The themes of Pillars, religion, and Dostoevsky *spoilers*

[perilisk]

 

You say automaton, I say god. Either term describes the same fictional characters. Neither of us disagree as to what they are capable of. My last argument would be that if the gods of PoE, as made my mortal hands, would be indistinguishable from what they would have been if they had occurred naturally then the two sets are equivalent.

 

The word "god" is unhelpful in this context, because it doesn't seem to mean anything besides, "thing with superpowers."

 

 

One could argue that "godhood" has less to do with what something is, and more to do with how people react to it. A transcendent, all-powerful being that no one is aware of is not a god, whereas a statue that people worship and commit sacrifices to is.

[Karkarov]

I disagree; just because one may have power and ability equal to a god does not make one a god, IMHO.

So I guess you have never studied real religion?  Ever hear of this guy called Buddha?  I am pretty sure there are a lot of people out there who would consider him some take on the word "god" and his faith makes it painfully clear he was originally just a man.

 

Your definition of "God" is far too strict.  An ant likely looks at a man and might equate them with being a god on some limited intelligence way.  We live thousands of their lifetimes, can kill them with literally no effort. cause flood their homes with seemingly divine power.  In reality we are just biologically different and know how to get water out of a sink.  But does that change the perception of the ant?  No it doesn't.

 

That's why I said it wasn't even a question about gods to begin with, but a question of belief.

[Varana]

That's also part of the thought behind real-life kings and emperors being deified. (So in a way, e.g. the Romans and Greeks did "create gods" - their very human and mortal rulers got themselves temples erected, sacrifices offered, prayers and priests.) The emperor is a person with capabilities coming close to superpowers - not necessarily personal, although there are stories that people believed that, as well -, far away, whose actions and decisions can nonetheless influence you directly, usually in a non-personal way, and completely unexpected. In many ways, the emperor's power over you resembles that of god.

No one in their right mind thought that the emperor in Rome could actually benefit from the dove the priest burned at his temple as a sacrifice. But it was understood that that was the correct way to treat a being with such powers, so they did it.

(There's a lot more going on in that relationship with deified rulers, but it's a very useful example to illustrate that the definition of what a "god" is can be very different across cultures.)

Edited April 30, 2015 by Varana

[SlayerDorian]

Even with all of the gods in the real world that people worship up to this day.  Other than some writing that some guy wrote a long time ago telling you otherwise (which is not actual proof), there is no proof that this exact type of scheme was not how they came about in the first place.

 

Step 1, create a god(s) - be that actually create, or just create the idea and pretend it is real.

Step 2, write about it in such a way that makes it seem like it was always here - perhaps even created the universe.

Step 3, start preaching and spreading the word.

Step 4, people get warm and fuzzy thinking that there is some greater being protecting and guiding them.

Step 5, it keeps spreading.

 

At least in the game's lore, there is at least proof that they exist.

[Qbert]

 

I disagree; just because one may have power and ability equal to a god does not make one a god, IMHO.

So I guess you have never studied real religion?  Ever hear of this guy called Buddha?  I am pretty sure there are a lot of people out there who would consider him some take on the word "god" and his faith makes it painfully clear he was originally just a man.

 

Your definition of "God" is far too strict.  An ant likely looks at a man and might equate them with being a god on some limited intelligence way.  We live thousands of their lifetimes, can kill them with literally no effort. cause flood their homes with seemingly divine power.  In reality we are just biologically different and know how to get water out of a sink.  But does that change the perception of the ant?  No it doesn't.

 

That's why I said it wasn't even a question about gods to begin with, but a question of belief.

 

1. The Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a great teacher, in the same way we respect Abraham Lincoln as a great president. He was a human being who found his perfection in Nirvana.

They would be wrong though, according to those who practice the religion.

[Karkarov]

1. The Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a great teacher, in the same way we respect Abraham Lincoln as a great president. He was a human being who found his perfection in Nirvana.

They would be wrong though, according to those who practice the religion.

I said "some take on..."  Not "he is a god and people pray to him and sacrifice live chickens in his honor".  Also I don't recall reading a religious text suggesting the Buddhist version of Satan tried to tempt Lincoln on a path to damnation and fail his fellow man.  Buddha is considered to be a crap ton more than a "great teacher".  Even "great" humans cant achieve perfection, according to Buddhist text Buddha achieved it.

[kaiki]

 

 

I disagree; just because one may have power and ability equal to a god does not make one a god, IMHO.

