RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - [RPG]: Blood Games, reviewed by Jim Bob (3/3)

2nd Level RPGnetter · 11-30-2004, 06:39 AM

Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2004-11-30 05:39:52
Converted from Phorums BB System

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Telling someone they didn't really mean the things they said is not going to win you any points in a debate. As for as the accuracy of the definition, the fact that it's the definition you favor does not make it accurate.
-------------------------------

I'm not telling you what you meant. I'm commenting on what you said. I'm sure you meant what you said, but the definition of /faith/ is the definition of /faith/. I didn't make it up, I took it from dictionary.com. That's why I included the URL, so people like you could go check it independently. If you don't like the definition, take it up with them, not me.

As for your feelings on the matter, that the definition is "narrow, skewed and cynical", that's nice, but it doesn't actually affect whether or not it's pertinent. As far as I can tell, the definition I'm using is the core of the idea; all the others are either developments that depend on "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" -- confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing and Loyalty to a person or thing -- or metonyms which use the component of faith to stand for the entirety of something else -- the body of dogma of a religion and a set of principles or beliefs -- or a restatement of the basic definition, but with an added moral tinge -- the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

If you think one of the other definitions is more pertinent, then please nominate which one it is and why you think it's a better fit. And why it doesn't fold back into the definition I used.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Even the definition you cited ("Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence") doesn't preclude thinking about things. Most thoughts are not founded on logical proof or material evidence; that doesn't necessarily make them invalid thoughts.
-------------------------------

Depends on what you mean by "thinking about things". If you mean examine an idea carefully, discovering its hidden assumptions, working out its implications and finding inconsistencies, then that's covered by the phrase "logical proof". If you mean engage in daydreams and wishful thinking, then you're right, the definition I cited does not preclude that.

You're also right: such thoughts are perfectly valid as thoughts. They make the thinker feel good and often produce insights and suggest possibilities that a more strictly logical approach would miss. However, they only serve as the inspiration for a line of inquiry -- the "where do you get your ideas from" bit -- not as a final proof -- the "as a result of my investigations" bit. Without material evidence and/or logical proof, such thoughts remain no more than idle fancies.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Furthermore, believing something without evidence and believing something contrary to evidence are not the same thing. Even logic makes a distinction between 'or' and 'exclusive or'.
-------------------------------

Again, you're right, but once someone has elected to ignore evidence, it's a short step from one to the other.

There's a difference between accepting something as a possibility even though there's no evidence to support it and believing something without evidence. The first involves entertaining a hypothesis while looking for evidence that may support or disprove it, the second involves committing to an idea because the lack of evidence isn't considered a relevant reason not to. Once someone decides that evidence or the lack thereof isn't relevant, then contrary evidence is easy to ignore. In fact, as demonstrated with the example of the Iraqi WMDs, that's exactly what a whole bunch of people routinely do.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Again, according to you. But you are not the final authority on the definition of faith, as much as you would like to be. In fact, in this context, the definition you picked is not the one that fits. As used in the review ("It gives a description of several religious faiths, and the powers they give the faithful relative to the evil beasties: Catholic, Zoroastrian, and Judaism"), the word "faith" clearly refers to definition #5 ("The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith") or #6 ("A set of principles or beliefs"). Given this, I can't help wondering why you felt it necessary to bring up an entirely different definition of faith.
-------------------------------

Both those definitions employ /faith/ as a metonym, like saying "the White House" when referring to the executive branch of the U.S. government, "the bench" when referring to legal authorities or "the flag" when referring to the nation or feelings of patriotism.

Faith is used as a metonym for "the body of dogma of a religion" or "a set of principles or beliefs" because it's an important component of both as currently conceived. Ultimately, each depends on adherents believing things that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith is the foundation; that's why it can be used to stand for the much greater whole.

However, it's possible to approach religion without faith. One could treat it as a purely commercial exchange; in return for certain sacrifices and observances on your part, a deity or deities grant certain favours and/or blessings. In fact, that's the way religion seems to be treated in most fantasy RPGs. Based on the review, that seems to be pretty much how Blood Games treats it as well. As such, Kyle Schuant, the reviewer, could have easily said it puts the Religion back in horror gaming and left faith out of it entirely.

I don't think it's possible to approach principles without faith, since anyone adopting such a pragmatic attitude is considered "unprincipled", so accepting the validity and rightness of a set of principles would seem to be a much more integral part of the concept. However, since principles are supposed to guide behaviour, that definition would seem to be more suited to a discussion of alignments and similar attempts to limit some of the excesses of how player characters often behave.

