Torm, if he were worthy of the title "god of justice" would not tolerate such a grossly unjust system as the one he is a part of (e.g. where ignorance or conscientious objection gets one a sentence in the wall).
Justice involves, among other things, that a prescribed punishment fits the crime. There is no crime in ignorance qua ignorance and so any punishment would be unjust. It would be intolerable for one dedicated to justice to benefit from such a system.
There cannot be a legitimate god of justice in such a system. The problem of evil is alive and well in the forgotten realms
@meagloth Sooner than you think. There are some very, very horrifying theories that prove that our reality is in fact a much grander, complex and disturbing existence. The scholars of such theories often go mad by simply studying them, and those who don't tend to agree that their sheer complexity is too much for a degenerate's mind to grasp, let alone comprehend. .
This always has been, and always will be. People have been saying that for thousands of years.
I take issue with the amalgamation of degenerates into a single mindset - we are a diverse lot, some of us physically, some of us mentally, others, like myself, morally bankrupt. You do us a disservice by lumping us together.
I take issue with the amalgamation of degenerates into a single mindset - we are a diverse lot, some of us physically, some of us mentally, others, like myself, morally bankrupt. You do us a disservice by lumping us together.
Perhaps I could've worded that out a bit better. Damn, I'm not good at dealing with other human beings. Degenerate there was likely used as a placeholder while I searched for a more complex word to fit in, which I likely forgot due to my highly ephemeral lines of thought. The term "layperson" could have been a better choice, but it does not have the same phonetic appeal, but then again, neither does "people not familiar with basic-level physics" nor "high-school dropouts", although the latter would very likely be considered offensive by actual high-school dropouts, even tough such theories were part of my high school curriculum, at least in Hunsrückisch-speaking Brazil, though that might have been just my school's high standards, seeing as I never required such knowledge to be admitted into Latin America's second best University (which has a very-well known brutal admission test, on the plus side, it is completely free... if you manage to score better than 90% of the people who take it, who get eliminated and basically just wasted their 60 dollar admission fee (which is quite a lot, considering the average annual income of a Brazilian worker is around 6300 dollars, to say nothing of the actual minimum wage, which has been described as "utterly unlivable" by a Cuban medical doctor)).
There is no reason to believe that physics--quantum, whatever--will drive one insane. first, there is no consensus on what insanity is or whether something like it actually exists at all. We can carve up the human experience any way we please and call some bits "abnormal" but there is no systemic way to define what this is.
Second, there is no basis for thinking that complexity by itself constitutes trauma, as presumably the sort of "insanity" we are looking for would be something akin to ptsd
If you actually understand basic physics, such statements are utterly groundbeaking. The sheer sense it actually manages to make is incredibly scary, since science is fueled by questionings, which the string theory does not seem to make much room for, compared to earlier theories, due to the fact that it answers most questions that have driven physicists for centuries. Similarly, its statements about the universe and beyond hold such dread if you think about it too hard that it is a very real possibility that you'll enter clinical depression by trying to assimilate its meaning into your being. Throwing the concept of "dimensions" out of the window is also particularly disturbing, simply because while we can measure its numbers, we cannot actually comprehend their meaning beyond the basics (point, plane, volume and time, the "first" four vectors of dimension) we have assumed were all that held the fabric of reality together for ages, and not only that, it actually proves this statement by being the basis of things such as electromagnetivity. Just by mentioning it I feel shivers down my spine, and an urge to further seek its knowledge, even if it caused me to attempt suicide during my first contact with it.
Ha! Paradigm shifts are painful events! But they only generally affect the old guard. Cognitive dissonance you see.
Here is another: no proofs in science. This is what makes paradigm shifts possible. this is especially true with "unobservables".
I can't comment on the specifics of physics but I can talk about psychology (we have our own unobservables).
the question is ultimately a philosophical one, raised first by kant. Tell me, how do you know a.thing as it is in itself independent of all experience when you can only know about it--it must be filtered by--through your senses?
