304 réponses à ce sujet

[Balek-Vriege]

My characters are apatheists of sorts in that give zero f**ks about the Maker and they do not worship the Maker.

 

He could exist or he could not. They don't care. Why ? Because you can never know they answer, you cannot prove or disprove his existence and you cannot suggest a scientific alternative to the formation of the Thedosian universe.

 

In the real world, we can use evolution, quantum astrophysics and the like to either disprove or suggest a scientific alternative to deities. In Thedas we cannot.

 

True statement.  I have always thought that magical fantasy settings would have a really hard time developing advanced scientific technologies, reasoning and theories.  Mainly because the very existence of magic would utterly pollute scientific method.  The same goes for sci-fi settings far in the future or on other worlds with low-tech societies polluted with ancient, super advanced technology (like advanced nanobots).

 

As you allude to, the real universe is very predictable and the more we study it, the more it seems to be on auto-pilot or just "exists" without any outside direction or godly intervention.  There's no evidence of supernatural energies that change the basic laws of physics.  Advanced laws of physics can be developed and mathematical equations predict outcomes with near absolute certainty (assuming you know of all the variables).  All this leads to disproving many things religions have sought to explain and more importantly, are beginning to explain how the universe/life can exist/begin without divine intervention or divine creation.

 

Fantasy settings would have a much harder time with this.  Basic theories and math can be changed by the influence of the most mundane magic.  The very fact that you can make something out of nothing, end up with more than you started with, or influence your universe with your mind would turn real world science on its head.  A world like Thedas already introduces other physical dimensions from the get go which would really complicate things.  How could you get past all those distractions to study the universe around you past industrial age knowledge?

 

Although we will probably never be able to disprove/prove an entity created everything in the real world, we can probably get pretty close to figuring out how the universe works that we don't need or care to.

 

For fantasy settings how can you really prove/disprove the existence of a god or how the universe works if you can't even trust basic math?  Your only hope is trying to find more powerful beings or supernatural knowledge/power that gives you the answer in your magical multi-dimensional universe... if that level of being or knowledge still (or even) exist.  They need guidance from higher powers to gain even a slight understanding of magic and the world around them.  Most of the magical breakthroughs in Thedas were gifted by gods/spirits.

 

The best one could do to disprove the Maker as the Chantry believes him to be, is to find a reliable source that contradicts his involvement in events and proves them wrong.  The Fade, Spirits and Corypheus are unreliable.  You would need an entity like Solas/Fen'Harel, Mythal, or the Old Gods coming clean on their nature, events surrounding the Golden City and Andraste proving there's no Maker.

 

However, if there is another party (or an existing party) that carried out the basic actions that are accredited to the Maker, that party by would technically be the Maker that Humans worship.  It doesn't matter if it's a false god(s) or a Wizard of Oz figure.  The Maker would exist.  Just not in the way believers think he did and may or may not by worthy of worship and reverence (just as are Inquisitor is arguably not).

 

That would still leave the question as to who created the universe.  On to the next powerful figure or source of knowledge.

[9TailsFox]

Responding to Balek-Vriege "magic" and "science" can exist very easy first of all every advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. And in Thedas we see Qunari who focus more on science and oppress magic users. Herbalist in DA:I say that medicine not magic is the future in healing. Solas and Dorian is nerds   they discussing magic like it's some school subject.

[Aren]

So if everyone sings the chant, Gaider will come back?

Why not? If everyone will sing the chant here into the Bsn sure.

[Ieldra]

True statement.  I have always thought that magical fantasy settings would have a really hard time developing advanced scientific technologies, reasoning and theories.  Mainly because the very existence of magic would utterly pollute scientific method.  The same goes for sci-fi settings far in the future or on other worlds with low-tech societies polluted with ancient, super advanced technology (like advanced nanobots).

Not true. Many magic systems blend perfectly with science. As long as magic follows rules that can be understood, it can be researched with scientific methods - and the magic systems of many fictional worlds are, in fact, like that. The typical exception are high fantasy settings like Middle Earth (or Star Wars), where magic is connected to the whim of supernatural beings, blended with ethics or suchlike. At the other end - read any fantasy book by Brandon Sanderson and you'll find magic that blends perfectly with science.

 

In Thedas, it is known that spirits can cause or change magic-like effects on a whim, but the presence of spirits can be detected so you can correct for that. How spirits do that is not yet understood completely, but that doesn't mean it can't be understood.

