Equestrian religion...or lack thereof Options

[Sobana]

So many cultures have parties after funerals that there's a general word for it: a wake. And Irish wakes are Pinkie-level parties.

---Dave

Actually, wakes take place before the funerals. Originally, back in old times, wakes were an opportunity to make sure the person was actually dead and not just passed out drunk or knocked conscience or something, the name 'wake' comes from the practice of waiting for the person to wake up. Celebrating parties might have even been a way to try to wake them up faster. After much medical progress, the entire practice became more of a tradition then confirmation.

[Nutjob R/T]

...

Wait, THAT'S how it works?

Crap. The way it works in our family is, we tether the coffin to a speedboat and...

[Rezo]

I question the possibility of answering this question at all.

Religion doesn't require something to not be real - spirits, gods, etc. are real for the people who believe in them, after all. On the other hand, when we actually can see, identify, and measure things, we tend to call it 'Science'.

Neither does it require, say, 'Devotion' - the early Romans, for example, had a relationship to their Gods that is best characterised as 'Business-like'. 'I sacrifice something for you, and you do something for me, pal.'

Consequently, it's possible to argue both ways - that ponies have a religion (Based around their clearly-vastly-ahead-of-bogstandard-ponies princesses + various spirits, some of which - windigos - we've seen), and that they don't have a religion (Because well... They can see, identify, and measure all these things).

The show also gives mixed signals - on one hand, the princesses are Really Quite Revered (Quite a bit less so than kings were in the past, but by modern standards, it's quite extraordinary. And the show goes great lengths to make things understandable from a modern PoV), on the other hand, Twilight is very clear on magic being explainable, logical, etc. - read: It being a science. Which logically applies to the princesses, too.

tl;dr: Insufficient evidence to make a call.

[J4n1]

The show also gives mixed signals - on one hand, the princesses are Really Quite Revered (Quite a bit less so than kings were in the past, but by modern standards, it's quite extraordinary. And the show goes great lengths to make things understandable from a modern PoV)

I actually disagree with this.
the princesses (especially so Celestia) are extremely revered, to the point where people swear by them, and the only reason things seem so informal most of the time is
1. Because our point of view characters are close to the princesses (familiarity breeds contempt and all that).
2. Princesses themselves want things to be informal (and, no matter how much they wish otherwise, they seemingly can't stop ponies from kowtowing to them)
and (and this is probably the important part)
3. They don't need to reinforce their station through ritual. There is no change, none, that ponies themselves would ever try to usurp them, and even if they tried, they probably would have no hope whatsoever of doing so (except maybe with the elements, and even then it's a maybe). Their rule is secure in a way that any king of old would sell their soul, sacrifice their first born and swear (and keep) an oath of celibacy to gain.

They are revered, and loved, what is missing is the more outwardly obvious ways of showing it (which are usually born more out of fear and/or tradition, than actual reverence), with the exception of Luna, who is feared (atleast at first, but that might be atleast partly due to bad timing, and totally too awesome for Equestrians way of talking, and will probably not be an issue next time), yet she is also obeyed.

[Rezo]

I'm not clear on how any of your points - whether they are true or not - are contradicting the point I made.

[J4n1]

I'm not clear on how any of your points - whether they are true or not - are contradicting the point I made.

I am refuting the point that they are revered less than kings were in the past, if anything, they are revered more, but it is shown less because it is not necessary, the princesses themselves do not desire it and even actively oppose (subtly, not enough to make royal decrees or anything, but trying to encourage ponies to act casual in their presence).

[Sobana]

What you fail to realize it that Nayuki replied to my comments first and by the rules stated in the fandom, that means my ideas are now canon. So, Equesitra does have a religion. =p

[Nayuki]

What you fail to realize it that Nayuki replied to my comments first and by the rules stated in the fandom, that means my ideas are now canon. So, Equesitra does have a religion. =p

And if I disagree? I don't think there is enough evidence in the show to support either side. My personal stance on this is unless the writers outright state there is a religion in the show, I'll just assume there isn't one.