Knowledge, specifically the contents of knowledge, must conform to our understanding. not the other way.around
"Knowledge, specifically the contents of knowledge, must conform to our understanding. not the other way.around" If such a statement were even remotely true, or merely if you agree by it, things such as "scientific racism" and "phlogiston theory" would have never become obsolete, since the people who followed it were extremely reluctant to accept any questionings against it, and fervorously refused that they might have been wrong. By your own theory, if they cannot comprehend something, it is not knowledge; Nevermind that many "knowledges" back in the day have long been proven to be false, such as "geocentrism", "bloodletting" and "Ricky Martin's heterosexuality", although they all still linger in the minds of some particularly ignorant people.
that is not a consequence of this philosophy of knowledge. There is something like "an epistemologically privileged position" that is knowledge which is based on the.best current understanding. what you are talking about is a socialized bias. This is a moral issue which is a priori. Not science, which is grounded in the senses. Kant addressed that as well.
that is not a consequence of this philosophy of knowledge. There is something like "an epistemologically privileged position" that is knowledge which is based on the.best current understanding.
This seems very much like the scientific position. A scientific theory is the best explanation for something based on all the observations and experimental evidence we have right now. But there's no dogma in science; everything is always open to being questioned and having new evidence brought against it. Some theories that have been extensively tested and held true would obviously some pretty damn compelling evidence to overturn them, but it's not impossible.
When it comes to quantum and string theories, although the maths is very interesting, there's no experiment yet to test for a number of these. Maths is the only way we can look at these things right now; we can't perceive them through the senses because we're talking about stuff that's much, much smaller than a single atom. Maths is independent of our senses which is why it's a useful tool for science. Maybe in five hundred years all our current best theories about the universe will have been replaced by better new theories, but three will still be a prime number; that won't ever change. At least if it does, that would be solid ground for us all going insane.
trust me, there is plenty of dogma/bias in science. scientists are people after all.
Regardless, it's the.best we have, the best we could have, for what it does. It's like democracy in that way.
As for the op I think I have shown why any rational thinker must reject any "lg" god at least. Turns out it is for a similar reason anyone should reject most brands of monotheism.
trust me, there is plenty of dogma/bias in science. scientists are people after all.
Scientists might have bias. Science doesn't; the whole process is set up so that anyone making a claim is picked apart by his or her peers, and it's only if they withstand that as well being supported by all the experimental data that a claim really becomes scientific.
I suppose when it comes to theology/philosophy, I suppose even in FR there must be questions like 'what is good?' Can it really be something the gods just decide, or is there some other basis for it etc.
There is no single scientific method. You have to just go with what seems to work best the puzzle you are trying to solve.
Science is as much about interpretation and the model you choose as it is about evidence. Evidence, unfortunately, never just speaks for itself. it needs an interpreter. and interpreters are biased.
Take pavlov. was a brilliant guy, but don't talk to him cognitive processes or affect. Stimulus response is the only thing accepted here.
We might think, "we know better now" but we risk falling into the.same trap. we discount, without any real thought, a number of potentially brilliant ideas that just don't fit in our current construction. eventually the paradigm shows too many frayed edges and a new generation adopts a new one
Flawed methodologies will be exposed over time by peer review. It's important that there is no authority in science; everything is open to being questioned, and when those frayed edges appear, that's a new line of inquiry that may, after hypothesizing and examining evidence, lead to new better theory and understanding. An example is Einstein; his theories are well supported by lots of lots of evidence now; the maths works out and accurately predicts orbits of stars and planets for example. But we know he wasn't entirely right either. Black holes are a problem (which weirdly he predicted as well), and it's not compatible with the quantum stuff... so although that's all accepted, there are frayed edges and we know it's not a perfect theory but we're waiting for something better. So it's just an ongoing process, with each new generation building on and refining what was there before.
Torm, if he were worthy of the title "god of justice" would not tolerate such a grossly unjust system as the one he is a part of (e.g. where ignorance or conscientious objection gets one a sentence in the wall).
Justice involves, among other things, that a prescribed punishment fits the crime. There is no crime in ignorance qua ignorance and so any punishment would be unjust. It would be intolerable for one dedicated to justice to benefit from such a system.