[Ieldra]

My characters are apatheists of sorts in that give zero f**ks about the Maker and they do not worship the Maker.

 

He could exist or he could not. They don't care. Why ? Because you can never know they answer, you cannot prove or disprove his existence and you cannot suggest a scientific alternative to the formation of the Thedosian universe.

 

In the real world, we can use evolution, quantum astrophysics and the like to either disprove or suggest a scientific alternative to deities. In Thedas we cannot.

This is untrue. You can dismiss a creator god simply because it's a non-explanation by any logic. Simply ask about the origin of the god and you'll see that. If you try to weasel out of if by claiming the creator god is eternal, Occam's Razor would tell you it's more appropriate to apply the "eternal" label to the world in the first place unless there is an evidence for the god.

 

So why does the idea exist in the first place? The answer is that religion is a social phenomenon primarily. At its roots it's not about truth but about community. Myths - including creation myths - are just tools it uses to retain its power. For the same reason it's difficult for many people to discard their religious beliefs. One would think it shouldn't be *that* hard to discard a thoroughly implausible belief, but what it actually means in most cases, how it feels for people, is to remove yourself, or partially remove yourself, from a community of like-minded people you've been comfortable with for years, many of them your friends and family. And that is very hard.

[Balek-Vriege]

What I'm saying is not so much that magic can't work with scientific method (in my own post I mention sci-fi settings where the "magic" could be just highly advanced technology).  It's more about how do you as a society get started with scientific method, without "help," when you have a force or energy like magic that would bend reality in near infinite ways.  Ways that would make coming up with non-magical based theories nearly impossible until you understand magic outright first, which is so highly advanced that you would "need" something or someone with prior/overall knowledge to help guide you.  Without such knowledge you would be stuck in lala land getting different results depending on how much magic interferes with a physics based theory or vice versa.  In Dragon Age the main obstacle would be how thick or thin the veil is.

 

This is why fantasy settings depend so much on searching for dieties and higher powers to help solve the mysteries of the universe.  Which they usually do.  It's very hard to sit down and figure out magic or non-magical theories when both intersect causing so many unknown variables that cannot be tested.  Even in Dragon Age the big magical breakthroughs that allowed the study of magic to proceed was due to knowledge passed directly down from spirits and gods known to exist.  Dagna and others are only able to study magic because of this ancient alien knowledge persisting and the exploitation of it instead of mortal scientists building on one theory after another.

 

In a fantasy universe with magic and no higher entities or ancient knowledge, a society would find it nearly impossible to get started on scientific method in the first place.  In the real world we're free of such energies and complications.  If a civilization existed in our universe which started on a planet with a long dead, but highly advanced civilization with leftover technology, they would have similar problems as magical ones.  Sure they could "cheat" by exploiting the magic/nanobots/whatever and thereby advance their civilizations past industrial age/modern era, but they would have serious gaps in understanding and logic that would be problematic for testing and proving general theories.  So no nuclear power or advanced spaceflight, but they may have magical power and magical teleportation instead because of the pure potential of magic.

 

They would always be searching for left over knowledge or gods to fill in the blanks over scientific method, because magic by its nature lends itself very well to there being a higher power directly interfering in things with magic as a tool.  It's probably almost guaranteed they do exist even as a byproduct of magic itself (because its usually an infinite energy that can be manipulated with willpower and the focusing/augmentation of it).

[Nerevar-as]

They manage pretty well in the witcher setting. They apply scientifical methods to magic and alchemy, in the end they are parts of nature in such worlds, and can be investigated like any other science. They even have universities. Main problem is that with increasing knowledge they start to dismiss things that don´t fit such knowledge as non existant. Much to witchers´ eye-rolling when told something they´ve already come across can´t possibly exist.

 

The Kingkiller Chronicles also has magical universities, and they include different areas, such as runes, naming, or more mundane like medicine or zoology. There´s a kind of monotheistic christian-like religion, but is mostly susperstition from uncomplete knowledge by whoever made it up. For instance they talk about about demons where the fae are involved.

[9TailsFox]

What I'm saying is not so much that magic can't work with scientific method (in my own post I mention sci-fi settings where the "magic" could be just highly advanced technology).  It's more about how do you as a society get started with scientific method, without "help," when you have a force or energy like magic that would bend reality in near infinite ways.  Ways that would make coming up with non-magical based theories nearly impossible until you understand magic outright first, which is so highly advanced that you would "need" something or someone with prior/overall knowledge to help guide you.  Without such knowledge you would be stuck in lala land getting different results depending on how much magic interferes with a physics based theory or vice versa.  In Dragon Age the main obstacle would be how thick or thin the veil is.

