Logic of being atheist in a default D&D campaign.

[skinnydwarf]

I think some of you are looking at this the wrong way. As players and DMs, we know the lore of the default D&D setting: that the gods are real, that they grant spells, that they live on the planes, that worshipers give them power, etc.

But that's the wrong perspective. You should approach the question "how could a character be an atheist in a default D&D setting" from the perspective of the characters in the world. *We the players* know what we know of the world because that's the assumption of the setting. The books and the DM told us so. The only way the characters would know these things, however, is through experience, observing things, and coming up with explanations to explain those observations. Or, for things they have not experienced or are confused about, by learning from elders, or in school or a temple. In other words, they learn about their world the same way we learn about ours.

Those living in the D&D world witness both the cleric and the wizard do magic, but only one of those is considered divine. The atheist character asks, "Why should I believe that there is there a distinction between arcane magic and divine magic?" This character does not find the so-called evidence for the existance of the gods to be convincing, because he can find other rational explanations for that evidence that does not involve the existance of divine beings.

"This guy was healed by a cleric!" Yeah, magic is a thing.
"This guy was raised from the dead!" Yeah, the wizard can do that too, we just call those flesh golems.
"Fire rained from the sky!" Yeah, you just need a fifth level wizard for that. Or a dragon with greater invisibility.*
"The god came down and was super powerful!" Yeah, you know who else is super powerful? Dragons, the tarrasque, etc. But they aren't gods.

I think the issue is that, in a world where the supernatural and magic are relatively commonplace (but are not always divine), it is easy to rationalize any "evidence" of divinity as simply another example of the supernatural that you already understand.

The atheist character sees some divine magic, and explains it with reference to what he already knows about magic- that is a non-divine force undrstandable by mortals. Divine magic looks just like arcane magic, so it must have the same source and follow the same rules.

Different characters have different epistemological views. The same evidence is seen as divine intervention by the cleric and other faithful, and as yet another manifestation of magic by the atheist D&D character.

On the flip side, maybe there could be a religious character who does not believe in arcane magic- surely that is the work of the gods! It looks just like divine magic, so it must be divine! Wizard, you are merely deluding yourself by thinking you can understand and manipulate the gods' creation!

* This would give rise to (absurd to us) arguments such as: "You believe in the gods because you saw fire from the sky? Tell me, what's more likely, that there are a dozens of supremely powerful beings with nothing better to do than give mortals powers and otherwise interfere with their lives so that they are worshipped, or that there was a passing invisible dragon that breathed fire? Believe in the gods? No thanks. I've seen dragons and invisible creatures (I've got a ring for that), I'll believe my eyes!"

 

[Evenglare]

By definition, if your campaign has gods that make themselves known overtly, you simply can't be an atheist. If you choose to think about gods not as gods but powerful beings, then they aren't gods. If you call them gods thats fine, but you are using either the atheist term or god term wrong. You need to cut one of those words from your vocabulary in regards from this situation. It's a simple binary problem, if you use one of those words you can't use the other. Now, even though you can't use the term atheist you can be an antitheist(see christopher hitchens) and simply denounce the power of the gods or go so far as to oppose them.

 

[skinnydwarf]

By definition, if your campaign has gods that make themselves known overtly, you simply can't be an atheist.

I don't know why there cannot be an atheist character if your campaign has gods. The character would simply be wrong about the gods not existing.

If you choose to think about gods not as gods but powerful beings, then they aren't gods. If you call them gods thats fine, but you are using either the atheist term or god term wrong. You need to cut one of those words from your vocabulary in regards from this situation. It's a simple binary problem, if you use one of those words you can't use the other. Now, even though you can't use the term atheist you can be an antitheist(see christopher hitchens) and simply denounce the power of the gods or go so far as to oppose them.

This is an interesting debate for the characters in the world to have (what does it mean to be a god?), but I don't see how it means that a character cannot be an atheist.

I guess it comes down to the basic problem of any philosophical discussion: defining what the heck we are talking about. In terms of this discussion, when I say "the gods" I mean those defined as gods in the default D&D setting. And when I say "atheist" I mean a character who does not believe those beings exist.

