But all the modern perspective and modern logical arguments aside, you're missing one crucial point. It is what it is.
Ars is set in 13th century Mythic Europe. In our Europe of that time Christianity was accepted and followed and religion was very often the dominant force in people's lives. And so it is in Mythic Europe. And, as has already been explained, in the game that religion is literally backed up by miracles, divine intervention, saints, devils, etc. There is no denying the power that exists.
And as for pan/poly-theistic religions, well, they're faeries or magical spirits or some such.
But the important thing is that the setting as written tells us that God exists within the game and makes it pretty clear that the philosophy you need to worry about is the philosophy within the game, not outside the game.
I dont think you have framed my positions correctly,
Sure, a magus would be stupid if he denied that such powers and phenomena existed, my point is about what reasonable conclusions a magus could/should draw: especially if the magus is familar with aristotelian logic and greco-roman philosophy
While I am interested in whether or not the philosophy and metaphysics of the game paradigm are coherent, I know not everyone is.
BUT, most importantly and of great interest, figuring out what a typical magus believes about religion, metaphysics and philosophy has value.
Puttint that aside for the moment and building off posts from others, I was rethinking the claim that most magi are christians.
The biggest house is ex-misc, right? and most are not christians.
At least one sub-division of Tytalus would be predominately non-theistic: I forgot their name.
A good number of the mystery cults practitioners dont seem to fall in line with christian theism.
Many a bonisagus would at least find their theistic faith questioned. why? Well magic theory as I understand it is rooted in a greek mtaphysical world view. Getting an uber high magic theory score doesnt seem possible without exploring/understanding greek phi, which means that they will at least have to face a radically diffeent world view.
As others mentioned, the tremere are not likely to have many christians or any kind of theists.
Thats a good amount of the OoH that seems unlikely to be christian theists. I am sure if someone has time on their hands they could go through each HoH and add up the numbers but my intuition tells me that there are more non-theists than theists.
Lets remember that saying most magi are not christians is not saying they are atheists or pagan. Many of the US founding fathers were deists, for example. They use words like god, just with a different meaning/metaphysical implication and a different view of mans relationship to the divine.
Well, when you talk about Greco Roman philosophy and the Order of Hermes you need to start with names like Plotinus, Iamblichus, and others who actually address issues of relevance to practitioners of magic. You also need to look at ideas like the "Prisca Theologica" and Hermetism when you start trying to use magical knowledge to "disprove" God or religion..
You also need to consider which texts are actually available in 1220. The Order probably doesn't have much more access to 'lost texts' than anyone else. The chaos that to Order arose out of doesn't seem to support a 'secret stash' of Aristotle or anything of the sort.
Its pretty clear that most magi would be in some degree of Heresy, but that is a very far step from atheism or paganism. Most, though not all, magi were born and raised in one of the Abrahamic faiths and they live amongst believers, even if its only their grogs. And they know there is a Divine power.
Ex Miscellanea is not just a bunch of pagans. There are many many traditions or just plain loners. Ex Misc is where the Karaites (Jewish Heretics, essentially) end up. Its where the Donatores (very Catholic) ended up. Its where most wizards who break with their original House end up. So I don't know that is clear that its "Mostly" non Christian. By 1220, there aren't that many pagan communities left for them to draw from. A lot would be like the Faerie Doctors tend to be...nominally Christian but with 'extras'.
To some extent, this is a YMMV issue. You can easily have the Order be chock full of all manner of pagans. But, imho, its more that these examples are given in the rules because they are the exceptions where the standard rules don't apply.
Its not that there aren't magi who might reason as you have presented. Its just that there aren't likely to be very many of them. The natural tendency of a magical practitioner is going to be towards mysticism, not towards theological skepticism. Further, its just not the way men thought in the era. Even William of Ockham asserted that Sacred Scripture was authority enough to satisfy his 'razor'.
There are those Magi that believe that The Gift was originally given to Adam.
“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth†(Gen. 1:28 )
or that The Gift is a manifestation of Divine power...
(Matthew 17:14-21) And when they had come to the multitude, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying, "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. "So I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not cure him." Then Jesus answered and said, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me." And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not cast it out?" So Jesus said to them, "Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you. "However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."
Many scholars of the early renaissance believed that such mystical powers and such were gained through an understanding of the Divine. It's the very foundation of Gnosticism.
Is it that much of a stretch to believe that Magi can have faith? You can be a scholar and fully accept the trappings of religion.
