Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Fleshed out religion

religion gods god morality temples

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#41
Giantevilhead

Giantevilhead

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 392 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Concepts like self-respect and self-worth are not things in and of themselves, they are definitions or descriptions of certain sets of behaviors, thoughts, or traits. It's like how colors are not actual things, they're just labels of certain spectrum of wavelengths that we use as an effective method of conveying information. To say that someone does something because they have low self-respect is to confuse definitions with causes. It's like saying that a beam of light has a wavelength of 440 nm because it's purple when in actuality, the reason why we call this beam of light purple is because it falls within a spectrum that we've arbitrarily decided should be labeled "purple."

 

Also, the experiment with the rats being shocked was an experiment on aggression. It's basically just a survival instinct and has nothing to do with self-worth. It's kind of like animals will avoid a certain food if they're subjected to radiation that causes nausea after they're given the food, even though there's no natural connection between the food and the cause of the nausea.


  • Naesh likes this

#42
tajerio

tajerio

    Sabertooth Cat of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 360 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

You could make that argument I suppose.  It certainly wouldn't be the most substantive religion around.  But in any case, why then is there only one?


I don't really think the WOT was devoid of religion. I just think it was all a bit more intertwined with culture, is all. Which is a little weird, because there weren't like... oodles of various temples and organizations and such. But, the individual cultures were already separated in the same way that organizations are, so it wasn't such a big deal. The Ogier, for example, almost never mingled with people anymore, so it wasn't like they had to say "okay, since we're all just people and live in this country together, we're going to have to distinguish ourselves by saying that we're such-and-such religion, whilst you guys are something-or-another religion, u_u."

 

 

Well, religion in all human societies has been a major component of culture, so that's not really an excuse for WOT.  For example, the various peoples of the former Yugoslavia, who are not enormously different from one another in language and custom (some different, but not as much as say, Turks and Kenyans), nonetheless all have very distinct cultural identities, and a major part of that is their differences in prevailing religious belief.

 

Mostly my beef was that, as is the danger in almost all fantasy universes, there are ideas for religions/belief systems, but they never get the substantiation of doctrine, custom, and practice that any real religion/belief system would get.



#43
Naesh

Naesh

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 66 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Concepts like self-respect and self-worth are not things in and of themselves, they are definitions or descriptions of certain sets of behaviors, thoughts, or traits. It's like how colors are not actual things, they're just labels of certain spectrum of wavelengths that we use as an effective method of conveying information. To say that someone does something because they have low self-respect is to confuse definitions with causes. It's like saying that a beam of light has a wavelength of 440 nm because it's purple when in actuality, the reason why we call this beam of light purple is because it falls within a spectrum that we've arbitrarily decided should be labeled "purple."

 

Also, the experiment with the rats being shocked was an experiment on aggression. It's basically just a survival instinct and has nothing to do with self-worth. It's kind of like animals will avoid a certain food if they're subjected to radiation that causes nausea after they're given the food, even though there's no natural connection between the food and the cause of the nausea.

Yes, but you see we can only talk about models of reality. We cannot say anything about reality itself. Models are built up from concepts, that have to be defined and we have to be precise. Yet, when i ask someone what time it is, i never get "state your definition of time" or "depends on the location of measurement" as the answer. Judging from your response what i wrote was good enough to come across and that's good enough for me. 

 

I don't agree with you on the explanation of the behaviour of the rats though. But, just out of curiosity, how would you explain the bystander effect?   



#44
Giantevilhead

Giantevilhead

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 392 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

And the problem with ideas like "self-worth" and "self-respect" is that they're very vague and poorly operationalized. Concepts like color are reasonably well defined so that when I say that a color is purple, you might think that it's actually neon or light purple, but it's not going to be that far off. When talking about concepts like "self-worth," my definition may have entire sets of traits or behaviors that are missing from your definition.

 

As for the bystander effect, it depends on how in-depth an explanation you want. It can be explained on a higher level of abstraction as simply a result of behaviors that people learned throughout their lives, socially conditioned behaviors, like most of our conscious behaviors. However, we don't have enough information to explain it on a much lower level of abstraction.

 

It's like if you saw a car for the first time in your life and you're trying to explain works, but you can't look inside the car or take it apart to examine the relationship between the individual pieces. You can explain things on a higher level of abstraction like how turning the key causes the engine to turn on, stepping on the accelerator makes the car go forward, turning the wheel changes the direction of the car, etc. However, if you can't open the car up and take it apart, then you can't really explain how the steering wheel causes the car's wheels to turn or what chemical reactions are going on inside a car's engine.

 

That's the problem with a lot of psychological and sociological sciences, they can explain things on a very high level of abstraction but they can't explain things on a lower level of abstraction. So all the explanations involving things you can directly observe are reasonably good like all the stuff with classical conditioning and some of the more basic stuff with social psych but when they get down and try to explain things that they have no way of observing like consciousness or self-respect, then there's a ton of vague assumptions and poorly operationalized terms, and it's not very scientific.


  • Tauron likes this

#45
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

There is so much ignorance in this thread that I have to resist writing a long ranty post correcting EVERYONE.

 

Someone is wrong on the internet, but I'm going to bed.


  • rjshae likes this

#46
Naesh

Naesh

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 66 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

There is so much ignorance in this thread that I have to resist writing a long ranty post correcting EVERYONE.

 

Someone is wrong on the internet, but I'm going to bed.

Then please correct only what i wrote, mr JFSOCC. I am always happy to get some critics that can possibly enrich me. Especially when we disagree and i get to see the reasons why. I won't get into a petty argument, that's a promise.


