 |
| |
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm not the one doing the assuming: |
no. no. stop it, please.
now moll, that is just plain cruel. you know how hard i've been trying to give up the cheese whiz and statements like that just leave me sticky all over.
quote:
the vedic process does not involve research work. in mudane scolarship, we have to show our academic learning by some research, but the vedic process is entirely different. in the vedic process the research work is already done; it is complete, and it is simply handed down by disciplic succession from teacher to student. there is no question of research work because the instruments and the means with which one conducts such research work are blunt and imperfect.
if we study bhagavad-gita according to academic knowledge or according to our own mental speculation, we are certain to commit mistakes. it is not possible to understand bhagavad-gita in this way. |
elevation to krsna consciousness
a.c. bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada
no assumptions, chook
indeed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
this could use some clarification. as a personal decision, i don't think any particular faith constitutes "religion." but if you are talking about an organised group who all choose to practice "atheism" in a consistent manner, then that is a different kettle of commies. |
Without the intention to polemize, but more talking about game-wise simulation, I am not sure that communism or even "militant atheism" can be considered as absence of religion in game terms. Communist leaders believe in something like the natural evolution of society, as they tend to see communism as the next step in the social evolution. They also believe in an abstract concept that could be called, in absence of a better word, "the Society" or "the Estate". Isn't this a religion?
The scientific positivism many people profess nowadays is also another kind of religion, because people who believe in it tend to think that there is an order in the world. Even is there is not an all mighty god who sets this order, the order still exists. That for me is a religion.
Atheism, real atheism, would be something very different in game therms. It would be just the absence of religion. Your civ would just don't care about this matter. Nor support neither fight against any religion. Your civ would not get any benefit from it. On the other hand, it would not get any perjudice from it. I am not well informed about how religions work in Civ IV, but I suppose that they not only have pros but also some con. Atheism would be like a neutral option. You don't get anything but you don't risk anything.
quote:
if you simply choose not to adopt a state religion, that does not guarantee that the populace will follow your lead, they can still be converted by other players.
|
I completgely agree with that. This would leave free room for all the other religions to penetrate your civ, but would also free many resources which otherwise would be commited to your civ religion (cathedrals, temples, religious leaders...)
quote:
it might work, but it's far too passive a strategy for my taste. |
Then what you would do is to adopt one of the modern religions, such as comunism, positivism, jacobinism, etc. But you would not be atheist. If you are commiting any civ resources to religion, even to a special kind of religion, then you are entering in religious matters.
Maybe other thing that could be done would be to equally favour two or more religions in your civ. That would put you in a more neutral place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OliverFA
Atheism, real atheism, would be something very different in game therms. It would be just the absence of religion. Your civ would just don't care about this matter. Nor support neither fight against any religion. Your civ would not get any benefit from it. On the other hand, it would not get any perjudice from it. I am not well informed about how religions work in Civ IV, but I suppose that they not only have pros but also some con. Atheism would be like a neutral option. You don't get anything but you don't risk anything. |
As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong; I haven't investigated the game all that much yet), the Civ IV religion model gives players direct control only over how government treats religion, not over the religious choices of citizens. I'm guessing that government policies probably do have some impact on the citizens' beliefs, but the impact is indirect.
Assuming I'm right, the kind of atheism you describe here does not fit the game's model because it would give the player direct power to influence the citizens' thinking about religion. Worse, it would do so without the player having to pay the price that normally accompanies that kind of tyranny. In the real world, any deliberate attempt to use government power to instill such an attitude in the citizens would draw a lot of irriataion and even anger from nations that take religion seriously, and also from highly religious people within its own borders.