There isn't going to be a single official answer - and that's good! - and even if there were, anyone would be free to change things in his saga. I think the idea of such topics is to discuss the setting in the hope of developing a more "realistic" idea of what the Order is, or could be, like. Not to set any single view as correct.
I think the problem with this in ArM is that the magi are quite capable of telling that the working of magic is impeded by the Divine. Hence, while they could certainly think the Gift is a gift from god, they would not consider magic to be a manifestation of Divine power (unlike renaissance scholars, who had not such considerations).
It is certainly possible for a magus to have faith, but it's just unlikely that he'll adopt the trappings of a religion that diminishes his magical power. Gnostic beliefs that only those blessed with the Gift are suitable to the "real" god's religion are possible, ascetic-like beliefs that God wishes us selected few to live aside from his community of worshipers are possible, and so on. But direct worship will lead to Dominion and hence is unlikely, IMO - not impossible, not non-existant, but rather not-dominant.
I don't recognise House Miscellanea as you've presented them. I thought we'd managed to move away from the "misc = pagan" schtick of previous editions.
As for the others, you're absolutely right. There are cults who reject the truth and opt for a pragmatic or more fulfilling option. We have the same thing today. There are those, against all evidence to the contrary, that believe that the moon landings were faked. For whatever reason, personally I think it comes from a desire to set one's self aside from the mainstream, they buck "accepted wisdom" and "believe" something else. And they go to great expense and effort to defend their viewpoint.
So actually pointing to the beliefs of those magi and using that as a basis for defining truth doesn't quite work for me. The world of Ars Magica is what it is. And that includes the confusing and sometimes inconsistent manifestation of God across all of his domain.
At the end of the day there are two things at odds here. Philosophy, backed by some sort of logical system, doesn't take into account human nature. Human nature is flawed and can get things wrong. So it's of no value asking "how can the game support the in-game existence of God when even the main characters don't believe" because it doesn't actually matter what they believe. The in-game existence of God, taken as read, is part of the setting. And as a wise man further up the thread said, if you can't understand that, well that's because you're not God.
I would disagree with your conclusion here. Some sects of Christianity accept, for example, that the covenant between God and the Israelites was not ended with the death of Jesus, but that Jesus simply provided a second path to salvation. Thus, Judaism for Jews and Christianity for non-Jews, without either being untrue. Then you have the Christian Universalists, like Scottus, who believed that Jesus dying saved everyone. With only a little tinkering, given what Hermetic magic knows, we can reject that universalism but keep what I guess we could call "Christian Monotheism": the notion that all monotheistic faiths are given salvation.
There's also a question of what being a Christian means. If one goes to Church and takes the sacrament and gets last rites upon death, but philosophizes upon the nature of God at home, they still tend to get historically labeled as "Christian". Now, when they start professing the viewpoint that God is inconsistent and loves the Muslims just as much as the Christians, then, depending on the Pope and local priests and the like, said person can well end up labeled "Heretic", but that's really only if they make waves.
Something I'd also point out (with my "minor in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy" hat on) is that the notions that
greek and roman philosophy form a cohesive whole; and
Medieval theology does not touch upon greek/roman philosophy
are both false. One of the interesting aspects of this period from an ancient philosophy standpoint is that, while the new Aristotle gets more play, the new Plato can be problematic, because his early works are vastly different from his middle and late periods, and, while not technically logically inconsistent, it is obvious upon study that Plato's belief system changed between his early and middle works.
And, within the Christian world, the constant struggle between Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian thought really defined theological philosophy. St. Agustine was a pretty strong neoplatonic; the discovery of "new" Aristotle in the western world is going to have a massive effect on the religious viewpoints of one Thomas Aquinas, to be born in 1225.
Certainly, I agree, magi who are Christian probably still aren't likely to hang out in Divine auras all day, unless they have holy magic. But, in a world where demons are real, and Hermetic magic has certain difficulty dealing with them (yes, everyone loves DEO, but that requires you know where to aim it), the Church is simply better equipped to deal with some problems magi face. (Assumably, a Jewish Temple or Muslim Mosque would also serve, but, in most saga locations, the Church is closer, and its structure more organized.)
It's also worth noting that scholar == holy in this period, really. If you're openly pagan, chances are good the Abbot isn't going to want to lend you that bit of Aristotle you want to copy. If the Order, as a whole, says "oh, yeah, we love our pagans", the Church is going to get a lot more interested in ridding the world of the Order. If that's the direction you want to take the Saga, it certainly sounds like an interesting one.