Edited by Naesh, 06 February 2014 - 03:57 PM.


#47
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Alright I'll try to address some of it when I get home tonight



#48
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

That's the problem with a lot of psychological and sociological sciences, they can explain things on a very high level of abstraction but they can't explain things on a lower level of abstraction. So all the explanations involving things you can directly observe are reasonably good like all the stuff with classical conditioning and some of the more basic stuff with social psych but when they get down and try to explain things that they have no way of observing like consciousness or self-respect, then there's a ton of vague assumptions and poorly operationalized terms, and it's not very scientific.

This is just not true.  Psychology and Sociology have advanced quite far as sciences, and cults and religion are extensively studied subjects in the field of behavioural sciences.

Group psychology, cultural and learned behaviour, and human psychology are all aspects important for the advent of religion.

 

My second part was going to be about the rat experiment, but I just learned that I was wrong. So the ignoramus is me.



#49
tajerio

tajerio

    Sabertooth Cat of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 360 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

That's the problem with a lot of psychological and sociological sciences, they can explain things on a very high level of abstraction but they can't explain things on a lower level of abstraction. So all the explanations involving things you can directly observe are reasonably good like all the stuff with classical conditioning and some of the more basic stuff with social psych but when they get down and try to explain things that they have no way of observing like consciousness or self-respect, then there's a ton of vague assumptions and poorly operationalized terms, and it's not very scientific.

This is just not true.  Psychology and Sociology have advanced quite far as sciences, and cults and religion are extensively studied subjects in the field of behavioural sciences.

Group psychology, cultural and learned behaviour, and human psychology are all aspects important for the advent of religion.

 

 

The only part of this I would contest is that psychology (as a historian I don't even want to talk about sociology) is still going a bit back to front.  It's still almost entirely reasoning from symptoms to causes.  Reasoning from cause to symptom is in most cases nearly impossible, because we don't know enough about the brain to make it a two-way street.


  • Lephys likes this

#50
Giantevilhead

Giantevilhead

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 392 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

That's the problem with a lot of psychological and sociological sciences, they can explain things on a very high level of abstraction but they can't explain things on a lower level of abstraction. So all the explanations involving things you can directly observe are reasonably good like all the stuff with classical conditioning and some of the more basic stuff with social psych but when they get down and try to explain things that they have no way of observing like consciousness or self-respect, then there's a ton of vague assumptions and poorly operationalized terms, and it's not very scientific.

This is just not true.  Psychology and Sociology have advanced quite far as sciences, and cults and religion are extensively studied subjects in the field of behavioural sciences.

Group psychology, cultural and learned behaviour, and human psychology are all aspects important for the advent of religion.

 

My second part was going to be about the rat experiment, but I just learned that I was wrong. So the ignoramus is me.

 

 

No, psychology and sociology have not advanced nearly as far as they'd like us to think. Do you know how many psychologists still follow the teachings of people like Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.? Despite the fact that those branches of psychology don't have any real science at all. Heck, there's plenty of experiments that show therapies derived from psychoanalysis are only as effective as placebos.

 

Just because something is studied extensively doesn't make it science. Historians study mythologies and legends very extensively, does that make it science? Much of psychology is basically philosophy, or art, and I have no problem with that. However, they shouldn't be calling it science.

 

Even the more scientific branches of psychology overextend themselves and try to explain things that they have no way of doing. They lack very basic standards of operationalization and they're not able to adequately establish models to explain phenomenons. And as I've stated before, often times, they mistake definition for explanation. A lot of times, they would simply describe a phenomenon and put a label on that description, which is very useful, but then they would turn around and use that label as the explanation for that phenomenon.



#51
JFSOCC

JFSOCC

    Mentor & Student of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2255 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

No, psychology and sociology have not advanced nearly as far as they'd like us to think. Do you know how many psychologists still follow the teachings of people like Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.? Despite the fact that those branches of psychology don't have any real science at all. Heck, there's plenty of experiments that show therapies derived from psychoanalysis are only as effective as placebos.

This is partly true. Yes, there is a lot of outdated information. As you can find in many many other fields. But the science itself has certainly moved forward in big strides, and those who still follow freud's teachings are considered to be behind the curve. (not that they're not interesting)
Your argument could also be used against many examples in the field of medicine, which is still a very real science.

Just because something is studied extensively doesn't make it science. Historians study mythologies and legends very extensively, does that make it science?

It does. And like any good science, new information replaces old information, and new methodology replaces old methodology.

Much of psychology is basically philosophy, or art, and I have no problem with that. However, they shouldn't be calling it science.

Yeah, that is dismissive and just not true. Maybe if you said it about economics ;)
 

Even the more scientific branches of psychology overextend themselves and try to explain things that they have no way of doing. They lack very basic standards of operationalization and they're not able to adequately establish models to explain phenomenons. And as I've stated before, often times, they mistake definition for explanation. A lot of times, they would simply describe a phenomenon and put a label on that description, which is very useful, but then they would turn around and use that label as the explanation for that phenomenon.

I won't say the problem doesn't exist, with DSM5 about to hit us with a ****load of new diagnoses. But it's only half the picture. There is some real and significant work done in the field of Psychology, neurobiology and behavioural science, scientific work.

Psychology is still a new field, and as such has to "grow up" in a sense. That doesn't mean that it is not a real science or that there isn't real science being done. There is simply no cause to be so dismissive.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion, gods, god, morality, temples

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users