Dude I saw that guy in the last photo in real life, he had wheels under his hooves. I was going to ask how he ever sat down. @Sinrus and anyone else ... Science is all theory or in other words a very likely guess, sometimes even science falls short. And well, science can be flat out wrong, People used to think it was impossible to go to the moon or they could create gold or that the titanic could never sink or that California was an island...There was Geocentricity in Greece and China...Spontaneous Generation or something like Cambrian explosion. Spontaneous Generation creatures just pop up from the dirt around us, popular theory until the 19th century. Just lay some bricks outside and poof you get a scorpion! Amazing, imagine if you put a bunch of honey on the ground what might grow! Bears, bees, butterflies? What else eats honey? The Cambrian explosion idea is still debated and is one of the topics Darwin admitted was a flaw with his theory. Another point, since science is theories, and we make up the theories, it will always have some flaw because when are humans ever perfect? So faith, right there, faith in some idea of truth and logic. Best to doubt even the things considered undoubtable. You can believe your science, I'll believe it to, but I have some back plans when things go wrong, because believe me they will. Unless well, you live in a alternative universe, and even then I have my doubts. Oh...It's not really science per say but doctors used to recommend smoking (Check out 50's & 60's ads) , now think about that a bit, part of our truth of how life works will change constantly, what is science today will be laughed at in ten, twenty years. You need some faith to handle that. The idea that somehow imperfect humans will find the perfect answers is beyond me. They may get close to some answers but in doing so find even more questions or come to realize they never found the answer in the first place. That is where religion comes in, it has some answers to questions and some questions that need to be answered. Much like science. Both science and religion have created some beautiful and horrible things in the world and both should be treated with some respect since all great power involves great responsibility. I think about 80% of the world is religious but I'm sure that number changes a bit, still, I'd say there is some power there. No decent links to back me up though just googling it. Do research if you care.
Oh and here:
Science is theories,
A theory is a good guess.
Therefore science is a good guess.
Modus Ponens should be valid...I believe...Now the truth of the argument can be debated...
You must have some faith to believe a guess.
No matter how educated, researched or established.
It is still a guess.
Probably right though, for almost every occasion, gravity has not failed me yet. But it could. Maybe it will, but I for one would not appreciate it.
I could go on all day about subjects such as these...
A very interesting topic, and I'm glad EC is addressing it [finally].
If I might be so bold though I'd like to try and demonstrate where the dissonance I'm reading in the comments is coming from:
___
"So why? Why do we never touch on faith in games? Why is it somehow a more taboo subject than the extremities of violence or the notion of good and evil?"
Good point.
"It's hard to say, but if we're truly being honest with ourselves it's due in part to the fact that within our community there is some hostility towards faith, and to be fair people claiming to be of faith have shown us a fair amount of hostility as well in the past."
True, true...
"But this is just silly."
I'm listening...
"All reason is based on faith..."
Nope. We're done here.
___
Here's the bottom line: theological beliefs (because faith is a messy word), or the lack thereof, are very closely held when we think of the human experience. People easy become engaged when the topic comes up (just look at some of these comments for reference), and at the end of the day that's really what we're looking for in a player-base: engagement. As 'Interactive Media' (video games) develops as a medium, it would be awesome to see more games explore this. And not to say it's entirely non-existent; I thought Final Fantasy X was particularly interesting in exploring matters of theological belief.
I think where games tend to fall short is that we too often and too easily let our characters fall into the "disillusioned former believer" trope. It's becoming cliche, and we're better than that. We can handle respected characters that hold to their beliefs in the face of their tragedies and come out better for it. The repentant hypocrite who realizes their failings and resolves to seek redemption from their former ways. The hopeless criminal who while incarcerated comes to realize the pain they've caused.
These are (in my opinion) engaging characters that would be great to interact with, or even assume the role of. The prisoner one would certainly make an interesting protagonist.
The other area we fall short is when we do approach issues of theological belief, we are much too linear. The EC gang hit on this too. A game that allowed theological choices to be made and let players explore the consequences and resulting worldviews of their choices would be extremely interesting. Afterall, this is what makes our medium so unique - it's ability to allow ourselves to assume roles we normally wouldn't be exposed to, and to interact with our surroundings rather than being dragged through a linear plot.
That element of this episode was great food for thought. It is unfortunate that EC spent the second half of the episode trying to convince us that "Science" and "Faith" are essentially the same thing. They are not, and by trying to fit that squared peg into that triangled hole, I think they lost alot of their audience who might otherwise have been very accepting of the idea of addressing issues of divinity in our medium and in our community.
So? What does this tell you? Why does this matter?
"People used to think it was impossible to go to the moon or they could create gold or that the [1] titanic could never sink or that [2] California was an island"
[1] never happened. The Titanic was never stated to be unsinkable.
[2] was due to a cartographic error. You can't criticize science or it's methodology based on the geography (note: not an actual science, even if it is important) equivalent of forgetting to carry the 1.
"Spontaneous Generation creatures just pop up from the dirt around us, popular theory until the 19th century. Just lay some bricks outside and poof you get a scorpion! Amazing, imagine if you put a bunch of honey on the ground what might grow! Bears, bees, butterflies? What else eats honey?"
Not how that actually works. Spontaneous generation was developed to described how insects, mold and other pests kept getting into sealed food containers. It was shown false when Louis Pasteur demonstrated that microbes and germs exist, and that the food containers were not seal against these or the tiny eggs of insects. It never involved scorpions coming from bricks.