It's fair to call the Criamon generally pagan. The Tremere mostly are, but are also more centered outside of currently Christian lands; the more Western-living Tremere are probably willing to pay God lip service to keep the peace. I'd agree that more Ex Misc are pagan than most of the Houses, but I don't think "Ex Misc" and "pagan" are inherently the same, especially for those Ex Misc magi from lineages that have been around for a while. But the Flambeau were all about the Crusades, and while Bonisagus might be trying experiments to determine the nature of God, I think given what they know to be true, they wouldn't have a problem developing a viewpoint along Augustine's lines.
I think that the one thing a Hermetic magi absolutely couldn't be, given what he knows, is an athiest. Divine auras exist, and ancient atheist philosophy gives no accounting of how they exist. Souls do exist, and different stuff happens to pagan souls than monotheist souls. I suppose we can quibble over atheism as the rejection of any theistic doctrine, and what it means to believe in a God, but I think you'd have to do some angelic dancing on a pin to offer up a position on the various known truths of Mythic Europe that is logically consistent without smacking of at least agnosticism. (And calling agnosticism atheism is a pet peeve of mine.)
I must admit that, as a philosophy student, I find the notion that there is a Platonic form of a table rather unbelievable myself. The embodied universal of a table is similarly difficult for me to swallow. Apparently, these Christians, Jews, and Muslims we're talking about had easier times swallowing that crazy stuff.
I mean, we're talking about a game system in which aquam controls water, except maybe rain, when it ought to be auram, which also contains smoke, regardless of what you're burning. That's all based on the natural philosophy that was in vogue at the time, and it's all, by modern standards, patently ridiculous. You have to do a whole bunch of handwaving to get it work. I am unconvinced that this handwaving is less serious than that necessary to envision a God who holds different groups of people to different standards. Maybe that's just I personally hold different groups of people to different standards.
Believing in a monotheistic faith seems to get your soul to the point where it can't be summoned and compelled by necromancers after you die. That seems like enough of a perk by itself!
I think, if you try to go a skeptical route, you still end up with contradictions provided by the medieval paradigm. If you try to resolve them, your only recourse is to drop the medieval paradigm, take up modern science, and then handwave your answers to the current unknowables (are their particles smaller than the current smallest known subatomic? Is there a graviton? What caused the big bang?)
(Now I'm imagining a magus who goes around questioning rocks and trees trying to figure out when they were created and such...)
Granted, but not always. I take my conclusions from pg. 57 of RoP:TD. Under "True Faith and The Gift," it states that there is a (albeit contested) belief that True Faith (or Vera Fides) is a "purer" form of The Gift.
It also is stated in that section that having True Faith does not hinder The Gift.
On pg. 9 of RoP:TD, it says that it is most likely a magus' hubris that causes the diminishing of magic, as they stand before a much greater power. This is not really that unreasonable, and I draw on the following:
"Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God..." (1 Peter 5:6)
and
"And he was preaching, and saying, "After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals," (Mark 1:7)
A Christian Magus would most likely see the diminishing of magic within a divine aura as a test of faith.
"...We must go through much tribulation to enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22)
I can see the point you're trying to make, but I respectfully disagree.
Most of my classrooms at the college I attend have almost zero wireless reception. I didn't pick a different college because I can use my laptop or cellphone easier there. Granted, zero reception is inconvenient, but I love the college, and I enjoy every day I attend.
Yes, a bit of a silly modern parallel, but it works.
As you said earlier...there really will never be a clear consensus about this. This is one of the boards' more "Criamon-like" discussions.
I don't think either of these statements is true. The Criamon are certainly not 'pagan', unless all you mean by pagan is 'not christian'. While the Criamon are basically looking for the backdoor out of Creation, most simply treat religion as irrelevant while others are rather heretical monotheists of various sorts.
If there is anything the Tremere are not, it is pagan. The Tremere consider anything involving sacrificing to a god to be rubbish because of the way the Old Gods faded and failed. The Tremere are the most likely to be atheist of any House, but its not unusual for them to be Christian because the idea of a god sacrificing for mankind (rather than the reverse) is rather intriguing to them.
I guess it depends on how narrowly you are trying to define Christianity. The diversity of belief in the medieval Church is quite substantial. Origen and other major Church figures certainly have theologies that work with Ars Magica's "all faiths lead to God" set up, for instance. Few magi would pass an "orthodoxy review board", but I think a lot would consider themselves Christian nevertheless. Of course, a lot of those that do probably don't 'go to church' regularly, but that's another issue.