I have no objection to religion in a horror game, I just don't see why it need be faith-based. Or, indeed, why faith need be involved at all.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
I don't recall bringing loyalty into the discussion. If you're referring to dictionary definition #3, it's made quite explicit in the definition itself; "faith" is used to mean loyalty in the expression "keeping faith with [someone]".
-------------------------------

You objected to me "ignoring the other five" definitions given. Since at that time you hadn't specified which of the six definitions you preferred, the implication was that all six applied. I just pointed out that I didn't see how that particular definition applied and invited you to explain how you thought it did. If it turns out that you don't think it applies either, then I guess we're in agreement on that point.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
I don't have sensory evidence for the existence of electrons, but I believe they exist. I don't have sensory evidence for the existence of Napoleon, either, but I believe he existed. Now, there's scientific evidence for the existence of electrons, and there's documentary evidence for the existence of Napoleon, though I haven't personally seen either.
-------------------------------

You have sensory evidence for the effects of electrons -- the very internet you receiving this reply through for a start -- and a series of rigorously tested scientific theories connecting that evidence to the idea of electrons, so accepting the existence of electrons is a belief that rests quite solidly on logical proof and material evidence. Same with Napoleon. In neither instance are you acting on faith.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
On the other hand, I've had personal experiential evidence of the existence of God (though not in a direct sensory fashion); thus, I believe in the existence of something I cannot see, just as I believe in electrons and Napoleon.
-------------------------------

Then your belief in the existence of God is based on evidence, not faith. I don't know the details of your "personal experiential evidence" or the particulars of the reasoning you employed to get from that evidence to the conclusion that God exists, but assuming the experiences were genuine and the reasoning valid -- and I don't of any reason for assuming otherwise -- then I have no basis on which to dispute your conclusion. And I'm not going to, since, as I keep saying, the issue isn't religion, it's faith.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
So while it's true to say that I have no "logical proof or material evidence" to back up my beliefs, there are other valid forms of proof and evidence. It's not the dictionary definition that I take issue with; it's your assertion that my faith is "not based on any input from reality" and "cannot be affected by reason or contrary evidence".
-------------------------------

Actually, if your beliefs are based on "personal experiential evidence", then I'd say you do have "material evidence" -- depending on how pernickety you want to be about the word "material". With a basis in experiential evidence, your beliefs certainly seemed to based on input from something, most likely reality.

I'm not arguing against your personal beliefs -- I don't know what they are except to the extent that you've described them here -- I'm arguing that faith is a very ineffective way to approach knowledge and, as a consequence, doesn't belong in games requiring investigation.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
I quoted that scripture because it's my working definition of faith. Obviously, you have a different definition, and I'm not going to claim that my definition is superior "just because", as you seem intent on doing. A complete definition of faith should ideally accommodate both viewpoints. Fortunately, I already have a way of incorporating your definition of faith into my viewpoint; I call it blind faith. You, on the other hand, seem adamantly opposed to admitting the validity of any other definition but your own, which is why I said you have a narrow definition. I suspect that trying to persuade you to accept my definition as valid is a waste of time; however, I'll continue to point out the limitations of your arguments for the sake of others who may read this thread.
-------------------------------

It's not my definition, it's from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as quoted on dictionary.com. And I prefer it because dictionaries represent a neutral resource that everyone involved in a discussion can consult so as to understand each other.

In fact, I'm deliberately using the American Heritage Dictionary definition even though I'm from Australia because this is an American site and most of the people reading it are Americans and I figure I should conform to majority usage.

By contrast, you're offering a personal definition. While that may be valid for you, it's possible I may have a personal definition of my own which I think is equally valid for me. How should we decide between these two personal definitions? I assumed that I was demonstrating a willingness to be reasonable by not going with some personal definition, but instead using the one from the American Heritage Dictionary which presumably would be familiar with the majority of users of this site. If you don't like that definition, then your argument is with them, not me.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Given that the use of the word "faith" in the review clearly and specifically referred to religious faith, and given that religion is the context in which the word "faith" is most commonly used, I think that using a definition of faith from a religious source is a perfectly valid way of making my point, provided I acknowledge that there are other kinds of faith than religious faith (which I did).
-------------------------------

However, trying to turn the discussion into one where you portray yourself as a martyr with me challenging your personal beliefs is not.

I've repeatedly said that I'm not arguing against religion, just faith. As I said to Kyle Schuant, it's about epistemology, not theology.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
No, that's the nature of blind faith. There are some in the U.S. government (don't ask me to name names; I don't have much use for politics) who admitted that they might have been wrong about Iraq's WMD. They had faith to start out with, but their faith was shaken by the (lack of) evidence. It was not impervious to reason or reality.
-------------------------------

That's one of the reasons I was willing to name names, just to separate those with faith from those who were clearly taking a more evidence-based view of the matter.