In any case, I don't see where your idea is all that different from the concept of religious frreedom. A society that has religious freedom doesn't have to be atheistic in its general outlook.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
as you inimitably showed with your lack of knowledge of the U.S.S.R.'s history ) instead of engaging in even the smallest amount of historical research about models of government that have existed in reality, you choose to make inaccurate comparisons between them based on your own erroneous assumptions about documents ('The Communist Manifesto' of Marx and Engels) you haven't read and forms of government you clearly know nothing about. |
ok. i had actually make a start on reading marx ages ago (or was it masoch? - meh, same difference). let's face it, the prose is so wrist-slittingly dull i just gave up. so yeah, guilty as charged. i was hoping someone might have already struggled through it and be able to check the facts for me. failing that, i'll just have to stock up on anti-depressants and do the job myself.
otherwise, there is no need for me to present historical facts as i am not attempting to make an historical argument.
the soviet government actively promoted an atheist state and persecuted those who did not adhere to it's ideals.
this is what we in the trade refer to as "common knowledge." i am not attempting to prove that this really happened. any argument starts by making some form of assumptions. these are my assumptions and i consider them to be quite reasonable.
if you wish to call upon historical data to show that this was not the case, by all means, do so. it would make for interesting reading, and i'd like to see what sources up with which you come. 
however, since your a stickler for authorative sources, here you go,..
quote:
Originally posted by TriMiro USSR and other countries used oppression against the church (is Eastern Europe it was mainly the Christian Church). For example in my country it was illegal to go to church on Easter. Churches existed more as historical monuments than anything else, like the ancient Greek temples, they still exist however I do not think anyone goes there to pray to Zeus. |
Last edited by lebensraum on 28-08-2005 at 20:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OliverFA
Without the intention to polemize, ... Communist leaders believe in something like ... Isn't this a religion?
The scientific positivism many people profess nowadays is also ... for me ... a religion.
|
words we use when talking about being
most of us are aware of the way we can become confused by words, sometimes attributing to a word the wrong meaning, at other times getting part of the meaning but missing another. for pretty much the same reason no doubt, st thomas was careful to explain how there are different kinds of words, or terms, we use when speaking about being. hence thomas gave us an account of three different ways he understands that we use words when talking about reality.
sometimes we use a word to express one identical concept. for instance, whether we use the word "man" of plato, of socrates or of fred astaire, what we intend by the word is some feature which is identical in all three. when we use a word in this way, thomas says we speak univocally, and the word we use is, thus, sometimes referred to as a "univocal term."
at other times we use a word to express concepts which are not identical at all. for instance, when we talk about the bark of a dog and the bark of a tree, clearly we understand that while the word is the same the features which we intend by the word are diverse. it is for this reason that comedians and politicians, who seem at times to be so similar in other ways, too, often employ such terms. when we use a word in this way, with what we might call a double entendre, st thomas says we speak equivocally, and the word we use is, therefore, sometimes referred to as an "equivocal term."
finally, sometimes we use a word to express concepts which are not identical, but which are not completely diverse either. we might say such words do not express identical, but rather similar concepts. for they express concepts which are partly the same and partly different. for example, at times we may say that our body is healthy, or that medicine is healthy, or that bread is healthy. clearly, in each of these cases the word "healthy" refers to a different notion, namely, to the human body, medicine and to bread. at the same time, we notice that we use the term "healthy" principally of the human body as the principle residence of health, and secondarily of medicine because it restores health, and of bread because it maintains health. hence the identical word can be used of essentially diverse things because it expresses different relations that these things have to a common feature, but, nonetheless, in a certain order. when we use a word in this way, thomas says we speak analogously, and the word we use is, consequently, sometimes called an "analogous term."
a simplified introduction to the wisdom of st thomas
peter a. redpath
i think that referring to communism or scientific positivism as a religion has some basis, but i don't think it is accurate without carefully qualifying exactly what you mean by the term. there are two sides to the argument, and i feel they both have some validity. for my money, the important thing is to understand the insights provided by both perspectives.
quote:
Atheism, real atheism, would be something very different in game terms. It would be just the absence of religion. Your civ would just don't care about this matter. Atheism would be like a neutral option. You don't get anything but you don't risk anything. |
quote:
If you are commiting any civ resources to religion, even to a special kind of religion, then you are entering in religious matters. |
nicely stated. in game terms, the whole religion system is only an abstraction. we all know how futile it can be to compare the game too closely with real life. but overall, it looks like it'll keep me plenty busy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yolky
|
|
Ontario Canada
Oct 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
sorry couldn't read all the posts so not shure if this was said. MXM i am to asume you are an American with your Avatar.