There cannot be a legitimate god of justice in such a system. The problem of evil is alive and well in the forgotten realms
Torm would probably do something about it, if he could. It's not as if he has much say. What happens to the dead is not his domain. It's Kelemvor's call, and Kelemvor believes the wall to be a necessary evil.
A true lover of justice would not be a part of such a parthenon where "necessary evils" are tolerated. it would be like a pacifist--a person that believes you shouldn't go to war for any reason-- joining the army.
You could have a powerful being that you call "the god of justice" of course.this being may gain,power from those who worship it. Nevertheless it would not be a legitimate god of justice.
Once you have this single exception, then you can start wondering about the other gods. If one can be an empty placeholder, why not them all?
Gods are not human, and should not be held to the standards of humans. Each God must administer to their own portfolio competently, or be put on trial by the other gods for Incompetence by Humanity.
Torm is the God of Justice, but Faerunian justice is not the same as our justice. It's not an absolute, but a relative thing.
A true lover of justice would not be a part of such a parthenon where "necessary evils" are tolerated. it would be like a pacifist--a person that believes you shouldn't go to war for any reason-- joining the army.
Just as an aside, in the classic TV show "M.A.S.H." the character Father Mulkahe was a pacifist who joined the army. Admittedly this is a fictitious character on a TV show, but... I could see such a person wanting to join the army, not because they wanted to go against their pacifistic tendencies, but because they seek to further their goals through changing from the inside. Just saying.
There is no single scientific method. You have to just go with what seems to work best the puzzle you are trying to solve.
Science is as much about interpretation and the model you choose as it is about evidence. Evidence, unfortunately, never just speaks for itself. it needs an interpreter. and interpreters are biased.
Take pavlov. was a brilliant guy, but don't talk to him cognitive processes or affect. Stimulus response is the only thing accepted here.
We might think, "we know better now" but we risk falling into the.same trap. we discount, without any real thought, a number of potentially brilliant ideas that just don't fit in our current construction. eventually the paradigm shows too many frayed edges and a new generation adopts a new one
This isn't entirely true. Maths, a far as we have been able to determine, are maths. Coming up with the answer to 1 + 1 is really only answerable one way. And I suspect that, once we learn more of the rules, we will find more absolutes. Our limitations are in that we don't know enough of the rules. It's like trying to figure out what the entire 10,000 piece puzzle is going to look like but with only having two pieces to extrapolate from.
I think the whole premise is faulty. You said that gods draw their power from the weave and that is why mages have a glimpse into where gods get their power. That's incorrect. God's get their power directly from their faithful. Their spells do not come from the weave but rather from the divine spark provided them by the prayers and belief of their followers. Remember this, Mystra existed and had power before she created the Weave.
As far as Torm and the faithless are concerned, there is no sin greater than faithlessness!
The best Forgotten Realms book out there for understanding the relationship between the gods and the people is, in my opinion, the Isle of Evermeet. Mostly deals with the elven gods but still an awesome book.
I guess my original premise wasn't that "The gods get their power from The Weave" but more along the lines of "Godly power would appear to be simply a kind of magic". As such, if beings such as these "Gods" can gain access to such power, why not mortals who have gained access to "magical" abilities such as fireball and time stop. There are a lot of synergies between magical spells and godlike abilities after all.
I do admit that this entire concept comes at least in some small part based on the Dragonlance Legends series where Raistlin attempts to challenge the gods themselves.
But take also Cyric as example. I think that would be appropriate as well. I haven't read that series, but it would appear to be a Mortal who learns powers that are in some way similar to Gods, which "Could" lead a wizard to think that it is possible.