"The Cambrian explosion idea is still debated and is one of the topics Darwin admitted was a flaw with his theory."
No. There is no controversy over the Cambrian explosion. It's due largely to 2 things: the development of creatures that fossilize well and the expansion of fauna into previously empty evolutionary niches. So animals started being preserved better and the population hiked up. The "explosion" also lasted 5 million years; it's only an explosion from a geological perspective. The fact that Darwin thought it was problematic is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, evolution didn't end with Darwin. It didn't even really start with him. Modern evolutionary theory deals with the Cambrian explosion quite well. I'm tired of creationists trotting out this tired old bit with a smug look on their face (not accusing you of anything, just that other people have ruined my patience on this matter).
"So faith, right there, faith in some idea of truth and logic."
What is this I don't even? The idea that I have faith in logic is very alien to me; I can barely wrap my head around it. I have faith that A=A? It has to be A. There's no way it couldn't be. Now, whether or not the logic applies to reality is another matter, but the logic itself is indisputable (assuming no fallacies have been made). In fact, this is the general contention I have with faith. Even if the logic is sound, the basic premises of many faiths do not match reality in any verifiable way.
"You can believe your science, I'll believe it to, but I have some back plans when things go wrong, because believe me they will."
Backup plans won't do you any good. Everyone goes to Erubus by the will of Hades.
Pascals wager will do you no good here.
"... now think about that a bit, part of our truth of how life works will change constantly, what is science today will be laughed at in ten, twenty years. You need some faith to handle that."
No I don't. I need to accept that some of what I believe to be true may in fact be shown to be false. This requires the willingness to accept that basis tenets you hold dear may be entirely unjustified. Literally the antithesis of how most faith is practiced.
"The idea that somehow imperfect humans will find the perfect answers is beyond me."
Me too. Who is saying otherwise?
"They may get close to some answers but in doing so find even more questions or come to realize they never found the answer in the first place.That is where religion comes in, it has some answers to questions and some questions that need to be answered."
It has some assumptions about the answers, sure. I don't find that satisfactory in the slightest.
"Much like science. Both science and religion have created some beautiful and horrible things in the world and both should be treated with some respect since all great power involves great responsibility."
Science creates nothing seeing as it merely descriptive. Sure, it enables some terrible things, but to blame the Hiroshima bombing on the fact that atoms release energy when split rather then blame the people who built the bombs and dropped them seems pretty twisted to me. Religion, on the other hand, endorses specific actions and ideologies. It is culpable for the results such actions produce.
"I think about 80% of the world is religious but I'm sure that number changes a bit, still, I'd say there is some power there. No decent links to back me up though just googling it. Do research if you care."
I was gonna address this bit, but then I realized that I don't know what you mean by "power". Some power in faith? Prayer? The power to use faith as a tool for controlling groups?
I'm gonna have to go to the forum, quotes look ugly with no HTML.
If you posted something, and it didn't go through, I suggest sending a PM to a mod about checking the filter. Reposting leads to, well, what you see above.
I apologize for the difficulty posting, as I know this is a hot button topic, but the spam filter is a bit twitchy right now.
@Everyone
I would like to advice everyone to ignore Sinrus as he is either a troll, or/and an idiot utterly incapable of rational thought. Note, this is not defamation, or even an ad hominem due to the numerous utterly stupid, incorrect and fallacious stuff he has said.
He has shown in this topic to not have any understanding of AT LEAST these terms:
Science
Theory
Peer-review
Replication of experiments
Gravity
Faith
He has also shown himself to be completely uninterested in truth and will twist your words to suit his own beliefs rendering any rational argument futile.
Personally I would suggest a ban, or at least a warning for spam and unorderly conduct of behaviour as he has only managed to instigate aggression and has so far had a single constructive sentence posted in this topic.
If you posted something, and it didn't go through, I suggest sending a PM to a mod about checking the filter. Reposting leads to, well, what you see above.
I apologize for the difficulty posting, as I know this is a hot button topic, but the spam filter is a bit twitchy right now.
I apologize for the noob moment. It was my first time posting here for whatever reason I could not get my post to show up, so I kept reposting it trying to get it to show up. And of course now this morning I look like a fool (errr... silly goose).
What's with all the multiple posts (I mean, we're talking like two pages worth, at least--and I'm not just talking about one poster but several)? It makes the debate awfully hard to follow within a reasonably logical timeline...
Regardless...aside from the pages of debate on defining terms (idealized or not) etc., the closest I thing I've experienced to the actual issue that EC attempted to address in the video--at least recently--was I just started playing Bioshock. I may be a complete throwback by saving a game for that long, but my queue is really that long, and it never really got brought up to the front because I was a late starter in that particular generation of gaming, mostly due to a longstanding obsession with Guitar Hero (and Grad School).
Anyway I found it particularly interesting the twists that occur...to use a term that has become lengthy in its disputations you have to take it on "faith" that you are doing the right thing (inititially) in Bioshock with virtually no evidence, no context for the world you are thrust into...as you collect evidence (to dance on the line of spoiling it for the 2 people left in the gaming world that haven't played it) you lose that faith...or do you? Maybe it just evolves...adapts, like injecting a Plasmid...I actually haven't finished the game yet so I don't know...I did get past a pivotal moment and it made me think of this discussion, and also the fact that the game was going to originally be about a cult deprogrammer and how I wish they would still make that game. Anyway that's about as close to religion as I've experienced in a game that I can think of in recent memory.
Halleluiah! Someone understands faith and paradigm shift.
