If they haven't, are there any reasons why?
* Jokingly, what about Ilii coming to Earth as aliens!


What made them stop, just out of interest (also, what about the implications like bunkers and stuff still lying around Almea)?zompist wrote:I assume they've been in space and explored Almea's system a bit, but not gone into interstellar space.



How wise are we really? There's a great difference between knowledge and wisdom, and it isn't really that difficult to be wise beyond our civilization. I'd expect an ancient wise race to respect life in the universe, and be concerned about meddling with it.Eddy wrote:Really? I always kind of pictured them as post-religious given the various descriptions of them as being super-advanced and wise beyond even our civilization.

Indeed. While it is fashionable to associate superstition with a low level of scientific awareness (e.g. Bushmen, Creationists), there's no need to assume advanced technology goes hand-in-hand with the "post-religious" mindset.Barvitex wrote:It's entirely possible to maintain a strong belief in God while having a good deal of scientific knowledge. A think our civilization's secular orientation has nothing to do with our technological advancement. Communism and the hippie ideology have quickly fallen out of fashion. And they liked to predict that theistic worldview will disappear...

They are supposed to have specifically taught monotheism to several civilizations, so I would assume some sort of spirituality prevails among them.Eddy wrote:Really? I always kind of pictured them as post-religious given the various descriptions of them as being super-advanced and wise beyond even our civilization.

Indeed. I have heard more than one story of a scientist who, after being an atheist when young, found his personal relationship to God through the study of Nature. It is far from uncommon for scientists to be deeply religious; there is no contradiction in that.Yiuel wrote:I don't believe either that scientific knowledge leads to a destruction of faith. On the contrary, it might strengthen it.



Being a strong critic of religion myself, I yet don't think that faith is failing. On the opposite, when you have well established certitudes like those in science, it is really easy to have faith and to embrace it easily. Some fall into scientism, which can create problems. But faith in the results of scientific research has never been so strong, and may be stronger than most religions have never been. Faith just became something else in those religions's harshest critics.Eddy wrote:Hmm, I suppose the whole magic thing would tend to offset secular tendencies (assuming it isn't underlyingly scientific). But my impression has been that religion is on the decline in the first world, even outside of Marxist and hippie circles. Many of religion's harshest critics are neither. But then again, this is something I've seen debated a lot with few conclusive answers.
You can't, but still, if you have all or most details, you can make educated guesses about how they would react. For Almea, Magic and how it works is the detail you most not forget.I suppose one can't really predict with any certainty how a different species in a different universe would have to act.
In Virtual Verduria, zompist wrote:To the magicians, magic is a science as well as a faith. They have mapped out the supernatural world for their purposes (which never include mere curiosity). It rarely encourages them in the mythology of the masses, but it makes them mystical, and a magician is never an atheist. "Enäron exists," insists one magical writer. "Yet He is not as you conceive. Shall I tell you of what nature He is? Do I dare speak? Do you dare listen?"

I don't think Gaiman was intending to be snarky here, nor was I. I'm skeptical of any declarations about the ultimate nature of the cosmos, whether theistic or atheistic.Barvitex wrote:Are you an atheistzompist wrote:As for gods or God, I like Neil Gaiman's observation: the universe rewards belief systems. Believe in omnipotent teddy bears, and you'll soon start finding evidence for omnipotent teddy bears.



I take it the other way round. You can't believe in anything until you've seen some evidence for it, even if it's only hearsay evidence.zompist wrote:As for gods or God, I like Neil Gaiman's observation: the universe rewards belief systems. Believe in omnipotent teddy bears, and you'll soon start finding evidence for omnipotent teddy bears.

You did not get zompist's point. It's not belief that will create evidence. It's faith, in its strongest version, that will make people interpret the world through their beliefs, making them find evidence (but only interpretations of events, really) to support their belief.Mornche Geddick wrote:I take it the other way round. You can't believe in anything until you've seen some evidence for it, even if it's only hearsay evidence.zompist wrote:As for gods or God, I like Neil Gaiman's observation: the universe rewards belief systems. Believe in omnipotent teddy bears, and you'll soon start finding evidence for omnipotent teddy bears.
What's more, believing something doesn't make you find evidence for it. For example in my PhD study I had been told a certain compound was photostable. But when I ran it as a control I soon found evidence that it wasn't photostable after all. My belief had absolutely no control over reality.