Since it wasn't yet written when this thread was originally posted... consider this the obligatory plug for Death's Heretic, a novel all about an atheist in Golarion. :)Well I might just have to check it out then!
You won't regret it.
|
I frequently hear that, but have yet to see it. I would characterize him as not suffering fools gladly, though perhaps you've seen something I haven't.
Re-read some of his statements thinking as a religious person. He insults us pretty directly fairly often. I get that he really believes what he's saying, and some religious people probably deserve it, but that really doesn't make it any better.
Deadman - I didn't mean to offend - the point he was making is actually in support of polytheism. Basically western culture likes to deride polytheistic religions as primitive in comparison to the predominant monotheistic religions, which is hogwash.
It is indeed. :) That's...not quite how the comment came off (it seemed like you were saying that polytheism was the least developed, folowed by monotheism, followed by atheism as most developed...which is an argument I've seen before.)
And I wasn't really offended, just felt the need to step up and make my presence known. :)
I don't think Dawkins is a "giant dick", I do think he's an activist. I whole-heartedly agree that people in general are over-sensitive about religion, and that it enjoys a special place in american culture where you can't even really question it, and that that probably shouldn't be the case.
Dawkins is indeed an activist. And for a cause that needs them. He's also apparently a decent guy in his personal life (and a member of the 'Dr. Who family' which wins him major points of geek cred).
However, none of this makes him less of a dick to religious people, when speaking out on the subject. I mean let's look at the very title of one of his books 'The God Delusion' I mean, the title alone is calling me (and everyone else with religious beliefs) delusional, and that's really not a good way to start a conversation on the subject. The interior is not a notably less confrontational, either.
From the perspective of his activities as an activist, this is actually a problem, as (while I've met a number of atheists who sing his praises) my attitude towards him is mild compared to that of every other religious person I've met who's aware of his existence...which in a very real sense means he's preaching to the choir, and only serving to reinforce the point of view of those who already believe as he does, not actually win others to the cause of supporting atheism or the rights of atheists.
And religion is an extremely sensitive subject for a reason. People care about their religion and it is often a major part of their identity, and attacking that (which is something Dawkins does) is extremely personally offensive to many (not me, mostly, but I'm weird).
Speaking of which, for the record, I'd also like to state that I believe atheism is the only rational and empirically based belief structure available. Any religious belief is inherently an irrational act. But then, so's faling in love. Hell, ignoring the rational reasons not to believe is what faith is about, that's why it's faith, and not knowledge. People who seek an empirical reason to believe in a God or Gods are, IMO, missing the damn point.
I really enjoyed his defense against being called a fundamentalist. I can see where people would have problems with him as he handles a culturally sensitive subject rather roughly, but I think it's a good thing that the discussion is happening.
I definitely agree that the fact that the discussion is occurring is worthwhile, I just tend to think that Dwakins shouldn't be the face atheism is presenting to the world. It's not winning friends and influencing people, if you know what I mean.
@LazarX: Based on his backstory Ezren's attitude probably has a lot more to do with his impression that the Gods (specifically Abadar) are completely unconcerned with the lives of mortals. He's kinda wasted his whole life thus far trying to prove something to the Church of Abadar after all, and I'd interpret his atheism as a defiance of the Gods and unwillingness to go through that again or jump through hoops for their favor.
Treppa - Well now I HAVE to....
Thanks, Treppa and Joe! Glad you liked it! :D
|
Why would a god grant one of their clerics power to heal an atheist, especially an atheist who actively denies that gods existance? Perhaps once or twice as a demonstration of his power and as an attempt to convert the non-believer; but not continually. In home games that I DM, the gods are much more selective in their granting of healing power, and do not grant it to non worshippers as willingly as they do to believers. Golarion is a setting in which gods demonstrably exist and actively participate in the affairs of man. After a point, atheists should have to make do with cure potions only.
I sincerely doubt deities micromanage the dispensing of spells to their clerics in that manner. They have much more important things to do.
I frequently hear that, but have yet to see it. I would characterize him as not suffering fools gladly, though perhaps you've seen something I haven't.Re-read some of his statements thinking as a religious person. He insults us pretty directly fairly often. I get that he really believes what he's saying, and some religious people probably deserve it, but that really doesn't make it any better.
Pointing out that faith is irrational is not an insult. Blunt? Certainly. But that's different.
Maybe it would help if you provided a specific example.
I don't really see the nation mentioned as atheistic. Call the entities that grant special powers to their worshipers what they will, ultimately they know that these powerful magical beings exist. Instead, they are anti-theistic, in that they actively oppose said magical entities.