What would you call America in Civ terms? I would say Christian mostly, but as we know there is other religion as well, but would have to catagorize USA as a christian religion. What would YOU catagorize the USA in Civ terms?
I believe in Civ IV you don't have to pick any religion so you don't have to choose anything. The argument then will be that will put me at a disadvatge then when other civs use religions. But that would be the real world.
What stats would you give Atheism? Name a Civ our Country in the world that has Atheism as their religion? So picking no triats in Civ IV might be like it in real life, but I could be wrong and waiting for your comments.
Not trying to put you down, and sorry if I did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
Does anyone else find it strangely ironic that religion comes with technological advances?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
But I think that that you understood yourself that this statement is not very good. |
yeah, i should've just deleted that part. i was in a hurry to post and as soon as i'd stopped to think about it, i realised it was mostly crap. then i wasn't sure who might have already read through it and started cooking up a reply. so to be fair to anyone who might have already read through it, i thought it would be better to leave it in situ just in case.
next time i'll save it to disk just in case and go ahead with deleting it. sorry for the confusion.
quote:
it does happen that I am sometimes wrong |
nooooo! say it isn't so!!
quote:
For some time scientist thought that there is some liquid which is responsible for the transfer of heat....
If we still used the same description ... we would not be able to advance physics ... and describe such things like chemical reactions on thermodynamic level. |
mind you, the flux model is still quite powerful. it is certainly still useful, not only in pedagogy, but for solving real problems in electromagnetics, thermodynamics - and then there is the question of gravity.
i agree with your point. models develop over time. all the same, i find it really interesting when old and discredited theories become re-incarnated (can a theory be incarnated??  ) as new observations become available.
it probably has more to do with the way we, as humans develop knowledge. i think we tend to look for ways to explain things - to turn the data into stories we can understand. but that would be heading off into the field of epistemology which is probably stirring the pot just a bit too much, so just ignore me.
for myself, i'm not satisfied that 'advanced physics' is always about discovering the nature of reality. i think it may be just about discovering a particular kind of reality. none of the data is visible to the naked eye (ie. it is not accessible to unaided human experience). such data can only be obtained by (for eg.) building a bloody big cyclotron and provoking collisions that would not otherwise have taken place.
in a sense, it may allow observation of a certain level of reality, but you have to actually create that reality in order to see it.
quote:
if ... only (our) ancestors described the Earth as a piece of land on elephants, ... then they would not discover Americas. |
ahhh yes. if only,..
quote:
Through the history we (humans) had to make some assumptions, that were sufficient for description of the world around them, until we were able to find better explanations that give better predictions to more events. This does make one theories more right and others more wrong, by you own suggestion - by the ability to " make accurate and useful predictions". |
i generally agree with the idea. i do have some reservations, but they are probably what most people would consider "finicky," "obtuse," "irrelevant" or, most commonly, "bloody stupid."
roughly speaking, classical physics developed within a common philosophical framework. so, classically, physicists take it for granted that (for eg.) "things exist." whether that framework still satisfies the demands of science is a huge area for debate.
at the moment, though what i am mostly trying to address is a broader category of phenomena - spirits, angels, miracle cures, "existence" in itself, faith etc.
eg. miracle cures - science can verify the presence of a particular ailment. it can verify that, subsequent to a certain procedure, the ailment is no longer present. that much is empirically verifiable. but what happened in between?
quote:
I think that we do not know enough of civ 4 in order to decide how better to model USSR in the game which is not yet released |
so? doesn't mean we can't start cutting each others throats now - saves time and money!
nope that suggestion is just way too sensible for my taste. but what did you think of trimiro's idea??
i thought it was the one post out of the past few pages that was really worthwhile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
I think some people here misunderstand something very important...you don't get to choose religions in civ 4...
You can found a holy city for a particular religion, if you are the first to research the appropriate tech, but that doesn't make all your cities that religion...