My take is that all magi know that the Divine exists --- they can see its influence on their magic, they can detect Divine auras etc. So if the Divine exists, then what the Divine claims is (probably) true. That is, people have immortal souls and if you do not worship the Divine appropriately your immortal soul will go to hell for eternal damnation and if you do worship the Divine appropriately your immoral soul is saved and goes to Heaven (or Earth 2.0, or whatever).
So, the only logical position is for magi to be overwhelmingly christian (or muslim, or jewish if they live in the appropriate regions).
Yes, it might stuff their magic a bit when they are in a Divine aura. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't often visit a Divine aura for worship. It is just a tradeoff of material power (improved magic) for eternal salvation.
It is not dissimilar to all those people who take a vow of poverty. Taking a vow of poverty is insane if there is no god, and no eternal damnation and salvation. On the other hand, if there is a god and there is eternal damnation and salvation then a vow of poverty makes sense if it means that you are more likely to get salvation. It's another tradeoff of material power for eternal salvation.
The only magi who would not be christian would be those who think that the Divine is lying or who think that they can achieve salvation through some other method --- like becoming a faerie or magical creature.
Yes, I think the vow of poverty is a more apt analogy. I think that the amount of magi who would find it necessary to commit to a worldview that so diminishes their magic to be about the amount of Christians who take a vow of poverty And this is not considering the fact that these magi's mystical traditions may be quite contrary to the mundane religion's.
There is just as much proof that people can achieve salvation through Twilight, or becoming faeries, or so on. People will - generally - choose the viewpoint that fits them, rather than fit themselves to the most fitting viewpoint - espcially when there's a lot of fitting to do.
heres were we disagree, I think you start with the presocratic philosophers and work you way up the later guys. Its very hard to make sense of particular philosophy when you extract from the history of ideas.
Magi and the OoH have fantastic powers and resources. Between magic portals, intellego magic and the capacity to speak with the dead, I am sceptical of the idea that they have limited access to greek philosophy texts. Damn, I expect they would have works by aristotle that were destroyed in the alexandrean library. Not to mention complete texts of sophists, whom the tytalus admire so much (which we currently dont have).
Look, while its true that a magi would likely be christian in the 1st 8 to 10 years of life, once they become an apprentice the whole thing is really dependent upon the parens. And whether or not they are likely to be christian just is the issue here.
sure, I know there are all kinds in ex misc, it just seemed to me on my reading that the majority were pagan: coupled with a minority of ex misc thath were theists.
That is how I view only some of the houses. what is more, religious mysticism does not imply christian mysticism.
That is not what I am talking about at all, and that is not my argument at all.
I totally agree. the only thing all greek phi has in common is the search for reasons to justify beliefs, as opposed to reliance on story and myth. And I agree in your account of medieval philosophy as relying heavily on greek phi. If you reead my posts you will see I never made claims 1 or 2.
Granted I did not elaborate on early greek and medieval philosophy. I didnt want to bore people or try to show off. I am trying to keep it simple enough so this can remain a general interest discussion so that it does not devolve into an obscure debate that only 3 people can participate in.
I want to say this again, for all to see:
when I am saying that most magi would not be christian theists that does not mean that most would be atheists or pagans, I repeat: that does not mean that most would be atheists or pagans.
In my view most would be deists and pantheists (pantheism is not Polytheism). Einstein, who speaks of God is really a deist, not a theist, likewise many of the US founding fathers (not the framers ) were deists and yet people tend to think of them as christians. Yes, I have just used two nonmedieval examples. Because I want people to see that deism and pantheism are not identical with atheisim or agnosticism.
As I said earlier, in my view most magi would be deists and pantheists: a minority would be theists and atheists. As for scepticism, my point is not that scepticism would be final position of the magi. Rather, that scepticism would lead them away from theism and toward deism or pantheism.
Again, that their is divine phenomena occurs does not logically ential that a given religion is true or even possibly true. As I stated earlier, that is one of many possible explanations. This is why science is so tough, for any given phenonema to be explained there are many hypotheses which might explaining. Trying to figure out which is the best explanation is tough. Granted in the context of historical medieval europe making conclusions is easier given the monopoly of the church on education. But in ME europe they dont have such a monopoly. So magi have a variety of explanations for divine phenomena to choose from.
Indeed, we need to note how philosophy proceeds. One reason whymedieval philosophy was so theistic in outlook and scope has to do with the fact that in medieval euorope the church had a monopoly on education and philosophy. There was also some degree of fear of being accused of heresy: but yes there was some wiggle room on this. If you have a group of theists that puzzle over metaphysics you are not likely to get a non-theistic philosophical system emerging. Of course there are exceptions like spinoza who went from theism to pantheism (yes I know he is not in the 13th century.