As for Dawkins, I've actually read "The God Delusion" and have to say that he has very good points to share. The issue with discussing atheism, agnosticism, or non-religious views in general is that while many people would be happy to discuss differences in beliefs and the reasons for them, there is a cultural trend to shut down the discussion before it begins. Especially in the United States. While attending college back in the fall, I was briefly part of the atheist and agnostic freethinkers group there, and every time they did a group activity to increase awareness of secular worldviews (and in a non-offensive way, I might add) every church group in the area would show up around campus to proselytize at the exact same time. They would place themselves strategically as to block off people from reaching the stand and use up the time of passers by so that they wouldn't have any time to talk to us. There would be a hundred and one different religious fliers taking up every possible space on every wall they could, as if to completely block the atheists and agnostics from putting anything up. The activity was most certainly deliberate - when we weren't trying to raise awareness, their ads would disappear without a trace, replaced by the usual club activities, scholarships, and other information one would expect on a college campus.
So while I agree that the title of his book is offensive, I kind of have to say there is a very good reason for why he chose that title over something else. If it had been nice, it probably wouldn't have been able to push through the silent offensive of theists that wanted to keep people from being aware of his book.
|
|
Why would a god grant one of their clerics power to heal an atheist, especially an atheist who actively denies that gods existance? Perhaps once or twice as a demonstration of his power and as an attempt to convert the non-believer; but not continually.
Wow. That God's a dick. Why should a Good aligned God not grant the ability to heal and otherwise reduce the suffering of anyone in need? He's probably not gonna trust non-followers to be granted that power, but why would he object to their using it to help people? Isn't that what being good is all about, helping people even when it's not directly in your interests?
Pointing out that faith is irrational is not an insult. Blunt? Certainly. But that's different.
Did you catch me outright admitting that in my post? Because I totally admit it and don't consider it an insult per se. But there's a difference between 'irrational' and 'delusional' that makes the latter pretty clearly an insult.
Maybe it would help if you provided a specific example.
Hmmm *skims through The God Delusion a bit, sees several offensive things that are borderline, skips them for something more clear cut* Okay, in Chapter 2, in the section on Polytheism, he refers to the Hindu belief that all Gods are really reflections of the same God as 'sophistry' (which it's really not) and equates it with the Cathoic Trinity (which isn't quite right either), and goes on to ridicule the Catholic idea of the trinity in depth, not only as irrational or not supported or supportable by evidence (which is true) but in terms that are, for lack of a beter word, deeply personal. It's mostly not what he says, but how he says it (at least in print), though his lack of understanding and in-depth research into non-Christian religion (while admitted) is also both apparent and a bit annoying.
As a more vitriolic example (albeit an understandable one under the circumstances), the following quote is attributed to him on wikipedia, as an immediate response after the September 11th attack:
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!
Which rather ignores the Tamil Tigers and other atheistic terrorists (and suicide bombers), and the almost overwhelmingly cultural (as opposed to religious) nature of the grievances the terrorists had with the U.S. As well as tarring all religious affiliations with the same brush as that of the terrorists in question.
I don't really see the nation mentioned as atheistic. Call the entities that grant special powers to their worshipers what they will, ultimately they know that these powerful magical beings exist. Instead, they are anti-theistic, in that they actively oppose said magical entities.
Debatably. It's realy hard to justify being atheistic in the sense of unbelief in a world where the objective evidence universally supports their existence. Denying their divinity or right to rule over humanity seems the only way one could be legitimately atheistic in the least in such a world.
As for Dawkins, I've actually read "The God Delusion" and have to say that he has very good points to share. The issue with discussing atheism, agnosticism, or non-religious views in general is that while many people would be happy to discuss differences in beliefs and the reasons for them, there is a cultural trend to shut down the discussion before it begins. Especially in the United States.
I don't disagree with this. Indeed, speaking as a Pagan, I've been known to run into the same thing. And speaking as an empiricist, I agree with and support non-religious views being given a full hearing, which I admit they are often not.
So while I agree that the title of his book is offensive, I kind of have to say there is a very good reason for why he chose that title over something else. If it had been nice, it probably wouldn't have been able to push through the silent offensive of theists that wanted to keep people from being aware of his book.
And here we run into problems. By titling it that way it got some publicity and perhaps a few more atheists read it than might otherwise have been inclined to do so. And simultaneously, anyone religious who might otherwise have been at all inclined to look at it was vastly less likely to do so. Which of those two groups seems to you to be more likely to need additional convincing in regards to this topic?