Holy cities slowly convert nearby cities...so, if you had the "Christian holy city", some of your cities might be Christian, but some cities on the outskirts near the "Islamic holy city" might be muslim...
Atheism might be a civics choice, meaning no one converts to any religion, and you can try to encourage certain religions in your civ (holy cities, culture), but you can't directly choose one religion for your civ...
Last edited by Commy on 02-09-2005 at 04:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MxM
|
 |
Planet Earth, Solar System
Jan 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
I think some people here misunderstand something very important...you don't get to choose religions in civ 4...
You can found a holy city for a particular religion, if you are the first to research the appropriate tech, but that doesn't make all your cities that religion...
Holy cities slowly convert nearby cities...so, if you had the "Christian holy city", some of your cities might be Christian, but some cities on the outskirts near the "Islamic holy city" might be muslim...
Atheism might be a civics choice, meaning no one converts to any religion, and you can try to encourage certain religions in your civ (holy cities, culture), but you can directly choose one religion for your civ... |
I thought, may be incorrectly, that you can have state religion as well. You have to have the state religion in order to speak about government tolerance to other religions.
Assuming that you can have state religion as option, I would like to distinguish between secular government, and atheist government. Atheist government would have atheism as official ideology (or as religion in game terms), meanwhile, the secular government would not have any preferred ideology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
To answer them. US is a secular democracy. This is a form of government, and it has little or nothing to do with the religion(s) that people practice in the country |
The United States is not a "secular democracy" at all. Trying to define a free society by looking only at the actions of its government misses an enormous part of the nation's character. The fact that we confine our government to power only over secular matters in no sense implies that the nation as a whole is secular.
Even our government can legitimately be viewed as secular only in the passive sense of having no power over religious matters, not in an active sense of being allowed or expected to actively promote secular viewpoints over competing religious viewpoints. I get extremely irritated when I see people try to claim that our government is secular because in my experience, people who use such a choice of wording almost invariably seem to have an active desire to use government power in ways that advance views that devalue religion at the expense of competing religious views. Such behavior by government is a direct violation of religious freedom, and makes a mockery of Madison's and Jefferson's arguments that a major goal of religious freedom is to protect religion against government meddling.
In Civ 4 terms as I understand them, the United States is a nation with religious freedom where a large majority of the population is Christian but where significant religious minorites are scattered throughout the civilization (as opposed to existing essentially only in certain conquered cities). If my understanding of the game's religion model is accurate, nothing beyond that is needed to characterize the United States in regard to religious matters.
quote:
Now I see at least two parameters in government definition
1) Religion/Ideology.
secular - boost in happiness
atheistic - boost in science
religions - stat depends on the religion |
As I understand it, the roots of modern science are found not in atheism but in the belief that God created a universe that normally operates according to orderly principles. In essence, the view is of God as a "watch-maker" who created the "watch," set it in motion, and at least normally allows it to operate according to the dictates of the principles built into it. That's not to say that the "watch-maker" can't ever reach in and reset this or that if He so desires, much as I can use my watch's reset buttons to circumvent its normal operation if I so choose. But if God does intervene, He does so rarely enough that predictions based on an expectation that the universe will follow natural laws are highly reliable.
The idea of a science bonus tied specifically to atheism would be highly offensive to those of us who hold the "watch-maker" view of the relationship between God and science. I don't think that's a hornet's nest Firaxis wants to stir up. At least I certainly hope they don't stir it up, because I would have serious misgivings about buying a game that promotes a viewpoint that is so directly and deliberately opposed to my beliefs.
The hornet's nest that Firaxis would stir up if it tried to assign specific benefits to particular religions would probably be even bigger. In effect, Firaxis would be putting itself in a position of passing judgment over religions, and would thus anger people who object to Firaxis's judgment regarding their religion.
The situation is further complicated by the enormous variations within each religion, both over time and between factions within the religion. Consider the difference between the brand of Christianity that launched the Crusades and the brand that launched religious freedom through the view that God wants willing converts rather than people compelled or coerced by law. No single concept of advantages and disadvantages to Christianity could even begin to cover both of those extremely different variants of the religion. And except as part of a scenario specifically recreating medieval Europe, I certainly would not want my "Christian" civilization in the game to be forced to embrace a medieval version of Christianity that I regard as a major perversion of Christ's teachings and intent.
