Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5047578" data-attributes="member: 54707">I understand your points Clav, and I agree with them for the most part.I'm gonna point these particular statements out though for further discussion.Is this statement entirely true? Is it assumed either in-game, or in real life for that matter that the capabilities or powers granted to a cleric (or any worshipper), or even the production (if that is the right term) of miraculous events is entirely up to the whim of the deity or to God? For instance is there nothing the cleric or anyone else seeking a miracle can do to successfully solicit a miracle, or nothing they can do to improve the odds of a miracle occurring? True, a miracle, in the supernatural sense, cannot truly occur without a Divine intervention of some sort, but does any deity or God just arbitrarily distribute miracles without rhyme or reason? Or are there definite motivations on the part of the deity, as well as incentive behavior on the part of the requester, which make miracles more likely to occur? (For instance if a  worshipper or practitioner is contrite, humble, prayerful, pious, etc. are these and related behaviors more likely to elicit or solicit miraculous behavior or occurrences, or less so, or do such actions remain totally uninfluential in the matter? Or in game terms do not deities usually require some type of service, devotion, worship, etc? I understand your point and agree with the thrust of what you are pointing out, as far as matters of "control differential between magic and miracles," but I am pointing these things out as the basis for, and of, future and further discussion, without trying to overtly interject my own opinions at this point.)This is an interesting point too and I agree for the most part. However since you brought up the apparent motivational relationship between magic and science I'd like top point out a couple of things here as well. Many of the greatest scientists in the world, especially in the West, Newton for instance, were also extremely devout men, if not priests and monks. (Newton for example wrote more on God and Christology than he did on science, and as you point out, he was also considered by many to be a magician of sorts, at the very least a practicing alchemist). Then there are cases replete in Western science (Medieval and post-Medieval) where monks and priests made important discoveries and were in many respects considered the fathers of their science, Mendel for instance, to name but one such example. And they tended to be very devout and religious men, and sometimes women. This trend continues today with scientists, some of whom are acquaintances or friends of mine. But back to your point. I too agree, that on first blush, and even to some very deep level the idea of magicians and the idea of scientists as individuals who wish to control and master their world (through a sort of combined understanding of secret or at least not generally obvious knowledge of the world and nature, which is then mixed with motivations of using that knowledge to gain mastery of the same) is a type of parallel and even overlapping worldview.How then does this desire to master and understand the world mesh with the piety and devoutness of so many of these individuals? I am speaking here of course about real world examples like Newton and Galileo (who was very devout despite troubles with the Cardinals and the Church), and Kepler, and Bacon, and so forth? Is there some point of overlap where these seemingly conflicting, but perhaps not exclusionarily so, motivations begin to transmute themselves into similar or parallel motivations capable of achieving common ends?And if that is true with the scientist/monk, or monk/scientist, depending upon your outlook, and it surely has been, then could it not also be true of the cleric/wizard? Are their separate and individual motivations always exclusionary and contradictory, or are they not sometimes obviously or not so obviously integrated in effect, or at the very least complimentary in design or desire?Again I am not arguing with you per se, as much as trying to explore all of the possibilities, and to see what they might possibly imply. So with that in mind thanks for your input, and you've given me some things to think about that I might not have strictly considered in this context. Anywho, at some point I guess we're gonna hav'ta to begin trying to define magic, and miracles, and see if that helps our cause, or hinders it. I suspect it will probably do a fair share of both...</blockquote>

Verification