But to be on subject, faith (the broad all encompassing notion of faith) is very difficult to pull off in an interactive medium or any other medium, especially for religious fanatics like myself who already have enthusiasm toward particular faith claims.
Of course I would like play such games only to see how the experience is comparable or compromising to the true faith.
As for examples I say Bioshock (big surprise I know) is a great example of how different "faiths" generate different behavior especially when you listen to certain audio diaries. When I first went down the the bathysphere to Rapture and heard the recorded words of Andrew Ryan say "Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality" I said to myself "Well no wonder this place went into ruin." Unfortunately you are a third party to the experience of faith while everyone else is going through the motions.
Halleluiah! Someone understands faith and paradigm shift.
But to be on subject, faith (the broad all encompassing notion of faith) is very difficult to pull off in an interactive medium or any other medium, especially for religious fanatics like myself who already have enthusiasm toward particular faith claims.
Of course I would like play such games only to see how the experience is comparable or compromising to the true faith.
As for examples I say Bioshock (big surprise I know) is a great example of how different "faiths" generate different behavior especially when you listen to certain audio diaries. When I first went down the the bathysphere to Rapture and heard the recorded words of Andrew Ryan say "Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality" I said to myself "Well no wonder this place went into ruin." Unfortunately you are a third party to the experience of faith while everyone else is going through the motions.
Authors of this episode have apparently fallen for that old lazy canard of "science and faith are one and the same".
Which, amusingly, is never heard from the science camp - only from that other one.
Science is a method for exploration and discovery of truth, both through theoretical and practical means - but if you have to sum it down to really simple sound-bites it's "theory-experimentation-proof".
There is no "faith" in that chain just because someone else somewhere made some other proves you are using "as given" in your research - you can still do ALL those experiments yourself.
In fact, when doing peer review - you are OBLIGED to do them.
You MUST do them on your own if your review of someone else's results to be of any significance.
Knowing that someone else proved something before does not make that knowledge or the use of that knowledge an act of faith - it is instead a product of UNDERSTANDING.
The path of learning something IS study->learn->understand->know.
NOT - study->faith.
I... we... KNOW that 1a + 1a = 2a.
It can even be easily proven if someone demands that.
But since it is a VERY simple and easily UNDERSTANDABLE concept we don't keep proving it. We KNOW it to be true.
Same thing works with more complex concepts - once you KNOW them, you don't need to keep reexamining them.
Unless you do need to do that. Or you simply want to do that. You are free to do so.
But ALL the faith in the world (or lack thereof) won't make a lick of difference in changing the result.
You can believe in deity or a concept or yourself all you want - it won't make 1a + 1a = 3a.
Or 4a. Or 4562901a. Or -56841.128a.
.
.
.
On the other hand - faith DEMANDS that you do not experiment if 1a + 2a = 5a.
Or that 1a + 1a = 2a.
You simply must believe it to be true and it will be so.
You can't reexamine that belief - reexamination alone means that you've LOST your faith.
I get what they were trying to say in this, and I agree with these guys 99% of the time, but I inherently disagree with the premise that everything requires faith. And particularly I disagree with the statement that "all of our science relies, not on exhaustive proof, but on the most probable thing that hasn't been proven wrong." - This statement is incorrect. Theory relies on having an idea, which does indeed rely on some amount of faith in that idea, but having a theory does not make something fact. Being able to prove your theory time and time again and having it not only become accepted by the scientific community, but ALSO to have it stand the test of time? That's how you prove something with evidence. And what is evidence really? Some once argued that it was empirical reasoning (experiencing with the senses). However it also took testing theories and recreating results in a controlled environment to become science as we know it today. Science may not always be right, but it's proponents are ever conscious of that fact, and seek always to expand their horizons.
Trust in those who claim to be seeking the truth, for those who claim to have already found it only display how little they actually know of this vast universe and our place in it.
@Jimperator
Theories cannot be proven. A theory is a field of study and as such can never be proven, but to be tested and challenged until the end of time.
Also proofs has no place in science either because of that and as such proofs exist only as a term in mathemathics. That's also why science collects data and evidence, but very rarely will you hear a scientist use the word "proof".
Infact I would go as far as to say that the term "proof" is inherently unscientific, because it implyes that there's nothing else to find out, or learn and there's very clear, good reason why science doesn't, nore should it allow for that.
No matter how much evidence you have, you can never say that a theory has been "proven".
Meanwhile words like "proof" or "irrefutable", or even "unfalsifiable" are very often used by people seeking to discredit science. Science isn't hard, it's all just a bunch of facts, data and some maths, the real trick, the actual hard part is to know how to be scientific. This might sound a bit silly, but it's true. Since majority of the people do not need to post all of their ideas to peer review, they don't know how science work, how could they even? In this form the scientific community is quite isolated from the rest of the population which shows in poor scientific literacy in media, this episode of EC is a great demonstration of that.
Wow...still multiple post dupes. Lots of great ideas here but they get repeated to the point of getting lost.
Fact is, some are ultimately arguing the case for what "it" is ideally while others are pointing out what "it" can become in practice as evidence for inaccurate representation of the definitions...where "it" is placeholder for both sides of the issue. That can certainly contribute to an impasse.
You're exhibiting faith when you decide the pursuit of Scientific Knowledge - be it for its own sake or for improving lives - is something worth striving for. When you believe that the "scientific observations" you make with your eyes and ears are truly as you observe them. You're putting faith in your ability to accurately observe the world around you.