Preaching to the choir is always somewhat inneffective in terms of spreading the message.
Mortals don't really have much concrete proof of deities, even in Pathfinder. Sure, there's stories of friends of friends who knew a guy who totally saw a god appear to him. Of course, he was drunk and was stumbling by the College of Flashy Illusions.
Magic happens, sure. Divine magic happens because there are planes for positive and negative energy, and it's just as possible that they draw from those rather than direct divine intervention. Maybe holy symbols just give them the placebo effect they need to call on it.
The dead? Who knows, they may just be spirits. They may be deluded or lying or just on a plane they confuse for their god's.
Outsiders and Asmodeus and Demon Princes? Sure, they're made in a different way but they're not necessarily divine. Asmodeus is powerful, sure, but why must that mean he's Divine?
The above are not true statements, but they are ones that could reasonably be posited by a pathfinder atheist.
I like to play it where gods don't really interact with the mortal world. They are too busy in their own realm. So whether or not they even exist is quite the valid question for someone not metagaming, I think.
|
|
@Shah Jahan the King of Kings:
Clerics are pretty compelling evidence of Deity existence, being able to actually talk to them and get answers via commune (and do so in a verifiable and consistent fashion), but the biggest, most important thing is that a powerful atheistic Wizard can actually go and meet them. Planar travel is very possible, after all. And, well, basically all the other evidence (gathered any way you'd care to name) supports their existence.
Can some individual deny all this, say that people who claim this are lying, even if they have no reason to? Sure. People deny the Holocaust and say the Moon Landing was faked, or even believe the Earth is flat in today's world...but they aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of other people.
Now, the argument that the Gods exist, but are not divine beings worthy of worship (as discussed in the last point you make) is a lot more justifiable in-setting (and that used by Rahadoum)...but it runs into it's own problem:
Specifically, that nobody claims that being divine makes one morally superior to the non-divine, just more powerful. Worshipping them is simply acknowledging them as more powerful and supportive of ideals that you also tend to subscribe to (or are requesting some favor of them). By rejecting that worship you're actually declaring that they are less moral and worthy of veneration than powerful mortals, simply because of their divinity...which is why Rahadoum is kinda weird.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Athiests are more compassionate and generous than the highly religious. FYI. ;-)
Huh. I just got around to reading the actual study linked to in that article and that's not what the actual study says at all, interestingly enough.
What the study actually concluded was that non-religious people were more inclined to respond to prompts, such as a video of hungry children, by being generous. Religious people remained much closer to equally generous regardless of stimuli.
That's how the operationalized compassion, by the way, as responding to directly percieved injustice or misfortune.
Or to put it another way: The study's conclusion was that the non-religious are more likely than religious folks to respond monetariuly to the actual sight or knowledge of people in trouble. Religious folks acted the same whether they saw or heard of such people or not.
Or another: The study didn't measure who gives more money to charity, or is more inclined to be nice to people, it measured who those 'Children In Need' ads work on (non-religious people, apparently).
It basically measures impulsive, as opposed to reasoned or pre-planned, acts of charity. And only such impulsive acts.
.
.
.
Now, personally, I've always been more-or-less immune to those kinds of ads. I know people are in trouble, and I'll give to them or not as my abilities and needs dictate. Putting a face to suffering doesn't make it any more real to me. I've never associated that attitude with my religion, or an religion, though, it's just how I am. Indeed, my atheistic parents are the same way, mostly.
Maybe it's not religiosity, but the lack of a firm belief structure regarding such things they're really measuring?
Now, I'm not saying that atheists or agnostics don't have such a belief structure...but that's not necessarily who the study was observing. They were observing college students who self-identified as 'non-religious', and I suspect that that particularly is a group predominantly without a codified set of beliefs on subjects like charity...which would greatly increase how much they were likely to let momentary emotional responses effect their actions in that area.
Just a random theory.
@ Deadmanwalking- Spells such as Commune tend to ask vague sources. It would be difficult to prove that they are actually speaking to a deity and not simply spirits from beyond- Either a single spirit or a hivemind of spirits, and their assertion that they are asking a deity could be based on belief. Again, it could also be explained away as placebo effect, that they know the answer all along, they just solidify it within themselves through prayer.