Not only Cyric, but Kelemvor, Midnight, Mask, Bhaal, Bane, and Myrkul were all men that attained godhood. The manner in which godhood in the Forgotten Realms is attained is usually by obtaining the divine spark of the previous god, either by stealing it, killing and taking it, or having it given to you. Mystra caused Midnight to have it when she died, Cyric took it by force, Bhall, Bane, and Myrkul got theirs from, well, read the "History of the Dead Three" tome next time you find it in Baldur's Gate
And if you never read the tomes in the game, you are missing out on so much. The greatest quote of the game comes from the History of the Dead Three, and is relevant to this discussion: The difference between absolute power and absolute powerlessness is undetectable.
So, exactly. There's a history of Godhood being assailable (in one way or another). Given that wizards are supposed to possess powers beyond that of mortal ken, wouldn't they aspire to that level of power? At least those that are driven or obsessed with power (most of my wizards)? As such, do you really worship that which you covet? Because wouldn't that be evident to The God in question? I'm sure some Gods would value that, but certainly not all.
The original concept (in my mind) was that, if I can attain and master dominion over magic, why stop there? The Gods powers are surely just a different kind of magic, and therefore within my grasp. The Gods themselves would then be no more worthy of my worship than any other being. And if they can master them, I certainly can as well.
Now, I am by no means stating that all wizards would think that way. I am however saying, owing to certain similarities between magic and Godly powers, that there might be more of a penchant towards thinking "They are merely beings who have learned secrets that I can learn" (divine spark not withstanding). Even the Divine spark would be analogous to nothing more than a material component of a spell, but on a grander scale.
Which brings me back to my original concept. For those that explore how the universe works, the mysticism of divinity loses some of it's shine in the light of "Oh, that's how they do it."
A mage attempting godhood actually already happened in the lore and caused the fall of ancient Netheril. But no, most archmages are content with prolonging their lifespan for millenia and failing that, most turn to lichdom. Of all of the mortals that achieved godhood in the Forgotten Realms, and there are a lot of them, none of them did it using magic.
After the fall of Netheril and Mystryl's death, the new goddess of magic Mystra capped the weave at level 10 (some say level 11) spells. The weave cannot be used to cast anything greater, and every mage knows to try is to die utterly. As such mages know they cannot achieve godhood through magic.
Comments
Torm, if he were worthy of the title "god of justice" would not tolerate such a grossly unjust system as the one he is a part of (e.g. where ignorance or conscientious objection gets one a sentence in the wall).
Justice involves, among other things, that a prescribed punishment fits the crime. There is no crime in ignorance qua ignorance and so any punishment would be unjust. It would be intolerable for one dedicated to justice to benefit from such a system.
There cannot be a legitimate god of justice in such a system. The problem of evil is alive and well in the forgotten realms
Second, there is no basis for thinking that complexity by itself constitutes trauma, as presumably the sort of "insanity" we are looking for would be something akin to ptsd
Must investigate further...
If you'd like to peruse such dangerous knowledge yourself, Wikipedia's all yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strings_Theory
If you actually understand basic physics, such statements are utterly groundbeaking. The sheer sense it actually manages to make is incredibly scary, since science is fueled by questionings, which the string theory does not seem to make much room for, compared to earlier theories, due to the fact that it answers most questions that have driven physicists for centuries. Similarly, its statements about the universe and beyond hold such dread if you think about it too hard that it is a very real possibility that you'll enter clinical depression by trying to assimilate its meaning into your being. Throwing the concept of "dimensions" out of the window is also particularly disturbing, simply because while we can measure its numbers, we cannot actually comprehend their meaning beyond the basics (point, plane, volume and time, the "first" four vectors of dimension) we have assumed were all that held the fabric of reality together for ages, and not only that, it actually proves this statement by being the basis of things such as electromagnetivity.
Just by mentioning it I feel shivers down my spine, and an urge to further seek its knowledge, even if it caused me to attempt suicide during my first contact with it.
Ha! Paradigm shifts are painful events! But they only generally affect the old guard. Cognitive dissonance you see.
Here is another: no proofs in science. This is what makes paradigm shifts possible. this is especially true with "unobservables".
I can't comment on the specifics of physics but I can talk about psychology (we have our own unobservables).
the question is ultimately a philosophical one, raised first by kant. Tell me, how do you know a.thing as it is in itself independent of all experience when you can only know about it--it must be filtered by--through your senses?