Last edited by nbarclay on 01-09-2005 at 10:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MxM
|
|
Planet Earth, Solar System
Jan 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The United States is not a "secular democracy" at all. Trying to define a free society by looking only at the actions of its government misses an enormous part of the nation's character. The fact that we confine our government to power only over secular matters in no sense implies that the nation as a whole is secular.
|
I strongly disagree with you here. Secular government does not imply at all that it is secular society. I consider Saddam's Iraq government (before the war) as secular. Can you say that Iraq itself is secular? Hell no! As I read your text that implication is the only real objection to call our government secular. Hence if you break this linkage, then you do not have any other real objections.
Think about this way. It is quite possible that the government has one official policy (even official religion) and the population has another.
However, I would argue that we here in US have a secular society. This is because most of us respect others religions and do not force their view on others. As oppose for some other countries were some particular religious views are enforced not only by law, but by people themselves.
Secular society does not equal to atheistic society.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Even our government can legitimately be viewed as secular only in the passive sense of having no power over religious matters, not in an active sense of being allowed or expected to actively promote secular viewpoints over competing religious viewpoints.
|
And that is why I want to have atheistic government in addition to secular. By definition, secular does not promote religion (or it's absence) at all, it just exists "in parallel" to it. To the contrary, the atheistic government would promote atheism, and religious government would promote religion.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I get extremely irritated when I see people try to claim that our government is secular because in my experience, people who use such a choice of wording almost invariably seem to have an active desire to use government power in ways that advance views that devalue religion at the expense of competing religious views.
|
And I get irritated when people get irritated instead of discussing the issue itself. I also get irritated when people make a conclusion about everyone, who uses some particular word, because some other people used the same word in some particular way. That is called discrimination, sir.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
... Madison's and Jefferson's arguments that a major goal of religious freedom is to protect religion against government meddling.
|
But this is exactly what secular democratic government means. Or do you know better word?
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In Civ 4 terms as I understand them, the United States is a nation with religious freedom where a large majority of the population is Christian but where significant religious minorities are scattered throughout the civilization (as opposed to existing essentially only in certain conquered cities). If my understanding of the game's religion model is accurate, nothing beyond that is needed to characterize the United States in regard to religious matters.
|
Even if you are right here, the original discussion was not about US, put about USSR, and similar countries and atheism.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
As I understand it, the roots of modern science are found not in atheism but in the belief that God created a universe that normally operates according to orderly principles.
|
I have no idea what are you talking about. Do you mean "roots" as in "historically", because otherwise I have not seen the principle you have mentioned in any physics or mathematical or engineering book (I am scientist by education and profession)
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In essence, the view is of God as a "watch-maker" who created the "watch," set it in motion, and at least normally allows it to operate according to the dictates of the principles built into it. That's not to say that the "watch-maker" can't ever reach in and reset this or that if He so desires, much as I can use my watch's reset buttons to circumvent its normal operation if I so choose. But if God does intervene, He does so rarely enough that predictions based on an expectation that the universe will follow natural laws are highly reliable.
|
What you are saying here has nothing to do with science itself, these are believes of some people.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The idea of a science bonus tied specifically to atheism would be highly offensive to those of us who hold the "watch-maker" view of the relationship between God and science.
|
Through the history, many times there were conflicts between science and religion. And quite often religious view were suppressing the science development. (Modern example - embryonic cell research, cloning and so on. I can give you many other historical examples as well). In this sense atheism does provide boost to science. Also, again, looking at USSR, the country that has huge losses in both world wars, and during revolution, that country being much weaker economically and technologically, was able to be at the level if not above in many theoretical sciences, such as physics, mathematics, etc. And that I think is directly related to the type of government they had. Religion is something what you take "on believe" and in sciences you do not do that. It is just very different approach. I think that vast majority of scientists are not religious.
