately a political matter decided by which ideology has the greater memetic power. I would prefer that we do not forever stay children.

 

III. Cultural standards and politics

 

Lastly, the supposed problem of cultural standards is not a problem in the way you claim it is. All our ideas of authority, property, rights and legitimacy are dependent on culture, but what else do we have to argue from? If we dispense with them, we are left with a might makes right scenario. At the same time, I cannot be expected to accept any claim of ownership made in the name of an ideology because I can't reasonably be expected to give others unlimited authority over my actions. If some culture throws me out of their territory because I violated some silly - from my POV - taboo, they have that right. It's their territory. According to both our cultural standards, most likely. But don't tell me you would readily accept an injunction to, say, not capture and analyze the light of a star 10kpc away because some culture considers it the home of their god. Yes, cultural standards determine what we're willing to accept, but we have nothing else. The only two alternatives would be to either accept no limitations at all and indiscriminately bulldoze over cultures less powerful than my own, or accept any arbitrary limitation by the crackpot ideology of the day. Since there is no philosophically solid foundation to stand on, in practice such things are most often decided by politics, which may sometimes end in using force. In any specific case, my decision about what to do, whether to break open something in a non-ownership scenario, would be decided by pragmatism. Non-ownership does indeed mean that I don't accept any authority to enforce an injunction, but that doesn't mean I need to be reckless or needlessly offensive about it. There is no hard answer. There may be various pragmatic reasons to back off. The question of risk and ignorance is covered by the previous section.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ow, my head hurts from watching Ieldra and Dean debate lol. They are way too smart for me. Can we go back to fighting?

Sorry. Me try to use easy words for big ideas.

[Ieldra]

And there is nothing wrong with believing that or spreading it peacefully

 

All religions are interested in gaining new adherents, through either proselytizing or having children who grow up in the faith.  Many religions may not actively preach, but they still must have new adherents

The idea that the Maker will return once all of Thedas is converted to his worship presents a temptation to use less peaceful means. Thus, this idea is a fundamental problem in the Chantry's ideology.