Yes, I know that. To be perfectly honest, in my opinion, I think many atheists on BSN oftentimes have a tendency to let their real life beliefs unduly bias their perspectives on the Chantry. Because the fact of the matter is whatever you think about the truth of religious doctrine in real life is basically irrelevant to what direction Bioware will eventually take their own franchise. Whether or not God exists in real life has no bearing on whether the Maker exists in Bioware's setting.
I also think you're completely off base with the idea that the existence of supernatural creatures and powers inherently disproves the very concept that there is such a thing as divinity that separates gods from mortals. In both monotheistic and polytheistic religions, there exists the concept of supernatural beings, yet that doesn't mean they are all considered gods. Stories about supernatural or inhumanly powerful beings go back a long way, yet it has never undermined the premise of the divinity of gods in those same stories.
But real life religion isn't even the main reason for my perspective on this. There are many fantasy settings that are filled with magical beings where divinity is not an unclear or gibberish concept. In many D&D settings, gods exist with quantifiable divine powers and nature. Yet there are also many examples of non-divine magical beings. Bahamut and Tiamat are gods, a Dracolich is not, even if it was arrogant enough to think of itself as one. In the Warcraft universe, even powerful mages are arcane spellcasters do not use divine magic. The demon lords of the Burning Legion are not gods. But Elune is a goddess, and her priestesses use her divine powers. In Lord of the Rings, despite being magic and immortal, Lord Elrond is not a divine being. The Balrogs are not gods. Eru however, is.
Solas occasionally suggests that there is an actual standard for godhood that he and the Evanuris don't meet. But he also seems to imply that if there were such a thing as The Maker, he would meet it.
The reveal about the Evanuris, to me, is basically the equivalent of the dragon gods in one of the D&D settings being revealed to be powerful but ordinary dragons.
I think you're conflating a number of ideas. My point about atheism is simply that we as people have different standards for the kind of evidence we would be inclined to say "disproves" a deity, as if such a concept were even possible. Different religious beliefs make radically different claims about the nature of divinity and the divine, as well as what it means to be a god. Acting as if these set down a universal standard is misguided by the very internal logic of the belief system we use.
Second, you misunderstood my point on the supernatural. It's twofold. The first is that IRL, we often draw a distinction between what is possible in reality and describable in the mechanical terms of science and what was thought possible in mythology. As a point in fact science rooted itself in ideas of natural philosophy and natural magic that sought mechanical descriptions for these phenomenon but that's besides the point. The essence of my point here is that the mere fact magic is real and allows supernatural feats does not mean a divine being is more or less likely to exist - it's an irrelevant feature. With one exception. The supernatural seems to endow beings with exactly those features we IRL argue are indicative of godhood. This ties in with the second point.
"Divinity" has no conceptual, a priori universal meaning. Throughout this thread you've made reference to real and fantasy mythology to draw a distinction between, say, a Pharaoh and Zeus. But this is a vacuous comparison because you've told us nothing about what it means to be "divine". Given how humanized the Greek gods appear to be apart from their superpowers - superpowers that mages have by nature in DA and the elvhen had in away incomprehensible to modern Thedas - the only unique feature to their nature apart from certain traits (immortality in the sense of agelessness that again all elves have) is that they were materially different kinds of beings from humans. They had something intrinsic to their nature that set them apart from human and we call it divine.
Well, in DAI we do have beings who are actually worshipped as having a divine spark - spirits, by the Avaar.
So my point is this: it's entirely plausible that the Evanuris have ALL the traits we ascribe to Greek gods, including that they are materially different beings from their worshipers. You go on to say this isn't good enough because somehow they're laying in this ill-defined concept of divinity - but the whole point is who gets to say that? There's no way from an internal perspective - from a person actually living and inhabiting this world - to say whether a being titling itself a god has this spark.
Solas says there's a standard HE believes denotes godhood and generally denies that any gods exist. His opinion on divinity isn't anything more than an opinion - even on the very fact of whether HE is a god.
The analogy to FR just doesn't work. It doesn't work because the concept of Gods that setting uses is gibberish. How does Kelevemor the mortal become a god? Because basically supergod makes him one. I would argue frankly none of the gods in FR are in any way gods and in fact that they are exactly what the Evanuris purport to be, except made that way by a potential supergod.
The point is that something isn't divine because the author says - this thing has divinity. That's beyond stupid, and that's part of the more sophisticated point being made intentionally or not in DAI.
Retour en haut
.