You're exhibiting faith when you decide the pursuit of Scientific Knowledge - be it for its own sake or for improving lives - is something worth striving for. When you believe that the "scientific observations" you make with your eyes and ears are truly as you observe them. You're putting faith in your ability to accurately observe the world around you.
...so what then?
I mean if you insist upon defining the word "faith" so broadly that it refers to every possible human thought or action, then who even cares about it? You've rendered it essentially meaningless.
There seems to be this thought out there... like... "If I can only define the word faith to also include things which are reasonable, then whatever random faith-based belief I care about will suddenly become reasonable by association!" and it just doesn't work that way.
You're exhibiting faith when you decide the pursuit of Scientific Knowledge - be it for its own sake or for improving lives - is something worth striving for. When you believe that the "scientific observations" you make with your eyes and ears are truly as you observe them. You're putting faith in your ability to accurately observe the world around you.
...so what then?
I mean if you insist upon defining the word "faith" so broadly that it refers to every possible human thought or action, then who even cares about it? You've rendered it essentially meaningless.
There seems to be this thought out there... like... "If I can only define the word faith to also include things which are reasonable, then whatever random faith-based belief I care about will suddenly become reasonable by association!" and it just doesn't work that way.
Systems do not work that way. but people do. People are only as static as you think they are by observation of specific actions. But specific actions do not necessarily define what a person is, and ultimately people are the only beings we know of that can practice (and idealize) either "religion" or "science," or even both depending on the situation. In other words, someone with religion can also use logic to do a word puzzle--religion is not a permanent state--but we may only hear about how their diety did the darndest things, and not see logic applied because we aren't around them 24 hours a day. Also. we are fickle creatures prone to failure, doubt, rage, and unreasonable action, no matter what systems we hold dear.
I think part of the defensiveness is attributable to the fact that much is inferred (if not implied) that "faith" is immediately a bad thing by its very nature. Maybe if applied in a specific way (the practiced faith versus the ideal), but it is neither good nor bad as a system: until it is applied--in a real sense--on an individual basis it is neutral, just as belief without evidence is supposed to be (again, ideally) irrelevant (not good or bad, just irrelevant) to science. People don't work that way, but systems do--again, ideally. People "do religion/faith wrong" all of the time, just as they "do science wrong," according to what rules are set forth by their peers. But are peers always reliable or do they, too, become dogmatic?
It's not about x versus y, or that x is bad and y is good; it's about the fact that x and y don't even really communicate at all (as an ideal system).
As for faith in games leading to death, how many "leaps of faith" have been taken in video games? Or would you consider them to have been unsuccessful experiments? Is risk-taking in games like having faith in your own abilities?
You're exhibiting faith when you decide the pursuit of Scientific Knowledge - be it for its own sake or for improving lives - is something worth striving for. When you believe that the "scientific observations" you make with your eyes and ears are truly as you observe them. You're putting faith in your ability to accurately observe the world around you.
...so what then?
I mean if you insist upon defining the word "faith" so broadly that it refers to every possible human thought or action, then who even cares about it? You've rendered it essentially meaningless.
There seems to be this thought out there... like... "If I can only define the word faith to also include things which are reasonable, then whatever random faith-based belief I care about will suddenly become reasonable by association!" and it just doesn't work that way.
Systems do not work that way. but people do. People are only as static as you think they are by observation of specific actions. But specific actions do not necessarily define what a person is, and ultimately people are the only beings we know of that can practice (and idealize) either "religion" or "science," or even both depending on the situation. In other words, someone with religion can also use logic to do a word puzzle--religion is not a permanent state--but we may only hear about how their diety did the darndest things, and not see logic applied because we aren't around them 24 hours a day. Also. we are fickle creatures prone to failure, doubt, rage, and unreasonable action, no matter what systems we hold dear.
I think part of the defensiveness is attributable to the fact that much is inferred (if not implied) that "faith" is immediately a bad thing by its very nature. Maybe if applied in a specific way (the practiced faith versus the ideal), but it is neither good nor bad as a system: until it is applied--in a real sense--on an individual basis it is neutral, just as belief without evidence is supposed to be (again, ideally) irrelevant (not good or bad, just irrelevant) to science. People don't work that way, but systems do--again, ideally. People "do religion/faith wrong" all of the time, just as they "do science wrong," according to what rules are set forth by their peers. But are peers always reliable or do they, too, become dogmatic?
It's not about x versus y, or that x is bad and y is good; it's about the fact that x and y don't even really communicate at all (as an ideal system).
As for faith in games leading to death, how many "leaps of faith" have been taken in video games? Or would you consider them to have been unsuccessful experiments? Is risk-taking in games like having faith in your own abilities?
You're exhibiting faith when you decide the pursuit of Scientific Knowledge - be it for its own sake or for improving lives - is something worth striving for. When you believe that the "scientific observations" you make with your eyes and ears are truly as you observe them. You're putting faith in your ability to accurately observe the world around you.
...so what then?
I mean if you insist upon defining the word "faith" so broadly that it refers to every possible human thought or action, then who even cares about it? You've rendered it essentially meaningless.
There seems to be this thought out there... like... "If I can only define the word faith to also include things which are reasonable, then whatever random faith-based belief I care about will suddenly become reasonable by association!" and it just doesn't work that way.