Also, planar travel typically does not plop one in front of a deity. Even amongst the planes, divine realms tend to be sealed off from planar travel. Even on their own plane, one would probably not encounter a god. Even in the Abyss, which is more demidivine, you are not likely to run into Orcus or Lolth, even if you are looking for them. They tend to not want to be met by mortals as they have multiverse-shaping decisions to make.
|
|
@Shah Jahan the King of Kings:
Those both really depend on the setting, actually. In both Planescape and Golarion (the two settings I'm most familiar with) there's not actually anything metaphysical (as opposed to things like Gods) stopping you from walking right up to the Gods and saying 'Hey.' It's often extremely unwise, but it can certainly be done. Heck, in Golarion you can summon their Heralds with Greater Planar Ally or Binding and talk to them extensively about their deity (who they know personally, after all). And if you pick, say, a LG one, it's hard to argue they're lying (since their alignment is verifiable).
As for Commune, you can always ask it 'Who are you, and how are you answering my questions?' or similar things. Could it be fake? Sure, so could the moon landings, but the balance of the evidence (and Commune is far from the only evidence) sure points to the Gods existing.
In my campaign setting, (which is not Golarion, but more of a... Eberronish setting if I had to compare it a published one), "Gods" are no more than extremely powerful beings that have committed themselves to an ideology. However, the powers they give to clerics have less to do with their own power but rather the powers they represent. In a world where the power of good and evil are very real things, so are the powers of the elements, law and chaos, war and peace, slavery and freedom, creation and destruction, love and hate, etc. Clerics in my setting draw power through these ideas, either through the tutelage of Gods and clergy, or through personal reflection and discovery (which is much more difficult, hence why most clerics worship a deity.) In my setting, atheists (if you could call them that) believe Gods are nothing but heightened monarchs in a sense, and seek to find their own meanings.
It also helps that in my setting, when a person dies they become a petitioner, free to roam the cosmos and planes (devout ones living with their gods), but usually cannot be perceived if they choose to go to the material plane. Why would anyone go to Hell or the Abyss in this case? Well in Hell they give you a new, powerful body and there is a lot of fun things for a person with low moral fiber to do there. And nobody really goes to the abyss unless something more powerful banishes them.
I could talk all day about this, but I should probably stop there.
I just noticed in the latest Pathfinder that Ezren (the iconic wizard) has his deity listed as "atheism". That makes me wonder what it means to be an atheist in a world where the existence of the divine is so obviously real. Since atheism means to "reject theism" (theism: the belief in the existence one or more divinities or deities) it probably has a different meaning in Golarion. Ezren has an intelligence score of 17 and a wisdom score of 15, he is both smart and insightful enough to realize that the deities are real. So what does it mean to be an atheist in Golarion?
I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if something similar already has been posted but I've been thinking about this as well.
Atheism in a world where gods can be proven real can't really mean the same thing as in our world.
In Golarion where mortals can (or at least has) ascended to godhood, where priests can cast spells thanks to their gods etc. means that not believeing in them seems downright stupid, kind of like if you don't believe in gravity (it's there, but you can't see it, oly the effects of it).
Being an atheist in Golarion has to mean something else than not believing they're real.
It could mean that you believe that the gods aren't worth worshiping, maybe because you don't believe they're interested in mortals and their affairs. Or simply that you dislike them for being so powerful and they have the ability to mettle in the affairs of mortals.
Being an atheist in Golarion probably means that you don't worship any deity, don't pray, don't rely on anything outside your own strength/powers etc. You simply don't trust your life to a higher power.
Atheist is probably the wrong word, but it looks better than just leaving the "Deity:"-entry empty.
Atheism in a world where gods can be proven real can't really mean the same thing as in our world.
In Golarion where mortals can (or at least has) ascended to godhood, where priests can cast spells thanks to their gods etc. means that not believeing in them seems downright stupid, kind of like if you don't believe in gravity (it's there, but you can't see it, oly the effects of it).Being an atheist in Golarion has to mean something else than not believing they're real.
It could mean that you believe that the gods aren't worth worshiping, maybe because you don't believe they're interested in mortals and their affairs. Or simply that you dislike them for being so powerful and they have the ability to mettle in the affairs of mortals.Being an atheist in Golarion probably means that you don't worship any deity, don't pray, don't rely on anything outside your own strength/powers etc. You simply don't trust your life to a higher power.
Atheist is probably the wrong word, but it looks better than just leaving the "Deity:"-entry empty.
I think of it as "Yes, the powerful entities some call Gods clearly exist...but they're unworthy of worship."
Well, seeing as in Golarion, you can get divine magic just as easily and fully from Demon Lords, Arch-Devils, Empyreal Lords, or sufficiently powerful Cthulhu monsters... or from just being an oracle and either being part spirit or being cursed/blessed to tap into the wellspring of the cosmos... an atheist of sufficient Knowledge (Planes,) could point at the way none of these entities are true gods. Therefore, there's little proof the gods are actually gods.