Knowledge, specifically the contents of knowledge, must conform to our understanding. not the other way.around
If such a statement were even remotely true, or merely if you agree by it, things such as "scientific racism" and "phlogiston theory" would have never become obsolete, since the people who followed it were extremely reluctant to accept any questionings against it, and fervorously refused that they might have been wrong. By your own theory, if they cannot comprehend something, it is not knowledge;
Nevermind that many "knowledges" back in the day have long been proven to be false, such as "geocentrism", "bloodletting" and "Ricky Martin's heterosexuality", although they all still linger in the minds of some particularly ignorant people.
When it comes to quantum and string theories, although the maths is very interesting, there's no experiment yet to test for a number of these. Maths is the only way we can look at these things right now; we can't perceive them through the senses because we're talking about stuff that's much, much smaller than a single atom. Maths is independent of our senses which is why it's a useful tool for science. Maybe in five hundred years all our current best theories about the universe will have been replaced by better new theories, but three will still be a prime number; that won't ever change. At least if it does, that would be solid ground for us all going insane.
Does anyone remember what the topic was here?
Regardless, it's the.best we have, the best we could have, for what it does. It's like democracy in that way.
As for the op I think I have shown why any rational thinker must reject any "lg" god at least. Turns out it is for a similar reason anyone should reject most brands of monotheism.
I suppose when it comes to theology/philosophy, I suppose even in FR there must be questions like 'what is good?' Can it really be something the gods just decide, or is there some other basis for it etc.
Science is as much about interpretation and the model you choose as it is about evidence. Evidence, unfortunately, never just speaks for itself. it needs an interpreter. and interpreters are biased.
Take pavlov. was a brilliant guy, but don't talk to him cognitive processes or affect. Stimulus response is the only thing accepted here.
We might think, "we know better now" but we risk falling into the.same trap. we discount, without any real thought, a number of potentially brilliant ideas that just don't fit in our current construction. eventually the paradigm shows too many frayed edges and a new generation adopts a new one
Perhaps the word philistine would have served you better? Just one degenerate's opinion.
You could have a powerful being that you call "the god of justice" of course.this being may gain,power from those who worship it. Nevertheless it would not be a legitimate god of justice.
Once you have this single exception, then you can start wondering about the other gods. If one can be an empty placeholder, why not them all?
Torm is the God of Justice, but Faerunian justice is not the same as our justice. It's not an absolute, but a relative thing.
As far as Torm and the faithless are concerned, there is no sin greater than faithlessness!
The best Forgotten Realms book out there for understanding the relationship between the gods and the people is, in my opinion, the Isle of Evermeet. Mostly deals with the elven gods but still an awesome book.
I do admit that this entire concept comes at least in some small part based on the Dragonlance Legends series where Raistlin attempts to challenge the gods themselves.
But take also Cyric as example. I think that would be appropriate as well. I haven't read that series, but it would appear to be a Mortal who learns powers that are in some way similar to Gods, which "Could" lead a wizard to think that it is possible.
BTW I read alot.
The original concept (in my mind) was that, if I can attain and master dominion over magic, why stop there? The Gods powers are surely just a different kind of magic, and therefore within my grasp. The Gods themselves would then be no more worthy of my worship than any other being. And if they can master them, I certainly can as well.
Now, I am by no means stating that all wizards would think that way. I am however saying, owing to certain similarities between magic and Godly powers, that there might be more of a penchant towards thinking "They are merely beings who have learned secrets that I can learn" (divine spark not withstanding). Even the Divine spark would be analogous to nothing more than a material component of a spell, but on a grander scale.
Which brings me back to my original concept. For those that explore how the universe works, the mysticism of divinity loses some of it's shine in the light of "Oh, that's how they do it."
After the fall of Netheril and Mystryl's death, the new goddess of magic Mystra capped the weave at level 10 (some say level 11) spells. The weave cannot be used to cast anything greater, and every mage knows to try is to die utterly. As such mages know they cannot achieve godhood through magic.