So I guess you have never studied real religion?  Ever hear of this guy called Buddha?  I am pretty sure there are a lot of people out there who would consider him some take on the word "god" and his faith makes it painfully clear he was originally just a man.

 

Your definition of "God" is far too strict.  An ant likely looks at a man and might equate them with being a god on some limited intelligence way.  We live thousands of their lifetimes, can kill them with literally no effort. cause flood their homes with seemingly divine power.  In reality we are just biologically different and know how to get water out of a sink.  But does that change the perception of the ant?  No it doesn't.

 

That's why I said it wasn't even a question about gods to begin with, but a question of belief.

 

1. The Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a great teacher, in the same way we respect Abraham Lincoln as a great president. He was a human being who found his perfection in Nirvana.

They would be wrong though, according to those who practice the religion.

 

 

Well sorry to say that there are those that practice the religion do pray to him. It's correct that he isn't thought of as a god, but at the same time he's considered greater then many gods. It kinda goes back to the whole definition game of what is a "god" and what isn't. How do you define it in useful terms.

Edited April 30, 2015 by kaiki

[Katarack21]

There are no "gods" in Buddhism at all, actually.

[kaiki]

There are no "gods" in Buddhism at all, actually.

 

That is incorrect, there are many gods in Buddhism. Just that most predate Buddhism.

[Qbert]

I always thought Buddhism didn't have anything to do with gods. That it's about suffering and how to end it, and belief or non belief in gods had no bearing as long as it didn't interfere with that goal.  I'm no expert though and there are probably different versions of Buddhism and different practitioner beliefs just like in Christianity, which i'm more familiar with.

[kaiki]

I always thought Buddhism didn't have anything to do with gods. That it's about suffering and how to end it, and belief or non belief in gods had no bearing as long as it didn't interfere with that goal.  I'm no expert though and there are probably different versions of Buddhism and different practitioner beliefs just like in Christianity, which i'm more familiar with.

 

To quote facebook "It's complicated". The relevant bits for this discussion, of if a god being made by human hands keep them from being labeled as a god, is that this thread is good evidence that the questions raised by this game did a good job at making the players ponder how the circumstances of the gods would effect how mortals view them.

[Yonjuro]

 Thanks for the interesting thread. (I hope we can keep it on track.)

 

..

The best way to describe the second theme, which is the focus of Acts III and IV, is how to live if atheism is true, that is, if there is no God. 

 

 Let me start with a minor nit. For many atheists (I would say most), the atheist position is closer to:

 

  There is no evidence of any particular religious claim, not that there are necessarily no gods. That is, in principle, if we were to uncover some actual hard evidence -something that would cause all of the religious studies departments in universities to close and new scientific religious departments to open - then and only then is it something believable. Until then, better to live with uncertainty than to accept something on bad evidence.

 

 I bring this up because it's relevant to:

 

....

In any case, the point of the Grand Inquisitor references in Pillars is to reinforce the basic philosophical question: assume for the moment that there is no God and religion is a lie. How, then, should we live? The two broad possibilities the game contemplates are: (1) pretend that religion is true, because the idea that there’s no religion to give us meaning is too horrible to contemplate; and (2) roll with it, and impose your own meaning onto the world.....

 

 Related to my previous point, there can be a god or gods and religion can still be a lie (or, just wrong with no intent to deceive by anyone).

 

 That brings us to option 3: look for the actual truth with the best methods available to you. That's the wager I wish Pascal had made: follow the truth wherever it leads. If you do, your reward will be a better understanding of the truth. If you don't, your punishment will be mass delusion maintained by force as was done in the game world (and in several unfortunate periods of history in our own). In the game world, the old gods didn't exist, the new gods were fabricated (literally, as it turns out) to enforce an old social order but there could be a third set of gods (possibly an empty set, of course) who are actually the truth. One could argue that option 3 is the only rational choice so I wouldn't be surprised if that option comes up in a sequel. The point here is that, in the game world, the centuries long detour from the truth may have prevented the discovery of the actual gods of the world, among other things.

 

 Of course, we also have option 4, exploit the credulity of the religious for personal gain rather than for the greater good as cults and many politicians have done and continue to do in the real world. Option 4 could be an interesting evil option in a sequel.

[b0rsuk]

In general, companion quests are rather predictable. The common theme is disappointment. It's up to you how your companions will deal with the disappointment. I'm on my second playthrough with the remaining companions (Pallegrina, Grieving Mother, Aloth) and I already know what will happen. They won't find what they're looking for.