[J4n1]

What you fail to realize it that Nayuki replied to my comments first and by the rules stated in the fandom, that means my ideas are now canon. So, Equesitra does have a religion. =p

And if I disagree? I don't think there is enough evidence in the show to support either side. My personal stance on this is unless the writers outright state there is a religion in the show, I'll just assume there isn't one.

Personally, going back to my earlier point.
In a nation/world like Equestria, religion would (or could) become something completely indistinguishable from secularism.

There are no priests, there are clerks.
There are not holy writings, there are lawbooks.
There are no theologians, there are lawyers.
There are no temples, there are townhalls.
There are no sacrifices, there are taxes.
There are no prayers, there are petitions.

The simple all encompassing presence and irrefutable nature of the divine regent, morphs all that we would see as religion, into secular goverment function.
The question wether there is religion, becomes irrelevant, because it is impossible to distinguish between religious and secular society.

But yeah, there is no canon on either side.
Apart from the knowledge that burials exist, and people swear by Celestia, but neither is really proof on existence of religion, bodies need to be taken care of, ponies need closure on their loss, and Celestia could easily be used as a "witness" for an oath simply because she has been around for so long, and trustend so implicitly.

[Adam G]

Not at all. Secularism is just like religion, except without the religion. It's like saying bubble gum is chocolate because it's just like chocolate, only it's not chocolate...

If there's no religion, there's no religion. Parallels that can be drawn to a number of things doesn't make it an irrelevant point.

[J4n1]

Not at all. Secularism is just like religion, except without the religion. It's like saying bubble gum is chocolate because it's just like chocolate, only it's not chocolate...

If there's no religion, there's no religion. Parallels that can be drawn to a number of things doesn't make it an irrelevant point.

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology.

And what is religion, if not believing in god (or some other universal force or principle), and following the will/guidance of that god (or force, or principle), so if the god is irrefutably real, and is the monarch of your country, the religion and worship become indistinguishable from simply living a secular life according to the secular (or religious, as they do come from god) laws of the nation you live in.

[Scavgraphics]

Who has a party after a funeral?

Irish and Jews, for two...

[Adam G]

Not at all. Secularism is just like religion, except without the religion. It's like saying bubble gum is chocolate because it's just like chocolate, only it's not chocolate...

If there's no religion, there's no religion. Parallels that can be drawn to a number of things doesn't make it an irrelevant point.

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Indistinguishable, but fundamentally different in what they are. It doesn't matter if from some superficial view they appear to be identical. If religion lacks any actual quality that makes it religion, it isn't, and that matters.

And what is religion, if not believing in god (or some other universal force or principle), and following the will/guidance of that god (or force, or principle), so if the god is irrefutably real, and is the monarch of your country, the religion and worship become indistinguishable from simply living a secular life according to the secular (or religious, as they do come from god) laws of the nation you live in.

To those that do not follow a religion, the fact that it is not real is a pretty important distinction. To put it bluntly, a religion based on a God which does exist would be a very different beast than the religions of the real world.

[Scavgraphics]

on the other hand, Twilight is very clear on magic being explainable, logical, etc. - read: It being a science. Which logically applies to the princesses, too.

Of course, Twilight was pretty much wrong. (It's my understanding that Lauren had, I guess in the quest version of the series, planned for Twilight to become Zacora's apprentice to expand her knowledge beyond the hermetic magic she's versed in).

[Adam G]

on the other hand, Twilight is very clear on magic being explainable, logical, etc. - read: It being a science. Which logically applies to the princesses, too.

Of course, Twilight was pretty much wrong. (It's my understanding that Lauren had, I guess in the quest version of the series, planned for Twilight to become Zacora's apprentice to expand her knowledge beyond the hermetic magic she's versed in).

Not canon. Her attitude is completely consistent with how magic works in the show.

[Sobana]

And if I disagree?

Canon! *puts on fan goggles on*

If religion lacks any actual quality that makes it religion, it isn't, and that matters.

What is religion to you? Because it seems like you two are disagreeing on the definition of the word.

[J4n1]

Not at all. Secularism is just like religion, except without the religion. It's like saying bubble gum is chocolate because it's just like chocolate, only it's not chocolate...