 

This is why fantasy settings depend so much on searching for dieties and higher powers to help solve the mysteries of the universe.  Which they usually do.  It's very hard to sit down and figure out magic or non-magical theories when both intersect causing so many unknown variables that cannot be tested.  Even in Dragon Age the big magical breakthroughs that allowed the study of magic to proceed was due to knowledge passed directly down from spirits and gods known to exist.  Dagna and others are only able to study magic because of this ancient alien knowledge persisting and the exploitation of it instead of mortal scientists building on one theory after another.

 

In a fantasy universe with magic and no higher entities or ancient knowledge, a society would find it nearly impossible to get started on scientific method in the first place.  In the real world we're free of such energies and complications.  If a civilization existed in our universe which started on a planet with a long dead, but highly advanced civilization with leftover technology, they would have similar problems as magical ones.  Sure they could "cheat" by exploiting the magic/nanobots/whatever and thereby advance their civilizations past industrial age/modern era, but they would have serious gaps in understanding and logic that would be problematic for testing and proving general theories.  So no nuclear power or advanced spaceflight, but they may have magical power and magical teleportation instead because of the pure potential of magic.

 

They would always be searching for left over knowledge or gods to fill in the blanks over scientific method, because magic by its nature lends itself very well to there being a higher power directly interfering in things with magic as a tool.  It's probably almost guaranteed they do exist even as a byproduct of magic itself (because its usually an infinite energy that can be manipulated with willpower and the focusing/augmentation of it).

But what you describing fits Mass effect ski-fi universe perfectly .

We have magis biotics. If i understand all asari can use magic biotics, some humans, and turians can't use biotics fix me if I am wrong. And it's perfectly explained how magic works, without some godly beings.

We have gods reapers.

Ancient elf's proteans.

 

Mass effect is perfect fantasy game in space.

[Heimdall]

They manage pretty well in the witcher setting. They apply scientifical methods to magic and alchemy, in the end they are parts of nature in such worlds, and can be investigated like any other science. They even have universities. Main problem is that with increasing knowledge they start to dismiss things that don´t fit such knowledge as non existant. Much to witchers´ eye-rolling when told something they´ve already come across can´t possibly exist.

 

The Kingkiller Chronicles also has magical universities, and they include different areas, such as runes, naming, or more mundane like medicine or zoology. There´s a kind of monotheistic christian-like religion, but is mostly susperstition from uncomplete knowledge by whoever made it up. For instance they talk about about demons where the fae are involved.

I agree with this.  As long as magic follows perceivable rules it can be studied and explored with the scientific method.  That being said, magic's ability to subvert the more mundane workings of the world could prove a barrier to their study.  And obviously the practical applications of magic could forestall the incentive for technological advancement.

 

Not directed at Nerevar-as: I'm going to comment on the whole religion-science thing for a moment.  I think it's a mistake to directly link scientific thought with a declining prominence of religion.  For starters, I think science and religion serve very different purposes and have different goals (They're not focused on the same questions).  As a previous poster noted, religion is more about community and social order than understanding the mechanics of the universe.  And its goal in explaining the world is to give context to human existence, not understanding mathematical mechanics.

 

Furthermore, I wrote a paper last spring on the secularization of religion in western thought and I came to the conclusion that science (though it could be considered a contributing factor in more recent times) had less to do with religion's declining prominence in the public sphere than the protestant reformation (The shattering of the homogeneous religious block that had been a uniting factor for Europeans for centuries) and the subsequent decline in religion's usefulness in creating a common sense of community, necessitating a more secular focus for common dialogue.  And really the attitude that science and religion are two incompatible concepts only became popular in the 1800s.  The idea of a longstanding intrinsic conflict between science and religion has been largely discredited by historians.

[SwobyJ]

Material involving the elven gods makes me think that they are, or were, are continue to be tapped into some form of existence that can be considered Lovecraftian.

 

It may manifest in other ways (man, humanoid god, etc), but I think we visited the Green Fade and its utter weirdness (even if this was a more Nightmare portion of it) for a reason.