Plus, being religious, and believe in God are two different things.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't think that's a hornet's nest Firaxis wants to stir up. At least I certainly hope they don't stir it up, because I would have serious misgivings about buying a game that promotes a viewpoint that is so directly and deliberately opposed to my beliefs.
|
Seeing your reaction, I think that you may be right. But you have to put some effects of religion/atheism, otherwise what's the point of putting it there? May be in the age of political correctness we have to avoid introducing difference between different religions/ideologies, but then the gameplay would suffer.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The hornet's nest that Firaxis would stir up if it tried to assign specific benefits to particular religions would probably be even bigger. In effect, Firaxis would be putting itself in a position of passing judgment over religions, and would thus anger people who object to Firaxis's judgment regarding their religion.
The situation is further complicated by the enormous variations within each religion, both over time and between factions within the religion. Consider the difference between the brand of Christianity that launched the Crusades and the brand that launched religious freedom through the view that God wants willing converts rather than people compelled or coerced by law. No single concept of advantages and disadvantages to Christianity could even begin to cover both of those extremely different variants of the religion. And except as part of a scenario specifically recreating medieval Europe, I certainly would not want my "Christian" civilization in the game to be forced to embrace a medieval version of Christianity that I regard as a major perversion of Christ's teachings and intent. |
I hear you. That's the problem we are facing here. Try to more accurately describe what are those religions/ideologies are about and model it accurately in the game and have fun gameplay, or make "politically correct" game with less game options, but with the goal of pleasing everyone. Unfortunately for gameplay, I think the second option is what will happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
Think about this way. It is quite possible that the government has one official policy (even official religion) and the population has another. |
The thing is that the United States government is supposed to have no official policy regarding religion other than that religious matters are up to individual citizens and are something government must try not to interfere in.
quote:
However, I would argue that we here in US have a secular society. This is because most of us respect others religions and do not force their view on others. As oppose for some other countries were some particular religious views are enforced not only by law, but by people themselves
Secular society does not equal to atheistic society.. |
I agree that "secular society" does not equate to "atheistic society." However, to me, labeling a society secular does carry a very strong connotation that the society has little interest in religious matters. That is, in a society I consider secular, the religious people tend to be focused mostly on secular aspects of life and not much on religious aspects.
In contrast, it is possible to have a society where most people regard religion as very important, yet where people are willing to respect the freedom of others who believe differently. I regard it as highly misleading to characterize such a society as "secular" just because its people do not try to use government power to force their religion onto others. Using the same term to describe both types of societies makes it virtually impossible to get a picture of a society's religious character from a label calling the society secular. Thus, I regard "society that respects religious freedom" as a much better description than "secular society" for this type of society.
At present, the United States is somewhere between those two points on the spectrum. Huge numbers of Americans, including many who express religious beliefs, focus their lives almost entirely around secular matters. But there are a lot of others whose religion plays a much larger role in their lives. So I don't think labeling our society "secular" is a good fit.
At the very least, I think the label "secular society" is ambiguous enough that it leaves open a huge amount of room for people to interpret it differently. I think that makes it better to choose different words that are less likely to be misinterpreted or to stir up prejudices based on how others have used similar terminology.
quote:
And that is why I want to have atheistic government in addition to secular. By definition, secular does not promote religion (or it's absence) at all, it just exists "in parallel" to it. |
There is nothing "by definition" about it. Take a look at the types of religious activities and presentations that are prohibited in public schools in the United States, and consider the fact that government also refuses to provide anything resembling equitable funding for children's education if they attend any school where those religious activities and presentations are not deliberately prohibited. That is active interference in religious aspects of children's lives, not just government minding its own business and leaving religious choices in the hands of individual families. The question of what roles, if any, religion should play in any aspect of children's lives properly belongs on the church side of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Going through a schoolhouse door does not magically transfer religious aspects of children's lives from the church side of the wall to the state side.
You may dismiss the public schools' restrictions regarding religion as too small to be important. But it is crystal clear that there are religious groups, factions, and families who consider the interference very important. Some even prove the strength of their concern by paying thousands of dollars extra per year per child for alternatives where their religion can be exercised freely. In the face of such proof of sincerity, government cannot dismiss the interference as too minor to be important without crossing Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" and passing judgment regarding what is very clearly a religious controversy.