You could have a character who believes that the beings called "gods" exist but doesn't think that they are gods. I think that character still counts as an atheist, but it's atheist in a weird way, since he believes in the existence of what everyone else refers to as gods. It's not the usual disagreement about divine existence (eg, do gods exist or not). Instead of disagreeing about whether the gods exist, the cleric and the atheist character disagree about what it means to be a god.

In my head, the atheist character thinks no beings that exist meet his definition of what it means to be a god. On the other hand, he could just disbelieve in the divinity of the beings everyone else calls gods, and just be atheist to those beings, but still believe a real god exists out there somewhere. In that case, I don't think he counts as an atheist the way the term is used in modern days; he simply disagrees about which god is the real one. (In Forgotten Realms, maybe he doesn't think most of the gods count as gods, but Ao does).

 

[Janx]

In the real world, is there anybody who truly believes that the world is actually flat? By truly believe, I mean they aren't just being obtuse for the sake of disagreeing with everybody else (aka Oppositional Defiance).

Columbus and Magellan sort of settled the matter. Satellites and stuff ought to have sealed the deal.

Hypothetically, a guy in the real world who truly believes the world is flat (and not some primitive bloke in the jungle who's never seen a cell phone) is the real world equivalent to a D&D-land character who doesn't believe the gods exist.

I would imagine, a Flat-Earther is as confounding to any of us to understand, as a D&D-Lander who doesn't think Thor exists. How do you even reason with somebody like that?

 

[Umbran]

Hypothetically, a guy in the real world who truly believes the world is flat (and not some primitive bloke in the jungle who's never seen a cell phone) is the real world equivalent to a D&D-land character who doesn't believe the gods exist.

If you are in the later-canon FR, where the gods have literally walked the land in living memory, yes.

If you are in some other world (or FR before the time of troubles), where that hasn't happened...

Exactly what evidence does the common person have that the gods really do exist? That clerics work magic is not sufficient - by core rules of several editions, clerics *without* gods can use that magic. Bards and mages also use magic. "I cast clerical spells" is not proof of the nature of the power behind those spells. Gating in angels who claim to work for gods is not proof - how many entities in the world *lie* about who they work for?

The bulk of people in the fantasy world do not have access to the equivalent of NASA.gov, that has images that pretty much prove the Earth isn't flat. I, personally, can set up the shadow-stick experiment and show the geometry that demonstrates the planet is round - and estimate its radius for you. Is there a shadow-stick experiment for the existence of gods? What is the evidence that is supposed to make it clear, Janx?

 

[billd91]

In the real world, is there anybody who truly believes that the world is actually flat? By truly believe, I mean they aren't just being obtuse for the sake of disagreeing with everybody else (aka Oppositional Defiance).

Columbus and Magellan sort of settled the matter. Satellites and stuff ought to have sealed the deal.

Hypothetically, a guy in the real world who truly believes the world is flat (and not some primitive bloke in the jungle who's never seen a cell phone) is the real world equivalent to a D&D-land character who doesn't believe the gods exist.

I would imagine, a Flat-Earther is as confounding to any of us to understand, as a D&D-Lander who doesn't think Thor exists. How do you even reason with somebody like that?

Considering there are people today who believe there is crystal clear evidence of the existence of any number of gods and their direct intervention on the globe, the logic of an atheist is exactly the same as it is in a game with in-campaign divine intervention. You don't need to bring up an analogy of a flat earther. All you have to do is realize that, from the perspective of the atheist, that crystal clear evidence is either not crystal clear or not evidence. Some other explanation is at work.

 

[Celebrim]

In the real world, is there anybody who truly believes that the world is actually flat?

Yes, there really are. There aren't many of them, but they exist.

To begin with, I should say that I don't find them particularly confounding or hard to understand. I personally believe the earth is round, but its not at all hard for me to imagine why a person would believe it is flat. The roundness of the Earth is not something that most people must deal with on a daily basis.

Columbus and Magellan sort of settled the matter. Satellites and stuff ought to have sealed the deal.

This is a good example of why the average Flat Earther doesn't believe the world is round. Because absolutely and without a doubt, these things do not settle the matter. For one thing, to believe that they do settle the matter requires putting faith in some authority that told you there was this guy named Magellan who sailed around the Earth and that Magellan himself didn't misunderstand what he'd done. Real flat earther's have maps of the earth that allow for its circumnavigation without contradicting the idea that the world is flat. What that map doesn't do a good job of is actually allowing you to circumnavigate the world without incident, but since most people don't actually need to sail around the world taking measurements of it, there is no way just by looking to know whether a map is good or not.