 

I tend to wonder if their history goes beyond just the 'they're just people' presumption most of us are left with in DAI.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

One would think it shouldn't be *that* hard to discard a thoroughly implausible belief, but what it actually means in most cases, how it feels for people, is to remove yourself, or partially remove yourself, from a community of like-minded people you've been comfortable with for years, many of them your friends and family.

 

I do not really find it more plausible to think that an intricate, complex world came from nothing than to think an all-powerful, all-intelligent being came out nothing and then proceeded to create said world (and lesser beings).

 

Truth be told I actually want to be wrong because I would rather see death as a nice, long nap than to think there is a Hell and that I might be going there.

[9TailsFox]

I do not really find it more plausible to think that an intricate, complex world came from nothing than to think an all-powerful, all-intelligent being came out nothing and then proceeded to create said world (and lesser beings).

 

Truth be told I actually want to be wrong because I would rather see death as a nice, long nap than to think there is a Hell and that I might be going there.

This same. And now matter how powerful you are there will always be someone stronger.

[Dieb]

I do not really find it more plausible to think that an intricate, complex world came from nothing than to think an all-powerful, all-intelligent being came out nothing and then proceeded to create said world (and lesser beings).

 

Truth be told I actually want to be wrong because I would rather see death as a nice, long nap than to think there is a Hell and that I might be going there.

 

Are we talking Milky Way or DA universe now? Because no progressive, educated atheist believes the world came to be from "nothing". There's a difference in just not liking religion, or having decided there is an (not absolute but) overwhelming amount of evidence that it's just once-practical, wishful thinking.

 

It is my very personal assumption that specifically the inability to grasp the idea of simply ceasing to exist, is what brought forth & sustains all religions at their very basis.

[Heimdall]

Are we talking Milky Way or DA universe now? Because no progressive, educated atheist believes the world came to be from "nothing". There's a difference in just not liking religion, or having decided there is an (not absolute but) overwhelming amount of evidence that it's just once-practical, wishful thinking.

 

It is my very personal assumption that specifically the inability to grasp the idea of simply ceasing to exist, is what brought forth & sustains all religions at their very basis.

Well, not wanting to keep venturing too far offtopic, but various religions have different focuses and many tend to have a an emphasis on social relations and proper conduct in life, not just for the sake of what happens after.  Take Judaism for instance, jewish texts have almost nothing to say on the subject of an afterlife, especially compared to Islam and Christianity.  They emphasize more that good and bad actions will be rewarded by God in this life, whether those rewards and punishments will continue past death isn't very important.

 

Just FYI, not all religions are overly concerned with the afterlife.

[Dieb]

Just FYI, not all religions are overly concerned with the afterlife.

 

Why yes.

 

They absolutely are, without exception. The reason why I can have that certainty is rather simple, and less presumptuous than it may seem:

 

The afterlife simply is not something you can or cannot cover. It is an idea. In fact, it is something that only exists when it is covered at all. If a religion says there is an afterlife (which Judaism does) then they by default go as far as imagining a wholly new state of existence, with an inherent ruleset and what have you - and very much felt the need to, obviously. Whether it is reincarnation, a supposed new state of mind, or anything else that removes the absolute of the end, there is not a single recorded religion in history whose teachings end with the believer's death.

 

I wasn't claiming anything more -though I still believe that's quite enough- and I do realize that of all the world religions, Juadism is possibly the least focused on it.

 

 

How did we get here? I'm sorry I had to pile on.

[Heimdall]

Why yes.

 

They absolutely are, without exception. The reason why I can have that certainty is rather simple, and less presumptuous than it may seem:

 

The afterlife simply is not something you can or cannot cover. It is an idea. In fact, it is something that only exists when it is covered at all. If a religion says there is an afterlife (which Judaism does) then they by default go as far as imagining a wholly new state of existence, with an inherent ruleset and what have you - and very much felt the need to, obviously. Whether it is reincarnation, a supposed new state of mind, or anything else that removes the absolute of the end, there is not a single recorded religion in history whose teachings end with the believer's death.

 

I wasn't claiming anything more -though I still believe that's quite enough- and I do realize that of all the world religions, Juadism is possibly the least focused on it.

 

 

How did we get here? I'm sorry I had to pile on.

Sure, the idea exists in most religions that I know of, though I was under the impression you were stating that all religions had a concern for what comes after death as their underlying basis.  I was just pointing out that even when the idea exists it isn't always a major part of the faith and its teachings are not always focused on the issue.  That much is true of judaism.