Actually, it doesn't sound that hard to have a faith argument. Start with a priest of the great whatever, he has magics because whatever's awesome to the faithful. Along his merry way he leaves the bubble of the holy whatever empire and bumps into another people who don't know a thing about whatever, but do have magics. Is'cool, they've been getting whatever's love and didn't know it; play missionary FTW. Then he bumps into another group that does know all about whatever and couldn't care less. But...But... they have magics too?! Some of it's even totally sweet stuff the church secretly banned! Could whatever NOT be the source of powers? Then what's the point of whateverism? Is it just a veiled form of control? And what about his mission?
There seems to be this thought out there... like... "If I can only define the word faith to also include things which are reasonable, then whatever random faith-based belief I care about will suddenly become reasonable by association!" and it just doesn't work that way.
I'm sick of this petty semantical game.
I'm guessing what I had to say in response to that post (which is now somehow a reply to my reply) was essentially glossed over. I didn't take a side, which was my whole point. I mentioned that both sides are either inferring or implying, and arguing for or against an ideal versus practiced system, thereby creating the impasse. If you're sick of what you perceived from my post as petty, why participate?
There seems to be this thought out there... like... "If I can only define the word faith to also include things which are reasonable, then whatever random faith-based belief I care about will suddenly become reasonable by association!" and it just doesn't work that way.
I'm sick of this petty semantical game.
I'm guessing what I had to say in response to that post (which is now somehow a reply to my reply) was essentially glossed over. I didn't take a side, which was my whole point. I mentioned that both sides are either inferring or implying, and arguing for or against an ideal versus practiced system, thereby creating the impasse. If you're sick of what you perceived from my post as petty, why participate?
No, you're being politically correct. You basically have no opinion. You're arguing faith is bad in practice, just not in theory and trying to establish equivalency between it and science in that people just aren't applying it right.
There is no "right way" to apply religion because it's subjective by its nature. It's the continuous effort by the faithful to portray religion as equally useful or equivalent to science or art or anything else. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty and I cannot abide it.
I also have very little patience for Non-Overlapping Magisteria as an argument.
No, you're being politically correct. You basically have no opinion. You're arguing faith is bad in practice, just not in theory and trying to establish equivalency between it and science in that people just aren't applying it right.
There is no "right way" to apply religion because it's subjective by its nature. It's the continuous effort by the faithful to portray religion as equally useful or equivalent to science or art or anything else. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty and I cannot abide it.
I also have very little patience for Non-Overlapping Magisteria as an argument.
I apologize if I was being unclear, I use inelegant language to make my point: that some people are arguing for/against faith/science as idealized, and some are arguing for/against faith/science as a practice, in order to suit their particular case/cause, and that they are both completely different things (in both ideology and in practice). I did not even say they were equally useful; I was making an observation on how the argumentation has shifted to suit the means of the argument rather than what either system "is" ideally versus how it can be practiced.
I also reject the the fact that I am promoting a "dumb idea" by saying that they are different domains (again, not giving them a "good" or "bad" qualifier), especially if the definition keeps shifting to suit the goal of the argument. It's not a case that no argument should be made "for" or "against" (ever binary being our natures apparently), rather that it is irrelevant to both domains regardless of whether they are practical or idealized. Again, if we stick to the definition as an ideal system , they are indeed different and have different goals, most definitely. Am I still unclear?
Also, did you assume I was "faithful" (whatever that even means anymore) by merely stating what I have? What evidence do you have that I am?
As for Non-Overlapping Magisteria; if you have little patience for it, does that mean you find there is overlap, or just that it is irrelevant? Because I would agree with the latter, especially ideally versus practically.
If none of these questions really mattered, then perhaps a more compelling response would not have used "intellectual dishonesty" and "dumb ideas" in their statements.
It's the continuous effort by the faithful to portray religion as equally useful or equivalent to science or art or anything else.
Is there any evidence to support--in anything I said--that I one of those "faithful" (whatever that means)?
I also did not mention anywhere that religion/science were equally useful--just that everyone seems to use their own special definition (ideal or practical) to argue for/against it. Usually ideal "for" and practical "against" which is what led me to observe that people are the subjective element here.
I like Gould in general, but yeah, Non-Overlapping Magisteria is a terrible argument. Religion and science do not merely occupy different domains.
Please, elaborate. I want to know why you think it's a terrible argument. I would also like to know how you have extrapolated my observation as a defense of Gould. I did mention they were completely irrelevant to one another and do not communicate: is this the same as "merely occupying different domains?"
I'd like to add that I hate the term "political correctness." It's always used to mean, "you are engaged in a behaviour I do not approve of".
DrainGored was not trying to minimize offense, xe was promoting a dumb idea. Fence sitting and political correctness are not the same.
One probably be more compelled as to why there is a disagreement with what I said through rhetoric rather than by calling my observation (a defacto promotion of) "a dumb idea."
Posts
Oh and here:
Science is theories,
A theory is a good guess.
Therefore science is a good guess.
Modus Ponens should be valid...I believe...Now the truth of the argument can be debated...
You must have some faith to believe a guess.
No matter how educated, researched or established.
It is still a guess.
Probably right though, for almost every occasion, gravity has not failed me yet. But it could. Maybe it will, but I for one would not appreciate it.
I could go on all day about subjects such as these...
If I might be so bold though I'd like to try and demonstrate where the dissonance I'm reading in the comments is coming from:
___
"So why? Why do we never touch on faith in games? Why is it somehow a more taboo subject than the extremities of violence or the notion of good and evil?"
Good point.
"It's hard to say, but if we're truly being honest with ourselves it's due in part to the fact that within our community there is some hostility towards faith, and to be fair people claiming to be of faith have shown us a fair amount of hostility as well in the past."
