Religion in Science-Fiction?

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

As far as I understand on of the basic asumptions behind Creationism is that we are "to complex to have evolved naturally"' date=' thus there must be a creator.[/quote']

 

And among college educated Creationists you'll find a disproportionate number of engineers.

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Note that in any universe where species eventually become part of a cosmic overmind or turn into glow balls of light, worshipping the resulting godlike beings makes quite a lot of sense. People are always trying to tip the odds in their favour.

 

Ori-Stargate.

Childhood's End.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Note that in any universe where species eventually become part of a cosmic overmind or turn into glow balls of light, worshipping the resulting godlike beings makes quite a lot of sense. People are always trying to tip the odds in their favour.

 

Ori-Stargate.

Childhood's End.

Aren't being like the Ori - who still have an Agenda in the Material World - considered to be "failed" Transcendents?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

All Hail The Ori.

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Aren't being like the Ori - who still have an Agenda in the Material World - considered to be "failed" Transcendents?

 

 

Considered by whom?

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Considered by whom?

The Ancients I think

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

The Ancients I think

 

Hardly an unbiased source. I suspect the the Ori got the Ascension they wanted.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Yet it's not how enlightened/"real" Ascension works.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Hardly an unbiased source. I suspect the the Ori got the Ascension they wanted.

 

Yet it's not how enlightened/"real" Ascension works.

Exactly. These non-interference Rules of the ancients were there for a reason - protecting the normal world from Ascended Ancients. Especially to prevent an Ori-Style ancient group in the Milkyway and to prevent things like Anubis from happening.

[Sundog]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Exactly. These non-interference Rules of the ancients were there for a reason - protecting the normal world from Ascended Ancients. Especially to prevent an Ori-Style ancient group in the Milkyway and to prevent things like Anubis from happening.

 

Which made the Ancients' unwillingness to enforce those rules all the more reprehensible.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Which made the Ancients' unwillingness to enforce those rules all the more reprehensible.

How didn't they enforce them?

They prevented the Ori from acting directly in the Milkyway. The Ori that weren't even aware of the Milkyway (because the ancients were hinding it) until SG 1 tipped them off.

Also they clearly said to Oma Desala: "don't help people with ascension". She didn't and in order to finally get the message across, they made him invlunerable. It took her Daniels advice before she finally understood that it was her responsibility to deal with anubis - even if it means she could never affect the world again. I am sure if she learns her lesson in a few milennia, they might end anubis existence.

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Which made the Ancients' unwillingness to enforce those rules all the more reprehensible.

but that borders on interference

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

As far as I understand on of the basic asumptions behind Creationism is that we are "to complex to have evolved naturally"' date=' thus there must be a creator.[/quote']

I would call that the basic assumption behind Intelligent Design, a specific flavor of Creationism. Minor quibble.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I would call that the basic assumption behind Intelligent Design' date=' a specific flavor of Creationism. Minor quibble.[/quote']

 

I am mildly offended by properly basic beliefs.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7377jU2a8Y

[Zeropoint]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I am mildly offended by properly basic beliefs.

 

I didn't make it through the whole video, but I, too, found the basic premise to be eye-roll-worthy and mildly offensive.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Well, I suppose one could define "other people exist" and "the universe exists" and "there are cause-effect relationships which define the physical world as we know it" as properly basic beliefs, in that it's probably a bit of intellectual wankery to actually require evidence for all this stuff, and it's generally a basic premise that this stuff is assumed to be true. It's therefore generally reasonable to just take such premises as given, rather than have to reason out a proof from nothingness every frickin' time you have a metaphysical or philosophical discussion.

However, lumping in "God exists" or "it's reasonable to believe there is a higher power" with the above as a properly basic belief seems like an apples-and-oranges kinda thing to me. One could say that both belief and non-belief are intellectually reasonable starting positions to take on the question of superior being(s), and that there are categories of things which we similarly lack conclusive evidence for but consider reasonable to assume(e.g. free will). But I think that's not what he's saying, per se.

If one asserts "God exists" as a hypothesis, with caveated specifics as to the definition of both terms, one could make non-evidentiary arguments in support of that hypothesis, and the discussion could proceed accordingly. Similarly, one could assert "No such being as God exists" as a hypothesis, with caveated specifics, and make non-evidentiary arguments in support of it. One is still stuck with the problem of how to go about testing such a hypothesis(since evidence-gathering is not an option). Both of these are different from asserting existence or non-existence as fact or theorem, of course. I therefore think that both pro- and non- God hypotheses are properly basic beliefs, but actual existence/non-existence (or even the theory that such is a given) is not.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I only watched the beginning, but I liked it. It shows us that even our most simple asumptions are actually a form of believe. No one can ever proof or disproove without a doubt that he/she isn't in fact the only person that lives and the rest of the world is only a simulation made for him/her.