 

I just think it's an oversimplification of what drives religious belief.  Or overly specific rather.  Any system of belief that seeks to explain the "why" of human existence has to confront the question of death eventually.  It doesn't need to start there, and as I said earlier, the function of religion in a society is largely about creating a sense of community around a set of values and beliefs.  It goes beyond the need for an afterlife explanation.

 

Okay, that's the last post I'll make on the topic.

[Ariella]

Well, not wanting to keep venturing too far offtopic, but various religions have different focuses and many tend to have a an emphasis on social relations and proper conduct in life, not just for the sake of what happens after.  Take Jewdaism for instance, jewish texts have almost nothing to say on the subject of an afterlife, especially compared to Islam and Christianity.  They emphasize more that good and bad actions will be rewarded by God in this life, whether those rewards and punishments will continue past death isn't very important.
 
Just FYI, not all religions are overly concerned with the afterlife.

Correct except for one thing Heimdall, it's Judaism. Not trying to be the spelling police but also being Jewish...

But yes, Judaism pretty much focuses on what is in this life and very little is said about The World to Come (I'd try and transliterate the Hebrew for it but I'd twist my fingers into knots).

As for if I believe the Maker exists. I'm not sure, and I'm not sure it matters. What matters is if my characters believe. Like my Hawke believes but would rather have the Maker not bother her. My Trevelyan does believe but doesn't believe she's chosen. My Lavellen doesn't believe at all and wants to run screaming into the night at the very idea of becoming a standard bearer for the Chantry.

One of my favorite lines about faith comes, ironically, from the book of Hebrews 11:1 (Hebrews is in the Old Testament but not in the actual Hebrew Bible). I learned it from watching West Wing, but heh...

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

I think how our believers (Cassandra, Cullen, even Leliana) deal with themselves in DAI underscores the point 11:1 makes.

[Heimdall]

Correct except for one thing Heimdall, it's Judaism. Not trying to be the spelling police but also being Jewish...

Do'h

 

I knew I was spelling it wrong but I forgot how to do it right.  My cousin is Jewish, I shouldn't be getting this wrong  

 

EDIT: Fixed

[Ariella]

Do'h

 

I knew I was spelling it wrong but I forgot how to do it right.  My cousin is Jewish, I should be able to do this 

 

Sokay. I don't think I can count how many words I mange like that. In fact, I don't think it's possible for a human to count that high.

[Ieldra]

I do not really find it more plausible to think that an intricate, complex world came from nothing than to think an all-powerful, all-intelligent being came out nothing and then proceeded to create said world (and lesser beings).

That is not what I said - I didn't say anything about something coming from nothing, but about things being eternal. Disregarding the merit of either idea as such, your argument would apply to both, though, and indeed if you start with zero evidence of anything, it is true. However, we do not start with nothing. We have the world (I include the Fade since it's explorable and follows specific laws and is as such, part of nature), and no evidence of anything more. So if *something* must be eternal, or come from nothing, it's more plausible to assume it's the world, rather than assume an additional entity out of the blue.

I was talking about Thedas, btw.. The arguments I made are intentionally of a kind a Thedosian scholar could use. For the real world, I'd use a very different line of reasoning.

[Magdalena11]

I do not really find it more plausible to think that an intricate, complex world came from nothing than to think an all-powerful, all-intelligent being came out nothing and then proceeded to create said world (and lesser beings).

 

Truth be told I actually want to be wrong because I would rather see death as a nice, long nap than to think there is a Hell and that I might be going there.

Point #1 you're right.  Why shouldn't both be true?  The laws of entropy state that an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force.  It had to come from somewhere.  Why not an intricate, all-powerful being.  Of course, every baby born is one, just saying'.

 

Point #2.No one knows.  My first husband, who died too young, had a cool idea.  You decide your own fate.  This is where it gets a bit creepy.

 

Some people, he thought, want to suffer or need to learn something.  They stay on until they've finished.  Others are here to teach someone else the way.  Some are born closer to God, or find out how to become closer.  When it's their time, they move on to a place of their own choosing.  He outright rejected the idea that anyone else could be responsible for his salvation than he himself.  He'd either save himself or eternally die trying.  He also believed that the ends never justified the means, and he'd find a way to survive anyway and do it honestly.  He also never believed in anything oomy-goomy.  Spirits, "ghosts", memories, and powers he didn't understand, yes, but evil that existed outside the hurtful actions of others, no.  He had no respect for women or people of color or anyone who claimed to be religious, at all.  But he loved a dark, Native American woman who was brought up in as strict and fundamental a religious environment as you want to imagine, and he did so with all his soul.  When he said what he believed, no one could ever find a reason to dispute his beliefs, even my over-protective right-wing, daddy-knows-best-for-his-little-girl father or mainstream Christian minister.  When we were planning his funeral, the minister even commented how much he'd learned about his own faith when I shared my husband's.

