Nature of the Gods

From: Richard Develyn <richard_at_skaro.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:02:49 +0100


First of all Mikko Rintasaari explained how ownership of the runes has changed over the years.

I think this is a fair point. I can't imagine what the mechanism for transferring runes ownership is, but I guess as long as there _is_ an owner for a rune then the power that that represents would continue to exist.

Answering Nick and Peter.

First of all: chicken and egg.

The answer I would propose lies pre great compromise. In other words, gods were allowed to exist without worship before the great compromise. At that point worship was established but after the compromise they needed it to continue to exist.

Next Nick:

> There is no such thing as "a huge plague with no Malia presence", from
> a Theistic POV. It's a logical impossibility. It's like asking for a
> "death without Humakt", or "darkness that has no connection to
> Subere", or "non-Lunar moonlight".

That's exactly what I believe.

So why can there be storms without Orlanth (or Storm God)?

> I am certain Richard's contention that the sun don't shine over
> atheist lands (later modified to "the sun don't shine so bright") is a
> Gloranthan absurdity.

If it's an absurdity then you'll be able to give me loads of examples where it isn't true.

Peter also protests:

> Yuck. The Brithini do not allow the worship of gods within their
> lands (cf the Arolanit sidebar in the Genertela Book).

And also:

>> I reckon the sun don't shine so bright over there.

> And you are wrong.

Well - as far as Arolanit is concerned, first of all they worship the Invisible God, which is worship, isn't it? Couldn't it be that monotheists worship one god which has, effectively, all runes associated with it?

Additionally, the description of Arolanit in Genertela Book seems to describe a very sterile place, which would be quite in keeping with my theories that manifestation follows worship. And what about this:

'Most travellers to Arolanit complain that everything looks grey, or as according to one merchant from Hendra, "like the radiance was taken from the light..."'

Sounds like the sun doesn't shine so bright.

Then you wrote:

> How does one destroy the Wind or the Sun? Since it's pretty much
> impossible then why _bother_ introducing oodles of amateur metaphysics
> to screw up glorantha?

I'm not trying to screw up Glorantha. I'm postulating theories to try to explain Glorantha.

> Proof? All we have is human worship can affect physicial
> manifestations. But that does not mean that human worship is the
> source of all physical manifestations.
 

I don't have to give you any proof. It's not the way this sort of thing works. I propose a theory and make predictions from it. If it's wrong then my predictions will fail. You can never prove a theory right, you can only say it's not been proved wrong yet.

And I have no problem whatsoever changing my theories around to fit in with any new evidence. That's all part of the process.

>> What causes physical manifestation?

> THEIST: The God.
> SCIENTIST: A Physical Manifestation needs no cause other than its
> existance. Afterall a brick is not caused by a building.

So how do you explain what happens when the two are in conflict? i.e. when a theist and a scientist standing on the same spot predict different things?

> OTOH you seem to think that if a scientist gives a correct prediction
> then he is disproving theism.

I don't think that. I think that if the scientist and theist predict different results then what will happen will be a compromise to allow both to be correct. For example, both could realise they had insufficient data.

>> If you're saying, and _know_, not just saying, that in a land
>> thousands of miles away from _any_ storm worship whatsoever, there
>> are mountains with hurricane winds blowing in them, then my theory
>> doesn't fit.

> Yes. Ergo you are wrong in saying that Gods need worship to manifest.

Where is this place?

You then made a couple of comments based on the fact that you _deny_ my theories. You haven't yet disproved it I'm afraid.

I made a statement that I believed sun worshippers on earth believed that the sun shone brightest over their temples. Peter and Nick want proof!

Let me simply state that I _imagine_ this to be the case. It seems to be very much the sort of thing that religions say.

Back to Peter:

> We can prove God doesn't exist? When did that happen?

No, you're right, we can't _prove_ anything. However we can make some of these miracles seem extremely unlikely. The faithful will always be the faithful, however I believe a lot of religions have started toning down the supposed miraculous feats of their scriptures, in the face of scientific opposition.

>> They have to _share_ idea-space, theorem-space, whatever we care to >> call it. Where there is a conflict, there must be compromise.

> Oh? Why can't they simply talk past each other as happens in
> the Real World?

Because I think there would be a decline in religion, like, I believe, has happened in the real world. I don't feel that's the way Glorantha ticks.

>> No, the theist would have said no wind.

> You said he would predict slight breezes and then went on to say that
> this is what would be observed. Why the sudden change of mind?

Sorry, you're quite right. What I meant to say was that the answer would lie between the theists "little or no wind" and the scientists "strong gale".

> Note that I said the _depths_ where there are very few fish (due to
> lack of sunlight etc).

The place could be teeming with magical fish, couldn't it?

Richard
Richard Develyn (http://www.skaro.demon.co.uk)


End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #573


Powered by hypermail