But, in mythic europe and in OoH there are non-theists and non-christians would would. When you get philosphers with divergent starting axioms you will see that philosophers on both sides are forced to take one anothers views seriously and they start talking back and forth with one another. In this context, Tytalus and tremere (among others) that discuss philosophy will produce a situation where theists have to re-evalaute their initial premises and have to justify them. This is a far more complex philosophical situation than in the real medieval europe.
Sorry for the long post, I am just trying to take everyone seriously and not blow people off.
More power to you. I guess it's an interesting philosophical diversion, but I'm having a hard time relating it back to Ars Magica, mention of Houses aside.
I guess I can't see it being any more complicated than it needs to be; God exists, the Church is right, as is Islam, and Judaism, etc. It's demonstrably right and so, within the game, you'd imagine that most people would accept it and get on with their lives or find reasons to specifically deny it.
Within the game, why would you not believe in God? He's everywhere. That's the bit that you're occluding with with the philosophy course.
I guess it's that old thing about philosophical arguments only being effective against philosophers.
Maybe I'm a numpty, but the malarkey about deists and theists and pan vs. poly doesn't make much sense to me in relation to the game.
How much commitment does it take from a magus to be a Christian?
All that is required to be Christian is to say that you are, go to Church occasionally, and observe some festivals and so forth. This doesn't really cramp the magi's style too much?
It doesn't stop him spending most of his time in a laboratory, in a magical aura, doing magical things.
It is only if the magus is not only Christian, but is also a very pious Christian that there is any real story/game effect. I would say that magi are generally no more pious than the background population (but are probably much more prone to heresy). Not all Christians are monks.
Of course, some magi might be very pious, but then you take appopriate Story Flaws to represent that.
The Order of Hermes does have fantastic resources NOW. It did not have fantastic resources in the 6th through 10th centuries. The lore is clearly indicative of a literal and violent struggle for texts and resources. The state of magic was probably in worse shape than the rest of society. Small groups hiding in caves fearing death and worse is hardly the way to preserve books.
I think the rest of your argument is getting to the point of splitting hairs. Obviously, magi have read more than just the Neo platonists, pythagoreans, and so on. I'm saying that wizards in general will be drawn towards the elements of philosophy that tend towards the magical.
Further, while you and I may not consider a particular magus' deist beliefs to be "properly Christian", I suspect that most medieval magi would not agree. They may say the Church is wrong about this or that, but I think they would mostly consider themselves heterodox Christians (We know more than those blind mundanes) rather than something else entirely.
Much of the monolithic belief structure of the Church comes about later. In this era its quite common for all manner of heterodoxy to be commonplace, both amongst the peasantry and amongst scholars.
I think you are framing the debate in a context that is meaningless until the Enlightenment, frankly.
Sorry, I was not ignoring you. i must have somehow missed answering points from your earlier post.
Ok, what I was trying to get is that there are multiple religious paradigm in ME ( in the Kuhnian sense: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm )
My point is that if there really is personal god I think it is difficult to explain how he supports 3 mutually exclusive paradigms. Traditional notions of god is that he is perfect, but support for 3 contraditory paradigms seems to at least need explanation.
From a historical perspective theists and general and christian theologians in particular tend to find that answer very unpalatable and have worked very hard to show that good is purely rational and perfect.
See, we differ here because in view we cant make such conclusions. We note that there are divine auras, people with true faith, and demons/angels. But, that does not require that we explain it by there being a god. It does not require that we choose islam (say) over christianity. You could still have all that phenomena and still reach deism or pantheism without contradiction. This is not to say you cant reach theistic conclusions either.
I agree but it also doesnt mean that he cant be neutral, as in deism. Also, to say again, god might just be a creative force that does not have beliefs, preferences and goals. That is one of many available explanations.
Really?
I always thought that if I had to choose an abrahamic faith then it would be islam. You get to have multiple wives. The idea of having sex with the same woman for the rest of my life is disturbing. One histroical question that I have never answered was why islam never became more dominant that it was? I mean converts get the bonus of multiple wives wouldnt that make islam far more tempting than christianity or judaism?
And this is not considering the fact that these magi's mystical traditions may be quite contrary to the mundane religion's.
) were deists and yet people tend to think of them as christians. Yes, I have just used two nonmedieval examples. Because I want people to see that deism and pantheism are not identical with atheisim or agnosticism.