 

Do you want to know what he believed happened when you die?  Whatever you expect.  For you, it will be a nice, restful nap, and you will wake refreshed and receptive to wonder.  There will be truth and there will be beauty.  There will be no more pain than you've already endured, and you endured it and still found joy, so it won't matter to you.  The worst and best thing that can happen is that you might get to come back and give it another go as somebody else.  Hell is for people with evil minds.  You're not going to see it.

[Balek-Vriege]

But what you describing fits Mass effect ski-fi universe perfectly .

We have magis biotics. If i understand all asari can use magic biotics, some humans, and turians can't use biotics fix me if I am wrong. And it's perfectly explained how magic works, without some godly beings.

We have gods reapers.

Ancient elf's proteans.

 

Mass effect is perfect fantasy game in space.

 

Yes it is.  Endless Space is another Sci-Fi fantasy in that regard. 

 

But that's not quite what I was getting at.

 

I'm not talking about a civilization or a society that "discovers" an advance technology or "magic" after tens of thousands of years of normal progress and development.  Where science and scientific method are allowed to flourish and proven as a viable tool before outright magical-like properties are introduced.  Remember human civilization developed mostly without intervention in ME as did most of the others until finding Relays.  Nor am I saying that magic can't be treated, studied or explained like or as technology.  I could easily explain how DA's Fade and magic is all advanced technology and the gods are ancient astronauts or something.

 

What I'm really talking about are societies and civilizations that start in high magic, or for arguments sake, high magic-like technology worlds where their tiny tribes have always had access to magic and infinite sources of energy.

 

A society where from the first intellectual thought they had, were able to tap into and influence magic-like forces and vice versa.  The question is how would this affect scientific method and technological progress?  Would you ever create fire, fire transportation and the bow&arrow or would you just fling fireballs with your mind?  Would you ever develop advanced math past basic measurements or use magic to execute perfect measurement based on how you imagined something?

 

Would belief in higher powers be garantueed?  Would the existence of magic basically guarantee the eventual rise and existence of higher powers (if they didn't exist before) like gods?  Would these entities with their power and knowledge eventually outweigh the need for scientific progress in any meaningful way societies started to depend on them for complete guidance?  Would the oldest and most powerful ones eventually grow into all powerful, universe spanning gods if they gained enough power over magic?

 

I would say yes to almost all these questions.  Having access to such power from an early history would almost certainly effect the development of civilizations.   It could make them stagnant unless magic is abandoned or something or someone powerful enough arose to guide them.  Or those societies would develop in a completely alien way that is a lot different than our medieval magical fantasy settings.

 

The DAI universe shows all of this quite well in a traditional fantasy way.  The high magic civilizations have become utterly stagnant after the disappearance of their gods (Elven Pantheon, Forgotten Ones, Old Gods) and have actually regressed.  They were all dependent on them for knowledge and guidance that once gone, left many gaps in magical and worldly understanding paralyzing the abandoned societies.  So did their technology.  Although magic is now shunned in modern Thedas, they still turn to magic (whether it be Lyrium or Mages) every time they have trouble rather than developing new stuff.  Siege equipment and architecture seems to be the only real advancement in Thedas for a millennia.

 

  The Qunari are very independent of gods and magic, with a very efficient, caste/role-based and ambitious culture.  This has made them a technological powerhouse more along real-world lines.  They are not stagnant and are always on the move.  However, I question whether they can advance much further than a second industrial age, because the Fade and the Veil would certainly mess up more advanced theories in physics and what we consider modern science.

 

  DA gods, including creation deities, may all be byproduct of magic rather than the creators of it. The revelations about about Nightmare, the Fade Divine, Avvar spirit gods support this.  In the DA universe dreams and willpower affect the Fade, magic and the veil.  It's very possible that the people of the DA universe create their gods through spirit manifestations including their creation deities.  The Maker, Elven Gods, Forgotten Ones, and Old Gods may just be spirit aspects of the same thing.  Since they're possibly figments of dreams, who's to say they don't truly become what they're dreamt to be?  Like the spirit Divine may very well be the true Divine Justinia in everyway save for being a spirit version.  What's stopping a spirit becoming the embodiment of an all creator like the Maker due to Fade mechanics?  Even if one didn't originally exist?