It is that kind of willful interference in religious matters that makes my opposition to having our government or society labeled "secular" so strong. Such labels are too easily manipulated to turn Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" into a bulldozer that pushes religion out of government's way.
quote:
To the contrary, the atheistic government would promote atheism, and religious government would promote religion. |
If the goal of the game were to include every religious choice, it would certainly be necessary to include the active promotion of atheism as one of the choices. However, Firaxis decided to restrict themselves to seven religions because they thought that number seemed best for gameplay based on their testing. I don't see any way that the active promotion of atheism by government can be considered one of the seven most important and influential religious movements in history. Do you?
Maybe if Civ 5 makes its religious model more complex, its designers can consider including active promotion of atheism. But If I were working for Firaxis, I would be extremely nervous about attaching any special significance to that choice because of the massive disagreement between atheists and religious people regarding what the effects of a government's actively rejecting God ought to be.
quote:
And I get irritated when people get irritated instead of discussing the issue itself. I also get irritated when people make a conclusion about everyone, who uses some particular word, because some other people used the same word in some particular way. That is called discrimination, sir. |
I'm sorry that I offended you, but I think you're overreacting. For one thing, I did discuss the issue itself by drawing a distinction between government being secular in the passive sense of staying out of religious matters and government being secular in the active sense of favoring secular viewpoints over competing religious viewpoints. So I don't think your words, "instead of discussing the issue itself," are warranted.
For another, note my words, "almost invariably." My point was that your choice of wording sounded like what I routinely hear from people who want government to actively favor secular viewpoints over competing religious viewpoints. But the fact that I said "almost" indicates that I recognize that people can use that choice of wording without falling into that category. Thus, while your choice of wording did raise suspicions regarding what your views might be, I stopped short of passing judgment based on those suspicions.
The reality is that people's reactions to the words we use are based not just on how we intend for our words to be interpreted but also on how people have seen others use similar words. Thus, no matter how you interpret the concept of our government's being secular, I object to the characterization because I've seen it misused in ways that deliberately favor secular viewpoints and choices over competing religous viewpoints and choices too many times. The best way to prevent the misuse is to fight against the use of that characterization at all.
quote:
But this is exactly what secular democratic government means. Or do you know better word? |
"Democratic government with religious freedom" leaves less room for confusion regarding whether the government will be secular only in the passive sense of staying out of religious matters or in the active sense of promoting secularism at the expense of religion.
quote:
Even if you are right here, the original discussion was not about US, put about USSR, and similar countries and atheism. |
But the piece of the discussion that I was addressing had drifted into the question of how the United States would be characterized in Civ 4 terms.
quote:
I have no idea what are you talking about. Do you mean "roots" as in "historically", because otherwise I have not seen the principle you have mentioned in any physics or mathematical or engineering book (I am scientist by education and profession) |
Yes, I was referring to the historical roots of modern science.
quote:
What you are saying here has nothing to do with science itself, these are believes of some people. |
And the belief that God plays no active role in the universe at all also has nothing to do with science itself, but is the belief of some people. The scientific method is a tool for studying natural processes. The belief that everything in the universe operates exclusively according to natural processes, with no force from outside natural law ever intervening at all, is a matter of faith, not science. What scientific test could possibly distinguish between a universe where supernatural forces intervene rarely following essentially unpredictable patterns and one where supernatural forces never intervene at all?
quote:
Through the history, many times there were conflicts between science and religion. And quite often religious view were suppressing the science development. (Modern example - embryonic cell research, cloning and so on. I can give you many other historical examples as well). In this sense atheism does provide boost to science. Also, again, looking at USSR, the country that has huge losses in both world wars, and during revolution, that country being much weaker economically and technologically, was able to be at the level if not above in many theoretical sciences, such as physics, mathematics, etc. And that I think is directly related to the type of government they had. Religion is something what you take "on believe" and in sciences you do not do that. It is just very different approach. I think that vast majority of scientists are not religious. |
Embryonic stem cell research is a special case because it is research on living organisms of the human species. Thus, people who view humanity as a matter of species rather than as a matter of some particular level of brain development object to experimentation on human embryos for much the same reason that they object to the Nazis' experimentation on Jews. Most people agree that there are limits to what kinds of scientific research can be considered ethical and moral. We just draw the lines in slightly different places.