There's not even any particular advantage to getting cleric powers from a god over a demon-lord or angel-king. You don't get less powerful magic or fewer domains if Ragathiel or Jubilex is your boss instead of Desna or Lamashtu.
It's just prestige, mostly. And I guess if you worship a god, it's less likely your object of worship will get beaten up by something bigger. But there's still a chance of a giant space worm. Who is also a god, somehow.
|
|
That's a statement you've made without anything to back it up. Certainly not from what I've read of the avowed atheists on this messageboard.
Eh, it's a wrong conclusion, but is based on the study he links. Your objetions probably should be as well.
Seeing only one side of the story presented I'm going to withould judgement on whether it was "non-offensive" or not. I noticed that you did not say non-confrontational. A quiet group of people that just meet to chat simply would not draw that much attention to themselves.
Why should they need to be quiet or non-confrontational? Religious groups certainly don't need to be.
Athiests are more compassionate and generous than the highly religious. FYI. ;-)That's a statement you've made without anything to back it up. Certainly not from what I've read of the avowed atheists on this messageboard.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, so: Did you miss that his post was a link?
I'd rather atheism and religion not be addressed at all if the way James Jacobs was talking about it is what will become the way it's handled officially. His understanding of atheism in the real world is lacking (and he seems aware of this, so good on you), and to herd them in with the religious and agnostic but give them a more severe punishment even with a same outcome seems like some form of commentary not suited for a game.
|
|
I'd rather atheism and religion not be addressed at all if the way James Jacobs was talking about it is what will become the way it's handled officially. His understanding of atheism in the real world is lacking (and he seems aware of this, so good on you), and to herd them in with the religious and agnostic but give them a more severe punishment even with a same outcome seems like some form of commentary not suited for a game.
WORD!
|
I'd rather atheism and religion not be addressed at all if the way James Jacobs was talking about it is what will become the way it's handled officially. His understanding of atheism in the real world is lacking (and he seems aware of this, so good on you), and to herd them in with the religious and agnostic but give them a more severe punishment even with a same outcome seems like some form of commentary not suited for a game.
Really? Being a discorporated entity capable of exploring the far reaches of the planes forever sounds like a fairly good gig, at least as far as eternal afterlives go.
In fact, I'd cheerfully take that over any of the other rewards offered. Agnostic's also not a bad option. Always up for reincarnation.
At the end of the day, Paizo is defining a world unlike ours where the gods plainly exist and spellcasters can visit the afterlife. That's just not going to mesh well with our expectations of atheism in the real world (much like their theists look rather different) and forces questions like "What happens to people from Rahadoum when they die?"
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
I'd rather atheism and religion not be addressed at all if the way James Jacobs was talking about it is what will become the way it's handled officially. His understanding of atheism in the real world is lacking (and he seems aware of this, so good on you), and to herd them in with the religious and agnostic but give them a more severe punishment even with a same outcome seems like some form of commentary not suited for a game.
I dunno, all the punishments for the non-virtuous are really bad. Atheists just don't have one with the infinitessimal chance of becoming a Balor.
And their reward is damn cool, as Landon mentions.
I'd rather atheism and religion not be addressed at all if the way James Jacobs was talking about it is what will become the way it's handled officially. His understanding of atheism in the real world is lacking (and he seems aware of this, so good on you), and to herd them in with the religious and agnostic but give them a more severe punishment even with a same outcome seems like some form of commentary not suited for a game.I dunno, all the punishments for the non-virtuous are really bad. Atheists just don't have one with the infinitessimal chance of becoming a Balor.
And their reward is damn cool, as Landon mentions.
I agree the reward does sound awesome. But it's given at the behest of a deity. And I think it takes a lot away from the reward because of that. The Goddess judges you on your morals because you're an atheist, but would judge a Nethite on their adherence to his own teachings instead? It seems odd to use what I guess is her own moral code to judge nonbelievers but is willing to use a less moral code for others. She's essentially making herself the patron of the atheists. I guess it could depend on what counts as enlightenment, and what a soul needs to achieve.
This falls in with Jacobs' (and I suppose the Golarion) view about deityless clerics as well. Perhaps the religion of Golarion is just one that doesn't line up with what I look for. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. I was just stating how I felt about it, since he said it's not set in stone yet, now is the time to speak up.
EDIT: I imagine an atheist that comes before Pharasma would tell her "I care not for your judging, lest you care for me to start judging you as well. I'll be moving on now if it's all the same to you ma'am."
Thank you James, that was very informative. But you did not adress what I was really asking: What it means to be an atheist.