If there's no religion, there's no religion. Parallels that can be drawn to a number of things doesn't make it an irrelevant point.

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Indistinguishable, but fundamentally different in what they are. It doesn't matter if from some superficial view they appear to be identical. If religion lacks any actual quality that makes it religion, it isn't, and that matters.

In what way would they be fundamentally different?
One is a way to control and/or manipulate the forces of the universe to create an effect of some sort.
The other is a way to control and/or manipulate the forces of the universe to create an effect of some sort.

In much of fiction, magic requires some sort of tools to do, ever heard the term magitech? as in, magical technology?
Magic is not real, and therefore has no set of characteristics, so therefore any acutal difference is in your mind, or the mind of who ever is doing the thinking.

Also, what quality does make a religion to you?
I gave one definition, Belief in, and worship/following of, a god, universal force or a principle, and then showed how it could morph into a form that can't be told apart from a secular society.

And what is religion, if not believing in god (or some other universal force or principle), and following the will/guidance of that god (or force, or principle), so if the god is irrefutably real, and is the monarch of your country, the religion and worship become indistinguishable from simply living a secular life according to the secular (or religious, as they do come from god) laws of the nation you live in.

To those that do not follow a religion, the fact that it is not real is a pretty important distinction. To put it bluntly, a religion based on a God which does exist would be a very different beast than the religions of the real world.

To the believers, their god is real, that's why they believe, the point is, that when the god requires no faith, and can be reached through mail, and is the one personally making the laws and ruling the land, lot of trappings and rituals most religions have are no longer required.

[Cabooceratops]

on the other hand, Twilight is very clear on magic being explainable, logical, etc. - read: It being a science. Which logically applies to the princesses, too.

Of course, Twilight was pretty much wrong. (It's my understanding that Lauren had, I guess in the quest version of the series, planned for Twilight to become Zacora's apprentice to expand her knowledge beyond the hermetic magic she's versed in).

On an unrelated note, I am so glad that the quest version of the series never happened.

[Adam G]

And if I disagree?

Canon! *puts on fan goggles on*

If religion lacks any actual quality that makes it religion, it isn't, and that matters.

What is religion to you? Because it seems like you two are disagreeing on the definition of the word.

Belief in one or many Gods seems to cover it pretty well.

In what way would they be fundamentally different?

In worshipping one or many Gods. You can't just substitute Gods with something else and have it still be religion. It falls apart.

I gave one definition, Belief in, and worship/following of, a god, universal force or a principle

That isn't so much a definitiion but the definition.

and then showed how it could morph into a form that can't be told apart from a secular society.

Except that secularism is fundamentally not religious.

To the believers, their god is real, that's why they believe, the point is, that when the god requires no faith, and can be reached through mail, and is the one personally making the laws and ruling the land, lot of trappings and rituals most religions have are no longer required.

But their God isn't a God so... it doesn't work.

I'm not making a terribly complicated point here...

[J4n1]

And if I disagree?

Canon! *puts on fan goggles on*

If religion lacks any actual quality that makes it religion, it isn't, and that matters.

What is religion to you? Because it seems like you two are disagreeing on the definition of the word.

Belief in one or many Gods seems to cover it pretty well.

In what way would they be fundamentally different?

In worshipping one or many Gods. You can't just substitute Gods with something else and have it still be religion. It falls apart.

I gave one definition, Belief in, and worship/following of, a god, universal force or a principle

That isn't so much a definitiion but the definition.

and then showed how it could morph into a form that can't be told apart from a secular society.

Except that secularism is fundamentally not religious.

To the believers, their god is real, that's why they believe, the point is, that when the god requires no faith, and can be reached through mail, and is the one personally making the laws and ruling the land, lot of trappings and rituals most religions have are no longer required.

But their God isn't a God so... it doesn't work.

I'm not making a terribly complicated point here...

Ok, so let me see if i got this straight.
Religion (to you) equals belief in god (i disagree, and so do many budhists).
Therefore, we must either conclude that either Celestia is not god (matter of opinion), or ponies do not believe in the existence of Celestia?