The point is that you yourself probably have never settled for yourself whether the Earth is flat or round. Rather, authorities that you trust and the vast majority of people believe it is round, so you do too.

The Flat Earthers are the sort of skeptics that don't take it for granted that other people have it right or that the authorities are truthful. Most are highly rational, intelligent and fairly well educated individuals that earnestly and sincerely believe that the world is flat, and for whom this belief causes them no daily distress or problems whatsoever.

The way you reason with them is foremost to find a way for them to personally experience the world's roundness. Appealing to Magellan is never going to do it. Trying to get them to experience the world's actual roundness probably won't either, because an intelligent and creative mind can always find an alternative explanation for what they experience if they try, but it's certainly more on point that citing 'satellites', which are also outside of most person's daily experience.

 

[Umbran]

Most are highly rational, intelligent and fairly well educated individuals that earnestly and sincerely believe that the world is flat, and for whom this belief causes them no daily distress or problems whatsoever.

Except that belief in a flat Earth requires chucking Occam's Razor out the window (usually selectively - they'll hold to it for other things, but not for this). There is a point where the string of patches and complicated explanations required to sustain the Flat Earth under even available evidence becomes something that a rational mind would avoid, or accept only at need, rather than cling to.

Modern GPS systems, for example, are hard to explain with a flat Earth. They are easy to explain with a round Earth.

 

[Celebrim]

Except that belief in a flat Earth requires chucking Occam's Razor out the window (usually selectively - they'll hold to it for other things, but not for this). There is a point where the string of patches and complicated explanations required to sustain the Flat Earth under even available evidence becomes something that a rational mind would avoid, or accept only at need, rather than cling to.

Modern GPS systems, for example, are hard to explain with a flat Earth. They are easy to explain with a round Earth.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the retrograde motion of Mars. All true, but rather beside the point. There are plenty of real world things where the real world explanation is pretty darn counter-intuitive and frankly bizarre. Occam's Razor requires us to chuck out simple explanations that are too simple to fit the observed facts. The people in question believe that they have an explanation that better fits the observed facts. If it has complexities, they are no more complex than the real geometries you'd need to explain to someone to do the stick experiment. Probably the people in question would throw Occam's Razor back in your face, citing the complexity of your model of the world. The available evidence isn't as readily available as all that. You and I can both do the stick experiment, but probably we haven't, because doing it requires a couple hundred miles of driving and some precise observations. It's work, not 'fun'.

My guess is that - even if you could convince them to go to the trouble of testing something that they 'know' to be true - a Flat Earther that did it would find, probably unconsciously, a way to get the data to fit a Flat Earth. I've certainly seen enough graduate students cleverly fitting data to the model...

I don't have as much faith in the rational mind as you do. I've met too many brilliant people.

 

[Janx]

If you are in the later-canon FR, where the gods have literally walked the land in living memory, yes.

If you are in some other world (or FR before the time of troubles), where that hasn't happened...

Exactly what evidence does the common person have that the gods really do exist? That clerics work magic is not sufficient - by core rules of several editions, clerics *without* gods can use that magic. Bards and mages also use magic. "I cast clerical spells" is not proof of the nature of the power behind those spells. Gating in angels who claim to work for gods is not proof - how many entities in the world *lie* about who they work for?

The bulk of people in the fantasy world do not have access to the equivalent of NASA.gov, that has images that pretty much prove the Earth isn't flat. I, personally, can set up the shadow-stick experiment and show the geometry that demonstrates the planet is round - and estimate its radius for you. Is there a shadow-stick experiment for the existence of gods? What is the evidence that is supposed to make it clear, Janx?

Beats me, but that was rather my point.

If it is possible for a real world person to not recognize the earth is round by way of all the sciency things that exist, then that is demonstration of the concept that D&D Character might also not accept that which was assumed to be inherently obvious an true (that Gods exist).

Since this position is in effect, the opposite of my previous declaration of "it's not possible for there to be an Atheist in D&D", it appears that you may have missed that from my writing.