Does it mean he refuses the existence of gods entirely or something else?
An athiest is someone who turns his back on the gods. In Golarion, where the gods are a quantifiable fact, athiesim and faith work quite different.
Faith in the real world is belief in what can't be proved. Faith in Golarion is basically trust in a higher power and complete devotion to that power.
Athiesm in the real world is the belief that there IS no higher power; and since you can't prove that there is no God any more than you can prove there IS a god... Athiesm is a form of faith as well. In Golarion, Athiests can concede that there ARE gods... but they believe that the gods are just as subject to the whims of fate and chance as mortals, and that they're not as all powerful as they think, and that to blindly serve and worship and trust in something like that is foolish. Ezren, for example, thinks that faith is a dangerous method of abandoning one's responsibility, and that it's more important to be responsible to one's self. He doesn't deny the existence of the gods. He just doesn't think any of them are worth his attention.
An agnostic in Golarion is either the guy who worships LOTS of deities but basically only gives them lip service, or the guy who doesn't worship ANY deities but knows they're out there. He just isn't interested in doing stuff for them.
So basically Atheists in Golarion are correct; seeing as most of the gods of Golarion are little more than mortals with lots of power; and there have already been cases of random fools becoming gods, and gods dying, and gods dying by mortal hands.
EDIT: I imagine an atheist that comes before Pharasma would tell her "I care not for your judging, lest you care for me to start judging you as well. I'll be moving on now if it's all the same to you ma'am."
Seeing as Pharasma is the lamest of the deities, I'd be really amused to see her face when this was said to her.
One thing to consider is that two gods (Nethys and Irori) were mortals who became gods due to archieving enlightenment, in contrast to the Starstone. In this case, one might conclude that at least some gods are "merely" very very ridiculously high level (Wizard and Monk), so the difference might not be really in quality but in power alone. The other gods are, according to this line of thought, "just" the most powerful of all archfiends, celestial lords, Eldest, GOO, etc.(Lamashtu actually adavanced from the experience a god gives? :-]). While this might not be correct (and according to our external knowledge given by the creator entinities, they really are gods), to me appears to be a valid line of though.
Then of course there still is "Yes, the gods exist. But I do not need their help, I prefer to try to get things done on my own."
Or maybe, there is a theory. The normal gods are not actually the rulers of the universe. No. They are no less slaves to the whims of some external forces from outside then everyone else. Rumors of the names of these entinitis are only whispered.
Players. Game or Dungeon Masters. And the mighty pantheon of Paizo, ruled by beings with names like James Jacobs.
|
|
Personally I like the theory that am atheist in a fantasy campaign world believes gods exist, but are unworthy of worship. The reasons may vary.
That would not be atheism (which is the lack of belief in the existence of God(s)), but rather misotheism, which is the hatred of gods. Misotheists readily accept the gods' existence, but refuse to worship them.
The best example of misotheism comes in the form of the nation of Rahadoum which has made worship of the Gods illegal, not because the people and their leaders view the gods as false, but rather because they view them as dangerously destructive beings totally unworthy of praise and worship.
While one can easily be a misotheist in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, it would make little sense for any sensible person to be an atheist in a world where the existence of the Gods is so readily self-evident. After all, the Gods grant their devotees powers (and take them away if the clerics stray too far from their god's laws); the God readily perform miracles on a regular basis; further, the Gods, if they wish, can and do make aspects of themselves manifest or send down deific servitors to make their presence and will known. Thus, an actual atheist who states that they do not believe in a God would be looked at it much the same way as someone who is a member of the Flat Earth Society; not necessarily someone who is immoral. Just someone who is incredibly loopy.
Personally I like the theory that am atheist in a fantasy campaign world believes gods exist, but are unworthy of worship. The reasons may vary.That would not be atheism (which is the lack of belief in the existence of God(s)), but rather misotheism, which is the hatred of gods. Misotheists readily accept the gods' existence, but refuse to worship them.
The best example of misotheism comes in the form of the nation of Rahadoum which has made worship of the Gods illegal, not because the people and their leaders view the gods as false, but rather because they view them as dangerously destructive beings totally unworthy of praise and worship.
While one can easily be a misotheist in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, it would make little sense for any sensible person to be an atheist in a world where the existence of the Gods is so readily self-evident. After all, the Gods grant their devotees powers (and take them away if the clerics stray too far from their god's laws); the God readily perform miracles on a regular basis; further, the Gods, if they wish, can and do make aspects of themselves manifest or send down deific servitors to make their presence and will known. Thus, an actual atheist who states that they do not believe in a God would be looked at it much the same way as someone who is a member of the Flat Earth Society; not necessarily someone who is immoral. Just someone who is incredibly loopy.