Still, given that you're distinguishing between "faith" and "blind faith", please explain to me how you differentiate the two. As far as I can tell, since faith involves "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" it cannot be anything other than blind because that would mean allowing logical proof or material evidence to influence the belief, and if that happens, it's justified belief, not faith.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Even if someone did have the kind of irrational faith you're talking about, it doesn't necessarily follow that they'd be completely incapable of carrying out an investigation. Even if I have absolute, unreasoning faith in the belief that NASA faked the moon-landings, it isn't likely to interfere with my ability to hunt vampires.
-------------------------------

No, but the same process that led you to your belief about the moon-landings can also lead you to equally unsupported beliefs in other areas, some of which are likely to impact on your ability to hunt vampires.

Faith is an attitude, an approach to deciding what we know and how we know it to be true. While some people may be able to keep it neatly confined to one area or subject so that it doesn't affect how they approach other aspects of their lives, it seems much more likely that faith will seep out and contaminate other areas of their thinking.

If nothing else, faith involves certainty, and that can be very comforting, especially when contrasted with the doubt with which all other knowledge is tinged. Certainty makes decision-making easier, and since faith delivers certainty, it's very tempting to make faith the basis for any field of knowledge in which difficult decisions need to be made.

So, you're right, if someone has faith in one area, it doesn't mean that incapable of carrying out an investigation in other areas. But it's like saying that if someone has a bunch of rabbits on their property, it doesn't mean that those rabbits present a problem to anyone else. However, as we here in Australia discovered, the little buggers tend to breed and spread and, much sooner than you might think possible, they're all over the place and huge tracts of landscape have been stripped bare. Faith is like rabbits in that regard.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Considering that the very definition of faith that you favor mentions "trust" as a synonym, I don't see how this is an invalid usage of the word.
-------------------------------

I didn't say it was invalid, I said you were engaging in slippage.

Look, let me try to explain by using another word: value.

Again from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition via <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=value">dictionary.com</a>:

     value
       n.
       4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or
           desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician
           values of restraint and responsibility" (Jonathan Alter).

       6. Mathematics. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.

There are two definitions given there (out of ten). Now, if you were to argue that computers have values because they deal in assigned or calculated numerical quantities, you'd be right and the usage would be valid. However, if you were to then argue that, since computers have values, they are moral beings, you would have engaged in slippage. You would have established that something was true under one usage of the term (definition 6), but then would have exploited the confusion associated with the fact that another usage employs the exact same term to switch to that usage (definition 4) and proceeded as if your earlier argument had established something which it hadn't. Yes, computer do have values, but they're not values in the same sense that moral beings have values.

Same here. If you establish that roleplaying games require faith in one sense (definition 3 in this case), it doesn't follow that you have demonstrated that they need it in another sense (any of the other definitions, but particularly definition 2).

Also, I will point out that above you wrote "I don't recall bringing loyalty into the discussion. If you're referring to dictionary definition #3, it's made quite explicit in the definition itself; "faith" is used to mean loyalty in the expression 'keeping faith with [someone]'". Yet here you are arguing that very definition. You shouldn't try to have it both ways.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
What's the difference? As far as I can see, that's what "losing faith" means -- coming to the conclusion that what you thought you knew, what you trusted to be true, is not so.
-------------------------------

Maybe this is a usage thing, but in my part of the world "losing faith" indicates a much greater personal crisis than acknowledging that one had misplaced one's trust. Losing faith is what happens when people decide to leave the priesthood or go through some similarly dramatic change of life. Acknowledging that one's trust was misplaced, on the other hand, is a routine part of life and involves no more than deciding to never use that particular supplier again, or discovering that just because someone talks a good game doesn't mean they can deliver.

The first involves losing one's certainty about part of the world; the second involves being reminded that, though things work most of the time, every now and again, they don't. Or as we say around here: "@!#$ happens. Sometimes good @!#$ happens, sometimes bad @!#$ happens, but the one thing you can count on is that @!#$ happens."

Or, at least, that's what I see as the difference between the two.

Wyvern wrote:
-------------------------------
Only from your definitions, which I rejected as inadequate at the very outset. If you said "Christians believe that shooting abortionists is morally justified," and I objected that I didn't believe any such thing, telling me "You're not really a Christian then," would hardly prove your point. By narrowly defining faith as "blind belief", you've created a straw-man argument.
-------------------------------

On the other hand, I'm not likely to make sweeping statements like that unless the condition were part of the definition of the term. That is, I might say "Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for their sins", then if you were to object and say that you don't believe any such thing, I would quite legitimately point out that "You aren't really a Christian". Some things follow automatically because they are part of the definition of the terms used.

By contrast, when making synthetical statements based on observed correlations rather than definitional requirements, I'm likely to employ a phrasing like "Some Christians seem to believe that shooting abortionists is morally justified". That way if you were to object and say that you didn't believe any such thing, the best I could say is "Then you're not one of those Christians". Actually, I probably wouldn't even presume you were a Christian in the first place.

See how you can avoid all sorts of pitfalls when you stop thinking in absolutes and certainties and adopt a more contingent approach?

Regards,

Zoran