 

Edit:

Okay, now watched it fully.

[Clonus]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I only watched the beginning, but I liked it. It shows us that even our most simple asumptions are actually a form of believe. No one can ever proof or disproove without a doubt

.

 

Proving without a doubt is an insanely high standard. I can doubt anything.

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Proving without a doubt is an insanely high standard. I can doubt anything.

Our senses are faliable, so we can never know anything without a doubt.

 

What I believe to be the Real World could be a dream of sleeping Vishnu. Or I could be the only real person, and the rest of you figments of my imagination. But I have found that for the most part I am happier if I act as if the physical world and other people did actually exist, which for me establishes their reality beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I just noticed something:

Text communication (like this forum) has a exorbitantly high risk of encountering computers posing as humans. So there is a high possibility of at least one poster here being an Eliza or Watson. Sure there a means to keep them out (like the Captcha), but they can all be avoided.

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I just noticed something:

Text communication (like this forum) has a exorbitantly high risk of encountering computers posing as humans. So there is a high possibility of at least one poster here being an Eliza or Watson. Sure there a means to keep them out (like the Captcha), but they can all be avoided.

Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I didn't make it through the whole video' date=' but I, too, found the basic premise to be eye-roll-worthy and mildly offensive.[/quote']

 

Plantinga is like a wise little child to me. I find him illuminating. I don't know why I ever bothered to read his stuff (it seemed warranted at the time), but that's the nature of the beast.

 

Hopefully without being rude, I'd just like to say that I think it is ironic (what with properly basic beliefs being beyond esthetic judgement) that he is an apologist. Seriously, the irony is shameful. I am embarrassed for him.

 

Maybe that's why I find properly basic beliefs to be mildly offensive: my "Human Nature"... but I don't find that at all illuminating.

 

Naturally, in SF (specifically here in this thread), it's all good.

 

If there is ever any question as to whether or not a belief held by a character in-game corresponds with in-game reality, and is (or is not) therefor warranted, Plantinga is the man with a plan to go to.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Well' date=' I suppose one could define "other people exist" and "the universe exists" and "there are cause-effect relationships which define the physical world as we know it" as properly basic beliefs, in that it's probably a bit of intellectual wankery to actually require evidence for all this stuff, and it's generally a basic premise that this stuff is assumed to be true. It's therefore generally reasonable to just take such premises as given, rather than have to reason out a proof from nothingness every frickin' time you have a metaphysical or philosophical discussion.[/quote']

 

Here's a scenario:

 

PC #1): "One of my Contacts has a Vehicle."

 

Here, PC #1's player is specifically thinking of a particular Contact on the player's character sheet. That Contact's name is Motor Man the Vehicular Mechanic. Motor Man is a Vehicle, but does not actually have a Vehicle.

 

However, on the player's character sheet there is also another Contact named Buck that does have a Vehicle.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I don't understand Mr. E most of the time. Could it be that he IS an ELIZA?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Here's a scenario:

 

PC #1): "One of my Contacts has a Vehicle."

 

Here, PC #1's player is specifically thinking of a particular Contact on the player's character sheet. That Contact's name is Motor Man the Vehicular Mechanic. Motor Man is a Vehicle, but does not actually have a Vehicle.

 

However, on the player's character sheet there is also another Contact named Buck that does have a Vehicle.

 

The player's stated assumption is technically correct. Their specific assumption is not. So the question, I suppose, is how one phrases that basic belief--is the basic belief that(correct but ambiguous and non-specific) "one of my contacts has a vehicle", or that (correctly) "Buck has a vehicle" or that(incorrectly) "Motor Man has a vehicle"?

 

The evidence on the character sheet indicates that statement 1 is correct but ambiguous and potentially misleading(since Motor Man at least sounds like he should have a vehicle, and Buck gives no indication, as written as a Contact, that he does(perhaps it's in the flavor text or GM notes somewhere?)), statement 2 may be correct(if the info is indicated there), and statement 3 is incorrect.

 

The PC can either be more specific, or the GM can follow up with the obvious question, "which contact?"