The point is that the "Gods" of Golarion don't really meet the definition. They certainly are not omnipotent or omniscient. I think someone who denies that there is an all powerful being responsible for it all could still be called an atheist (or an agnostic).
|
|
Personally I like the theory that am atheist in a fantasy campaign world believes gods exist, but are unworthy of worship. The reasons may vary.That would not be atheism (which is the lack of belief in the existence of God(s)), but rather misotheism, which is the hatred of gods. Misotheists readily accept the gods' existence, but refuse to worship them.
The best example of misotheism comes in the form of the nation of Rahadoum which has made worship of the Gods illegal, not because the people and their leaders view the gods as false, but rather because they view them as dangerously destructive beings totally unworthy of praise and worship.
While one can easily be a misotheist in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, it would make little sense for any sensible person to be an atheist in a world where the existence of the Gods is so readily self-evident. After all, the Gods grant their devotees powers (and take them away if the clerics stray too far from their god's laws); the God readily perform miracles on a regular basis; further, the Gods, if they wish, can and do make aspects of themselves manifest or send down deific servitors to make their presence and will known. Thus, an actual atheist who states that they do not believe in a God would be looked at it much the same way as someone who is a member of the Flat Earth Society; not necessarily someone who is immoral. Just someone who is incredibly loopy.
The point is that the "Gods" of Golarion don't really meet the definition. They certainly are not omnipotent or omniscient. I think someone who denies that there is an all powerful being responsible for it all could still be called an atheist (or an agnostic).
The gods of Golarion are similar on some regards to those worshiped in some historic cultures. Even the Norse gods and the gods of Olympus were subject to fate. (In Golarion, fate does not seem to be as all powerful as the ancient Greeks thought it to be.) In some cultures, gods died. (This happened to a few figures in Celtic mythology.) Very few mythological figures qualify as being omnipotent and omniscient -- heck, Aphrodite got an arrow wound in the Iliad and Hercules, before becoming a god still managed to break one of the legs of Ares.
I think that misotheist is more accurate. The majority of the people of Rahadoum seem to think that despite the power of a deity, they should only rely on mortal resources. I am not sure how they would react to a truly omniscient and omnipotent being, but I am sure that the Pure Legion would forbid the worship of any such deity. They have a tradition to follow, and ironically are as set in their ways as any other group on Golarion.
|
I just noticed in the latest Pathfinder that Ezren (the iconic wizard) has his deity listed as "atheism". That makes me wonder what it means to be an atheist in a world where the existence of the divine is so obviously real. Since atheism means to "reject theism" (theism: the belief in the existence one or more divinities or deities) it probably has a different meaning in Golarion. Ezren has an intelligence score of 17 and a wisdom score of 15, he is both smart and insightful enough to realize that the deities are real. So what does it mean to be an atheist in Golarion?
It depends on the nature of his rejection of a divine being. If it is of a particular divine being (or all the existing gods he might be planning to become his own supreme being.
Atheism is a rejection of a culture of tyranny and slavery. The hypocrisy of Lawful Good Gods is laughable.
Atheism might be a plan to power down gods whose power is based on worshipers. Thus it could all be a conspiracy to lessen the power of gods by some unseen rival.
Golarion is a world in which the gods exist as objective facts and evidence of their existence is everywhere. It's a world in which Good and Evil and Chaos and Law exist as objective metaphysical forces that can be detected and manipulated with the proper training and equipment.
It's also a world in which multiple mortals have become gods within living memory and in which worshiping Good or Evil gods are equally viable and legitimate lifestyle choices from both a spiritual point of view and a legal point of view.
In other words, morality and religion in Golarion are just as subjective and uncertain as they are in the real world. The fact that there are many gods fighting amongst themselves, and the fact that a mortal can aspire to and achieve godhood for himself, means that there is no compelling rational or moral reason to worship the gods or accept their moral authority.
Being judged by Pharasma doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you worship her or accept her authority over the souls of the dead-- her authority to free or imprison you isn't based on the moral righteousness of her judgments, but on the simple fact that she has the power to do so, and the other gods back her up. Being powerful doesn't make her right, and as powerful as she is, it is entirely possible for a mortal to rise up and take her place.
