Dwilight IC and OOC updates and news!

[Shizzle]

That's not a very SMA attitude! Today, I can agree with you on this, but if we discuss this it should be in the OOC thread. In the middle ages, the existence of God was very much a proved fact and the basis of all science.

My thought exactly.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

In terms of SMA? Stepwise logic, or going in sequence proving each point along the way, would either be an artifact of Greek tradition, or a contemporary method. Actually, it is fairly old (duh, ancient Greeks?) but never, to my knowledge, was it ever part of any religion's method of teachings. No matter whether the religion saw its logic as infallible. They simply did not teach that method of proving/supporting each step to the conclusion. Most of them had an observation/proclamation, and from there went to a conclusion (very simple interpretation).

It's not that religion and reason cannot coexist. It was simply that for all European religions, as far as I know, none of them espoused the use of reason to explain the divine, or even to make sense of it. None of them attempted to apply human logic to their beliefs. At least purely in the Middle Ages I am fairly confident this was the case. Let's go find some theologians and Medieval studies doctorates to explain better.

To give it my very concise summary though: I think MP describes a system of reason, not a system of belief. Religion is the latter.

[vonGenf]

I'm not a theologian myself, so feel free to point otherwise if I am wrong, but as far as I understand it, St Thomas of Aquinas is a fine example of "the use of reason to explain the divine, or even to make sense of it".

From the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism):

"St. Thomas Aquinas believed that truth is true wherever it is found, and thus consulted Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers. Specifically, he was a realist (i.e., he, unlike the skeptics, believed that the world can be known as it is). He largely followed Aristotelian terminology and metaphysics, and wrote comprehensive commentaries on Aristotle, often affirming Aristotle's views with independent arguments. Thomas respectfully referred to Aristotle simply as "the Philosopher." He also adhered to some neoplatonic principles, for example that "it is absolutely true that there is first something which is essentially being and essentially good, which we call God, ... [and that] everything can be called good and a being, inasmuch as it participates in it by way of a certain assimilation..."

[songqu88@gmail.com]

We could probably spend a long time splitting hairs over the details about the different variations on religious belief in Medieval Europe. The article does bring in some interesting points, but still has some divine phenomenon (God) in its place as core of all its beliefs. Maybe I should have stated my earlier argument better. A religion can continue to exist as a religion even if it does not incorporate reason at all. I don't know any real world examples I can think of immediately, but something that says "This is what was written, now believe it" would count as such a religion. (Actually, I am aware that some might point out that even that has a very basic line of logic. The qualifier for belief is "This is what was written", therefore, "Believe it". I suppose if we were really to get technical about it, an example would be a bunch of stuff written down, and without even the reason that it is what is written, the religion simply demands that you believe it...because it's true, which in itself then becomes an element of reason. I will just stop this line here and say that I am not so much concerned about the very fine details of what extent of reason we are talking about, and just say that I hope you get my point. Religion doesn't need to have a bunch of conclusions from observations or intuition in order to count as a religion.) Also, the simple act of exercising reason, whether it be by some form of logic, or some other means, is not alone enough to count something as a religion. What exactly constitutes a religion then? That's an interesting topic, no doubt, and I'm sure there are more pages with many words on the subject.

If we read MP as saying that it recognizes the existence of inhuman entities, but later says: "No faith should be put in anything non-human, and we must fight for our own place in the world.", then this makes it a truly odd religion. That single sentence can be up for a lot of dispute about just what it means, in fact. Is it saying not to worship inhuman things? So would faith in other humans work? Ancestor worship? Idolatry in human arts?

[Bedwyr]

Pythagoras would also disagree about there being a difference between science and religion, as would a number of Catholic Church sponsored scientists, who would tell you that their discoveries led to a greater understanding of God's wonders.

tMP does have indefensible leaps of faith.  It just does its best to disguise them as logical progressions.

And yes, Artemesia, the point of that line is to say that inhuman entities should not be trusted or relied on, much less worshiped.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I am not saying at all that science and religion don't mix. But I am among the group that sees a clear distinction between what religion is and what science is. I think that without beliefs, a religion cannot be called a religion, but that also does not make the only element that religion requires in order to exist as "religion", nor do I claim that it is the only critical element, without which, a religion cannot be called a religion, but instead maybe a school of philosophy. I think that without empirical evidence and logic that limits itself to that evidence, science would not exist as science.

Anyway, that still doesn't answer whether ancestor worship is ok, or worshiping other living humans. Maybe there's another part that says it, but hey, I'm not the guy who made it up, so I can't know what was intended by the words.

[Galvez]

Also, MP is based on 3 facts. Which makes the prophet more a filosopher than an actual prophet. In other words, you convey rational teachings in stead of theological teachings. Which distinguishes MP from actual religions. If you would read the wiki page without knowing that it is a religion, I would say it is a guild, dedicated to unite humanity against the scourge that plagues human civilazation.

[Indirik]

... inhuman entities should not be trusted or relied on, much less worshiped.

If you're not worshiping the gods, then you're not a religion.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Sanguis Astroism? Though I suppose one could say that is worship of divine entities.

[vonGenf]

Maybe I should have stated my earlier argument better. A religion can continue to exist as a religion even if it does not incorporate reason at all. I don't know any real world examples I can think of immediately, but something that says "This is what was written, now believe it" would count as such a religion.

Oh, sure! My point is that something that does not say that can also count.

If we read MP as saying that it recognizes the existence of inhuman entities, but later says: "No faith should be put in anything non-human, and we must fight for our own place in the world.", then this makes it a truly odd religion. That single sentence can be up for a lot of dispute about just what it means, in fact.

I don't see what's really odd in that; most religions basic tenets can be read in may ways. This is pretty much the standard method to get everyone to agree with you: be vague enough.

[vonGenf]

If you're not worshiping the gods, then you're not a religion.

Would it help if tMP had "Humans will become godlike with sufficient effort" as a basic tenet?

Or even straight out "I am a God, so worship me, and so can you!"? Although that one already exists, I think.

[Indirik]

Yes, Sanguis Astroism is devoted to the worship of supernatural entities, considered to be divine. They are not commonly referred to as gods. Nor are they ever known to have manifested as physical beings. Yet SA is devoted to their worship and the advancement of their goals.

[Sacha]

Would it help if tMP had "Humans will become godlike with sufficient effort" as a basic tenet?

Or even straight out "I am a God, so worship me, and so can you!"? Although that one already exists, I think.

I believe that particular belief is commonly referred to as 'Amaurism'

[Shizzle]

If you're not worshiping the gods, then you're not a religion.

Again, Buddhism? Wether that religion is SMA or not, your definition of a religion holds flaws...

PS: 'reason' in Greek times wasn't atheist either.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Again, Buddhism? Wether that religion is SMA or not, your definition of a religion holds flaws...

PS: 'reason' in Greek times wasn't atheist either.

Reason wasn't, but neither were the priests of Apollo or whatever god you want to name in the pantheon keen on using Socrates' (or whatever philosopher you want to name) methods to contemplate what their gods' whims were.