True, true...
"But this is just silly."
I'm listening...
"All reason is based on faith..."
Nope. We're done here.
___
Here's the bottom line: theological beliefs (because faith is a messy word), or the lack thereof, are very closely held when we think of the human experience. People easy become engaged when the topic comes up (just look at some of these comments for reference), and at the end of the day that's really what we're looking for in a player-base: engagement. As 'Interactive Media' (video games) develops as a medium, it would be awesome to see more games explore this. And not to say it's entirely non-existent; I thought Final Fantasy X was particularly interesting in exploring matters of theological belief.
I think where games tend to fall short is that we too often and too easily let our characters fall into the "disillusioned former believer" trope. It's becoming cliche, and we're better than that. We can handle respected characters that hold to their beliefs in the face of their tragedies and come out better for it. The repentant hypocrite who realizes their failings and resolves to seek redemption from their former ways. The hopeless criminal who while incarcerated comes to realize the pain they've caused.
These are (in my opinion) engaging characters that would be great to interact with, or even assume the role of. The prisoner one would certainly make an interesting protagonist.
The other area we fall short is when we do approach issues of theological belief, we are much too linear. The EC gang hit on this too. A game that allowed theological choices to be made and let players explore the consequences and resulting worldviews of their choices would be extremely interesting. Afterall, this is what makes our medium so unique - it's ability to allow ourselves to assume roles we normally wouldn't be exposed to, and to interact with our surroundings rather than being dragged through a linear plot.
That element of this episode was great food for thought. It is unfortunate that EC spent the second half of the episode trying to convince us that "Science" and "Faith" are essentially the same thing. They are not, and by trying to fit that squared peg into that triangled hole, I think they lost alot of their audience who might otherwise have been very accepting of the idea of addressing issues of divinity in our medium and in our community.
@soft_sound
"science can be flat out wrong"
So? What does this tell you? Why does this matter?
"People used to think it was impossible to go to the moon or they could create gold or that the [1] titanic could never sink or that [2] California was an island"
[1] never happened. The Titanic was never stated to be unsinkable.
[2] was due to a cartographic error. You can't criticize science or it's methodology based on the geography (note: not an actual science, even if it is important) equivalent of forgetting to carry the 1.
"Spontaneous Generation creatures just pop up from the dirt around us, popular theory until the 19th century. Just lay some bricks outside and poof you get a scorpion! Amazing, imagine if you put a bunch of honey on the ground what might grow! Bears, bees, butterflies? What else eats honey?"
Not how that actually works. Spontaneous generation was developed to described how insects, mold and other pests kept getting into sealed food containers. It was shown false when Louis Pasteur demonstrated that microbes and germs exist, and that the food containers were not seal against these or the tiny eggs of insects. It never involved scorpions coming from bricks.
"The Cambrian explosion idea is still debated and is one of the topics Darwin admitted was a flaw with his theory."
No. There is no controversy over the Cambrian explosion. It's due largely to 2 things: the development of creatures that fossilize well and the expansion of fauna into previously empty evolutionary niches. So animals started being preserved better and the population hiked up. The "explosion" also lasted 5 million years; it's only an explosion from a geological perspective. The fact that Darwin thought it was problematic is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, evolution didn't end with Darwin. It didn't even really start with him. Modern evolutionary theory deals with the Cambrian explosion quite well. I'm tired of creationists trotting out this tired old bit with a smug look on their face (not accusing you of anything, just that other people have ruined my patience on this matter).
"So faith, right there, faith in some idea of truth and logic."
What is this I don't even? The idea that I have faith in logic is very alien to me; I can barely wrap my head around it. I have faith that A=A? It has to be A. There's no way it couldn't be. Now, whether or not the logic applies to reality is another matter, but the logic itself is indisputable (assuming no fallacies have been made). In fact, this is the general contention I have with faith. Even if the logic is sound, the basic premises of many faiths do not match reality in any verifiable way.
"You can believe your science, I'll believe it to, but I have some back plans when things go wrong, because believe me they will."
Backup plans won't do you any good. Everyone goes to Erubus by the will of Hades.
Pascals wager will do you no good here.
"... now think about that a bit, part of our truth of how life works will change constantly, what is science today will be laughed at in ten, twenty years. You need some faith to handle that."
No I don't. I need to accept that some of what I believe to be true may in fact be shown to be false. This requires the willingness to accept that basis tenets you hold dear may be entirely unjustified. Literally the antithesis of how most faith is practiced.
"The idea that somehow imperfect humans will find the perfect answers is beyond me."
Me too. Who is saying otherwise?
"They may get close to some answers but in doing so find even more questions or come to realize they never found the answer in the first place.That is where religion comes in, it has some answers to questions and some questions that need to be answered."
It has some assumptions about the answers, sure. I don't find that satisfactory in the slightest.
"Much like science. Both science and religion have created some beautiful and horrible things in the world and both should be treated with some respect since all great power involves great responsibility."
Science creates nothing seeing as it merely descriptive. Sure, it enables some terrible things, but to blame the Hiroshima bombing on the fact that atoms release energy when split rather then blame the people who built the bombs and dropped them seems pretty twisted to me. Religion, on the other hand, endorses specific actions and ideologies. It is culpable for the results such actions produce.
"I think about 80% of the world is religious but I'm sure that number changes a bit, still, I'd say there is some power there. No decent links to back me up though just googling it. Do research if you care."