So... really, the only thing that the verifiable existence of the gods in Golarion changes, compared to the world in which we live, is the caliber of ordnance fired in its holy wars.
|
|
From the perspective of his activities as an activist, this is actually a problem, as (while I've met a number of atheists who sing his praises) my attitude towards him is mild compared to that of every other religious person I've met who's aware of his existence...which in a very real sense means he's preaching to the choir, and only serving to reinforce the point of view of those who already believe as he does, not actually win others to the cause of supporting atheism or the rights of atheists.
Actually there's something he says about this right in the preface of The God Delusion. He's quite aware that dyed-in-the-wool religious people are not going to read his book. (Or if they are, they're just going to be doing so in order to look for opportunities to debunk it. I seem to recall 'The Dawkins Delusion' being released only a couple months after Dawkins' book.) The main point was to reach out to other atheists, because that really is what is needed right now.
Before reading it I was very much 'in the closet' about my atheism. It was very helpful to a guy growing up in a small town where it seemed like I was the only one who didn't buy the whole Genesis story or attend church regularly. In particular those few times I had been brave enough to be honest, it was usually met with either disgust or a redoubled effort to convert me.
I don't want to compare it too much to the gay rights movement, as I would never be so crass as to say my situation has ever been as difficult as if I were a gay man, but people who say confrontational atheists are doing a disservice to the rest of us forget that the gay rights movement had to start with protest and loud, defiant voices to pave the way for more gentle persuasion down the line. (For that matter, I would hardly say atheists have done anything en masse to deserve that label---there's been no godless rioting, or attacks on houses of worship, or what-have-you.) The fact is we are still at a point where it is more necessary just to get visibility up and let other atheists, in particular young atheists from religious homes, know they're not alone.
Maybe I am biased as well but I never saw Dawkins as a jerk. Christopher Hitchens was a jerk---an amusing jerk, and one often who said what needed to be said, but a jerk nonetheless. Dawkins definitely pulls no punches with the more odious aspects of faith (Christians who refuse life-saving procedures for their children, militant Muslims on a jihad to kill all nonbelievers, Jews and Christians who justify every act of violence on the Palestinian people as their holy right, and the like) he always seemed respectful enough when dealing with people of faith.
As atheism is the rejection of the positive claim of theism, it has no place in a fantasy world like Golarion.
Agnosticism, similarly, doesn't really belong too much as there's not much room for going "who knows what's out there?" unless your speculating on a greater reality behind or before the gods.
Calling a character in a fictional world that knows about the existence of deities an "atheist" just makes no sense.
While atheism and agnosticism are mentioned in the Inner Sea World guide, at the very least, they immediately have the explanation of how those concepts differ from our understandings of them. So their appearance and misuse is not totally disappointing.
What is disappointing is the lack of clarification in the Great Beyond book.
"Beyond and surrounding the courts lies a vast and seemingly endless expanse of graves, crypts, and funerary monuments in the styles of nearly every race and culture across the mortal sphere, representing the ultimate destination of those souls whose very nature denied and corrupted itself: atheists." (p33)
Ugh. At least it goes on to talk more about them being quarantined rather than punished, but it's still totally the wrong word as they do not reject the claims that deities exist.
When it comes down to it though, Pharasma's imprisonment of some in the boneyard is simply a matter of might making right. Whatever Pharasma did/is capable of, is what lets her determine the fate of souls (who don't get fiend snatched on their way to her). As not all powerful, nor all knowing, goddess, she'll make the decisions that she will.
PS. Not an atheist myself.
Atheism isn't a non-belief, it's a non-practice. If you never pray for divine intervention, then you're practically an atheist whether you believe in gods or not.
As I read it, in Golarion, atheist is often used interchangeably with nihilist (the kind who believe the world has no objective purpose). When they die, happy nihilist (those who take the opportunity to give their world a subjective purpose) might become disembodied spirits, while unhappy nihilist (those who believe even subjective purposes are meaningless) get crystallized in the Boneyard.
Thus the end of the world is staved off by the spirits of people who aren't particularly fond of it. I think the painful irony is their punishment.
I don't see anything very nihilistic about the rejection of the gods as objects of worship in Golarion. The only source of meaning a golarion non-worshipper would negate would be religious practice. And then they may replace that with a different source of meaning.
As for real world definitions, atheism is indeed a non-belief: specifically the lack of acceptance of a theistic assertion. I couldn't quite tell if you were talking about Golarian atheism or the actual word in your first paragraph.
As for real world definitions, atheism is indeed a non-belief: specifically the lack of acceptance of a theistic assertion. I couldn't quite tell if you were talking about Golarian atheism or the actual word in your first paragraph.
Both. But then I'm a pragmatist first and foremost, I don't care what people profess to believe, I care what they do.