 

Warhammer 40K also plays around with this when it comes to Chaos Gods and the Warp (Warp is basically the Fade and the source of 40K magic).

 

I would say the Maker exists based on the above.  Whether it truly "is" the Maker is another question entirely that can never be answered cause magic.

 

It would be interesting to have an all powerful god that believes it created the universe and has the power to do so, but in reality was created by mortal dreams after the fact.

[Ieldra]

@Balek-Vriege:

I'd say it depends. Science and technology are driven by perceived limitations. As long as perceived limitations exist, there will be a drive to innovate. So "high magic will prevent science from being developed" is too simple. Can anyone use magic or is it limited to the "gifted"? In that case some un-gifted will eventually try to find out why they can't do it, or how to do the same things with different methods. Has magic observable rules? In that case, eventually someone will find them and apply them, and attempt to find out more about how magic works, or how to push the limits. You know, science started with simple observation: if I do X, Y happens.

 

The only kind of world where this wouldn't happen is a Fade-like world, where everything is shaped directly by the will of its denizens, and where is no limit on the things you can shape except the will of others. I can imagine such an "unlimited [techno-]magic" kind of world, by they're very rare in fiction.

 

As for the effects of the Fade on a culture like the qunari's, that's also debatable. Theories about the world will have to take the Fade into account, but why shouldn't that be possible?

 

Regarding gods being the product of magic, that's plausible, but there is a limit to the kind of entity the collective imagination of believers could create. In particular, any such entity would be bound by the rules of the Fade, and thus a creator god can't be made that way. As you say, it might believe itself to be different, but wouldn't be. Perhaps it's just as well that there is no evidence whatsoever for such a thing... if people could believe their gods into existence, even in a minor way, that would be extremely dangerous. I consider such "gods" weapons of mass destruction beyond anything magic has ever been able to do.

[Jackums]

This is untrue. You can dismiss a creator god simply because it's a non-explanation by any logic.

This is assuming an axiom of objectivism. Rationale determines any experience can only be affirmed by another subjective experience, and thus science is based just as much upon faith as religion is (in absolute terms) by the very logic you use to attack the idea of a deity.

 

If you can dismiss supposition of a god based on inability to logically explain it, you're equally as obligated to dismiss science based on the rational conclusion that science itself is derived from our senses and perception of the world, which is innately, by our logic, impossible to prove as objective (hello paradox). You're assigning all conclusion to a basis of innate validity in what we perceive as being reality, yet our own rational conclusion determines that we cannot affirm such. It becomes arbitrary cherry-picking when you try quantify validity by saying, "science has X amount of subjective logical evidence, whereas religion has a lesser Y amount of subjective logical evidence." It's still subjective both ways; 0x500 vs 0x5.

[Dieb]

This is assuming an axiom of objectivism. Rationale determines any experience can only be affirmed by another subjective experience, and thus science is based just as much upon faith as religion is (in absolute terms) by the very logic you use to attack the idea of a deity.

 

If you can dismiss supposition of a god based on inability to logically explain it, you're equally as obligated to dismiss science based on the rational conclusion that science itself is derived from our senses and perception of the world, which is innately, by our logic, impossible to prove as objective (hello paradox). You're assigning all conclusion to a basis of innate validity in what we perceive as being reality, yet our own rational conclusion determines that we cannot affirm such. It becomes arbitrary cherry-picking when you try quantify validity by saying, "science has X amount of subjective logical evidence, whereas religion has a lesser Y amount of subjective logical evidence." It's still subjective both ways; 0x500 vs 0x5.

 

That's an interesting line of thinking, but I still have to disagree.

 

Scientific observations & phenomena can be repeated and precisely anticipated. More importantly, they will continue to happen - Whether people choose to believe in them or not. Obviously though, if one chooses not to believe in evidence or question the ultimate reality of physical objects, there is only so much that can be done about it. Everything we say and do must revolve around our own perception, human's scientific efforts are no exception of that, and literally nothing ever will be. Simply because you could add that, what we can never experience (including being afflicted by it), will never concern us.

 

As peculiar that thought construct may be, it revolves in a perpetual motion around its own sake, and that makes it a very odd basis for any discussion.