I was gonna address this bit, but then I realized that I don't know what you mean by "power". Some power in faith? Prayer? The power to use faith as a tool for controlling groups?
I'm gonna have to go to the forum, quotes look ugly with no HTML.
Double post. My apologies.
I apologize for the difficulty posting, as I know this is a hot button topic, but the spam filter is a bit twitchy right now.
I would like to advice everyone to ignore Sinrus as he is either a troll, or/and an idiot utterly incapable of rational thought. Note, this is not defamation, or even an ad hominem due to the numerous utterly stupid, incorrect and fallacious stuff he has said.
He has shown in this topic to not have any understanding of AT LEAST these terms:
Science
Theory
Peer-review
Replication of experiments
Gravity
Faith
He has also shown himself to be completely uninterested in truth and will twist your words to suit his own beliefs rendering any rational argument futile.
Personally I would suggest a ban, or at least a warning for spam and unorderly conduct of behaviour as he has only managed to instigate aggression and has so far had a single constructive sentence posted in this topic.
I apologize for the noob moment. It was my first time posting here for whatever reason I could not get my post to show up, so I kept reposting it trying to get it to show up. And of course now this morning I look like a fool (errr... silly goose).
It won't happen again.
Regardless...aside from the pages of debate on defining terms (idealized or not) etc., the closest I thing I've experienced to the actual issue that EC attempted to address in the video--at least recently--was I just started playing Bioshock. I may be a complete throwback by saving a game for that long, but my queue is really that long, and it never really got brought up to the front because I was a late starter in that particular generation of gaming, mostly due to a longstanding obsession with Guitar Hero (and Grad School).
Anyway I found it particularly interesting the twists that occur...to use a term that has become lengthy in its disputations you have to take it on "faith" that you are doing the right thing (inititially) in Bioshock with virtually no evidence, no context for the world you are thrust into...as you collect evidence (to dance on the line of spoiling it for the 2 people left in the gaming world that haven't played it) you lose that faith...or do you? Maybe it just evolves...adapts, like injecting a Plasmid...I actually haven't finished the game yet so I don't know...I did get past a pivotal moment and it made me think of this discussion, and also the fact that the game was going to originally be about a cult deprogrammer and how I wish they would still make that game. Anyway that's about as close to religion as I've experienced in a game that I can think of in recent memory.
But to be on subject, faith (the broad all encompassing notion of faith) is very difficult to pull off in an interactive medium or any other medium, especially for religious fanatics like myself who already have enthusiasm toward particular faith claims.
Of course I would like play such games only to see how the experience is comparable or compromising to the true faith.
As for examples I say Bioshock (big surprise I know) is a great example of how different "faiths" generate different behavior especially when you listen to certain audio diaries. When I first went down the the bathysphere to Rapture and heard the recorded words of Andrew Ryan say "Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality" I said to myself "Well no wonder this place went into ruin." Unfortunately you are a third party to the experience of faith while everyone else is going through the motions.
But to be on subject, faith (the broad all encompassing notion of faith) is very difficult to pull off in an interactive medium or any other medium, especially for religious fanatics like myself who already have enthusiasm toward particular faith claims.
Of course I would like play such games only to see how the experience is comparable or compromising to the true faith.
As for examples I say Bioshock (big surprise I know) is a great example of how different "faiths" generate different behavior especially when you listen to certain audio diaries. When I first went down the the bathysphere to Rapture and heard the recorded words of Andrew Ryan say "Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality" I said to myself "Well no wonder this place went into ruin." Unfortunately you are a third party to the experience of faith while everyone else is going through the motions.
2nd part - 40 cakes terrible.
Authors of this episode have apparently fallen for that old lazy canard of "science and faith are one and the same".
Which, amusingly, is never heard from the science camp - only from that other one.
Science is a method for exploration and discovery of truth, both through theoretical and practical means - but if you have to sum it down to really simple sound-bites it's "theory-experimentation-proof".
There is no "faith" in that chain just because someone else somewhere made some other proves you are using "as given" in your research - you can still do ALL those experiments yourself.
In fact, when doing peer review - you are OBLIGED to do them.
You MUST do them on your own if your review of someone else's results to be of any significance.
Knowing that someone else proved something before does not make that knowledge or the use of that knowledge an act of faith - it is instead a product of UNDERSTANDING.
The path of learning something IS study->learn->understand->know.
NOT - study->faith.
I... we... KNOW that 1a + 1a = 2a.
It can even be easily proven if someone demands that.
But since it is a VERY simple and easily UNDERSTANDABLE concept we don't keep proving it. We KNOW it to be true.
Same thing works with more complex concepts - once you KNOW them, you don't need to keep reexamining them.
Unless you do need to do that. Or you simply want to do that. You are free to do so.
But ALL the faith in the world (or lack thereof) won't make a lick of difference in changing the result.
You can believe in deity or a concept or yourself all you want - it won't make 1a + 1a = 3a.
Or 4a. Or 4562901a. Or -56841.128a.
.
.
.
On the other hand - faith DEMANDS that you do not experiment if 1a + 2a = 5a.
Or that 1a + 1a = 2a.
You simply must believe it to be true and it will be so.
You can't reexamine that belief - reexamination alone means that you've LOST your faith.
Trust in those who claim to be seeking the truth, for those who claim to have already found it only display how little they actually know of this vast universe and our place in it.
Theories cannot be proven. A theory is a field of study and as such can never be proven, but to be tested and challenged until the end of time.