 

Speaking of atheism, it's practically impossible to prove something doesn't exist. There's no evidence for the Loch Ness monster, so for me it's rational to assume it doesn't exist.

 

Do you know about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the goddess of atheists ? Her existence can be proved in two ways:

1) By logic: We can't see her - therefore, she's invisible

2) By heart: Deep in our hearts, we all know Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

 

Pictured below:

 

Edited April 30, 2015 by b0rsuk

[Katarack21]

 

There are no "gods" in Buddhism at all, actually.

 

That is incorrect, there are many gods in Buddhism. Just that most predate Buddhism.

 

They're not *used* as gods in Buddhism, though; the names and **** are there, but they are *very* explicitly just teaching tools. Bodhisatvas are a thing in some branches of Buddhism, but they are also explicitly stated to not be gods but simply souls like you or me who are at a different stage. Buddhism is one of the prime examples of a form or religion with no gods, and often used as an example of such.

[kaiki]

 

 

There are no "gods" in Buddhism at all, actually.

 

That is incorrect, there are many gods in Buddhism. Just that most predate Buddhism.

 

They're not *used* as gods in Buddhism, though; the names and **** are there, but they are *very* explicitly just teaching tools. Bodhisatvas are a thing in some branches of Buddhism, but they are also explicitly stated to not be gods but simply souls like you or me who are at a different stage. Buddhism is one of the prime examples of a form or religion with no gods, and often used as an example of such.

 

 

I understand what you're saying. If you are describing how Buddhists practice their religion I will always say that is wrong as that isn't how I've experienced it. No matter what you quote, link or say will you convince me that you're right as my life experience what I use as evidence that I'm correct. If you're stating that is how Buddhist doctrine and writings present different gods and spirits I will agree with you. What the text say and how people live are two different things though. And, since I doubt we will be able to convince the other that their posistion is the right one it's best that we just let this end and continue on with the rest of the conversation.

[Micamo]

Look at all the people that complain, for example, that you don't get to tell everybody the gods are fake, or that the companion quests are anticlimactic because they don't get closure. Now sure, some of those complaints point out specific problems in a valid way. But on the whole, I think this reflects the fact that we are so used to all of our companions solving their psychological problems and becoming New and Better People, and our adventure resulting in magical solutions that make the Whole World Better as well. Is the Watcher meant to deus ex machina his powers so Sagani can talk to Persoq and Persoq can say "OMG wow your journey was totally worth it for me"? Is the Watcher suddenly meant to tell the whole world the gods are fake and they believe him?

My problem is PoE is fundamentally a series of Shaggy Dog Stories. Over the course of the game it trained me simply not to care about the outcome of any given quest because I expected it to end in a stupid and pointless way. The themes undo themselves because in trying to subvert a nearly universal trope of RPGs they also sabotage the means by which I become invested enough to catch the subtext. It broke my trust in the storyteller. Unrest pulls exactly the same trick, and fails for exactly the same reasons.

 

It's sad that after 3 years of following the development of this game and a month of playing it, that's really all I feel like I have to say.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Micamo

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

There are no "gods" in Buddhism at all, actually.

 

That is incorrect, there are many gods in Buddhism. Just that most predate Buddhism.

 

They're not *used* as gods in Buddhism, though; the names and **** are there, but they are *very* explicitly just teaching tools. Bodhisatvas are a thing in some branches of Buddhism, but they are also explicitly stated to not be gods but simply souls like you or me who are at a different stage. Buddhism is one of the prime examples of a form or religion with no gods, and often used as an example of such.

 

 

I understand what you're saying. If you are describing how Buddhists practice their religion I will always say that is wrong as that isn't how I've experienced it. No matter what you quote, link or say will you convince me that you're right as my life experience what I use as evidence that I'm correct. If you're stating that is how Buddhist doctrine and writings present different gods and spirits I will agree with you. What the text say and how people live are two different things though. And, since I doubt we will be able to convince the other that their posistion is the right one it's best that we just let this end and continue on with the rest of the conversation.

 

To be more explicit, I'm not just telling you what I've read in books, I'm also telling you the practices and methods I've been told and taught by Buddhists in my life. I'm not a Buddhist, I find myself incapable of believing some of the basic tenets, but if I was going to be any religion it would be Buddhism. I like much of what it has to say about morality, and I was following the Five Precepts before I knew what they were.

 

That being said, I think we've reached the end of what we can usefully discuss here.