Also proofs has no place in science either because of that and as such proofs exist only as a term in mathemathics. That's also why science collects data and evidence, but very rarely will you hear a scientist use the word "proof".
Infact I would go as far as to say that the term "proof" is inherently unscientific, because it implyes that there's nothing else to find out, or learn and there's very clear, good reason why science doesn't, nore should it allow for that.
No matter how much evidence you have, you can never say that a theory has been "proven".
Meanwhile words like "proof" or "irrefutable", or even "unfalsifiable" are very often used by people seeking to discredit science. Science isn't hard, it's all just a bunch of facts, data and some maths, the real trick, the actual hard part is to know how to be scientific. This might sound a bit silly, but it's true. Since majority of the people do not need to post all of their ideas to peer review, they don't know how science work, how could they even? In this form the scientific community is quite isolated from the rest of the population which shows in poor scientific literacy in media, this episode of EC is a great demonstration of that.
Confused? Potholer explains my point better....
Fact is, some are ultimately arguing the case for what "it" is ideally while others are pointing out what "it" can become in practice as evidence for inaccurate representation of the definitions...where "it" is placeholder for both sides of the issue. That can certainly contribute to an impasse.
...so what then?
I mean if you insist upon defining the word "faith" so broadly that it refers to every possible human thought or action, then who even cares about it? You've rendered it essentially meaningless.
There seems to be this thought out there... like... "If I can only define the word faith to also include things which are reasonable, then whatever random faith-based belief I care about will suddenly become reasonable by association!" and it just doesn't work that way.
Systems do not work that way. but people do. People are only as static as you think they are by observation of specific actions. But specific actions do not necessarily define what a person is, and ultimately people are the only beings we know of that can practice (and idealize) either "religion" or "science," or even both depending on the situation. In other words, someone with religion can also use logic to do a word puzzle--religion is not a permanent state--but we may only hear about how their diety did the darndest things, and not see logic applied because we aren't around them 24 hours a day. Also. we are fickle creatures prone to failure, doubt, rage, and unreasonable action, no matter what systems we hold dear.
I think part of the defensiveness is attributable to the fact that much is inferred (if not implied) that "faith" is immediately a bad thing by its very nature. Maybe if applied in a specific way (the practiced faith versus the ideal), but it is neither good nor bad as a system: until it is applied--in a real sense--on an individual basis it is neutral, just as belief without evidence is supposed to be (again, ideally) irrelevant (not good or bad, just irrelevant) to science. People don't work that way, but systems do--again, ideally. People "do religion/faith wrong" all of the time, just as they "do science wrong," according to what rules are set forth by their peers. But are peers always reliable or do they, too, become dogmatic?
It's not about x versus y, or that x is bad and y is good; it's about the fact that x and y don't even really communicate at all (as an ideal system).
As for faith in games leading to death, how many "leaps of faith" have been taken in video games? Or would you consider them to have been unsuccessful experiments? Is risk-taking in games like having faith in your own abilities?
In reply:
I'm sick of this petty semantical game.
I'm guessing what I had to say in response to that post (which is now somehow a reply to my reply) was essentially glossed over. I didn't take a side, which was my whole point. I mentioned that both sides are either inferring or implying, and arguing for or against an ideal versus practiced system, thereby creating the impasse. If you're sick of what you perceived from my post as petty, why participate?
No, you're being politically correct. You basically have no opinion. You're arguing faith is bad in practice, just not in theory and trying to establish equivalency between it and science in that people just aren't applying it right.
There is no "right way" to apply religion because it's subjective by its nature. It's the continuous effort by the faithful to portray religion as equally useful or equivalent to science or art or anything else. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty and I cannot abide it.
I also have very little patience for Non-Overlapping Magisteria as an argument.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. I think I disagree, but could you explain before I go making an irrelevant argument?
I like Gould in general, but yeah, Non-Overlapping Magisteria is a terrible argument. Religion and science do not merely occupy different domains.
EDIT:
I'd like to add that I hate the term "political correctness." It's always used to mean, "you are engaged in a behaviour I do not approve of".
DrainGored was not trying to minimize offense, xe was promoting a dumb idea. Fence sitting and political correctness are not the same.
I apologize if I was being unclear, I use inelegant language to make my point: that some people are arguing for/against faith/science as idealized, and some are arguing for/against faith/science as a practice, in order to suit their particular case/cause, and that they are both completely different things (in both ideology and in practice). I did not even say they were equally useful; I was making an observation on how the argumentation has shifted to suit the means of the argument rather than what either system "is" ideally versus how it can be practiced.
I also reject the the fact that I am promoting a "dumb idea" by saying that they are different domains (again, not giving them a "good" or "bad" qualifier), especially if the definition keeps shifting to suit the goal of the argument. It's not a case that no argument should be made "for" or "against" (ever binary being our natures apparently), rather that it is irrelevant to both domains regardless of whether they are practical or idealized. Again, if we stick to the definition as an ideal system , they are indeed different and have different goals, most definitely. Am I still unclear?
Also, did you assume I was "faithful" (whatever that even means anymore) by merely stating what I have? What evidence do you have that I am?
As for Non-Overlapping Magisteria; if you have little patience for it, does that mean you find there is overlap, or just that it is irrelevant? Because I would agree with the latter, especially ideally versus practically.
If none of these questions really mattered, then perhaps a more compelling response would not have used "intellectual dishonesty" and "dumb ideas" in their statements.
One probably be more compelled as to why there is a disagreement with what I said through rhetoric rather than by calling my observation (a defacto promotion of) "a dumb idea."