If you want to argue that religion has often worked against science, I will certainly agree. But I do not see any significant advantage to science in a society that is actively atheistic compared with science in a society that views science as the study of God's handiwork. The fact that atheism has a scientific advantage over some types of theistic beliefs does not mean that it has a scientific advantage over all types of theistic beliefs. Further, judging from history, by the time a society understands science well enough for active atheistic belief to be a viable large-scale alternative to religious belief, the alternative path of viewing science as the study of God's handiwork is readily available.
I'm also skeptical about the use of the U.S.S.R. as an example. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was heavily militaristic in its orientation, and thus pushed very hard in areas of science that had potential military applications. The Soviet Union also invested in things it thought could showcase for other nations (its Olympic team, for example), and may have engaged in a few pieces of scientific research for that purpose. The space race catered to both of those interests, offering military potential while at the same time providing achievements the Soviet Union could showcase for other nations. But can you show evidence that the Soviet Union's general, across-the-board interest in science was greater?
In any case, it is not valid to use a single data point as a basis for claiming the existence of a pattern. What is true of the Soviet Union might or might not be true of another actively atheistic society.
quote:
Seeing your reaction, I think that you may be right. But you have to put some effects of religion/atheism, otherwise what's the point of putting it there? May be in the age of political correctness we have to avoid introducing difference between different religions/ideologies, but then the gameplay would suffer. |
It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the idea that there are times and places for taking stands regarding controversial issues, and times and places where it is better to look for solutions that avoid giving unnecessary offense. The idea that if you want to appeal to the broadest possible audience, you avoid taking sides in controversies that divide that audience, predates modern "political correctness" by a long time.
As for whether gameplay would suffer, it would be possible to do something with gameplay effects similar to what you want without stirring up nearly as much controversy. The real central issue regarding science is not whether a society is atheistic, but rather is whether the society believes that the universe normally operates according to natural laws. Thus, it would be possible to introduce a concept of Naturalism defined in a way that favors neither atheistic concepts of science nor concepts that view science as the study of our Creator's handiwork. Such a concept should give almost none of Firaxis's customer base reason to take significant offense, at least if the Civilopedia entry would be written well and people would bother to read it.
The effects of such a form of Naturalism would be to improve science and to make the advantages of religious freedom greater and those of theocracy less. That, in turn, would reflect the real-world changes that make religious freedom more attractive and theocracy less attractive in the modern era.
quote:
I hear you. That's the problem we are facing here. Try to more accurately describe what are those religions/ideologies are about and model it accurately in the game and have fun gameplay, or make "politically correct" game with less game options, but with the goal of pleasing everyone. Unfortunately for gameplay, I think the second option is what will happen. |
With any feature, Firaxis has to balance the views of players who would find the feature fun against the views of those who would find it annoying. The trick is to find features and ways of implementing features that maximize fun and minimize annoyance.
Many players would find it annoying to play a game that offends their religious beliefs. Therefore, the goal of finding ways to make religion a fun aspect of the game while at the same time minimizing offense to players' various religious beliefs is an integral part of maximizing fun. It is not a case of sacrificing fun on the altar of political correctness.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MxM
|
|
Planet Earth, Solar System
Jan 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
Think about this way. It is quite possible that the government has one official policy (even official religion) and the population has another.
|
The thing is that the United States government is supposed to have no official policy regarding religion other than that religious matters are up to individual citizens and are something government must try not to interfere in.
|
That was not my point here. You misread my text. My point was that even if in some particular country there is a dominant religion, the government of that country does not need to have that religion as a state religion, or it can, as in case of US, have no official religion at all, or secular (more on that is below). "Government with religious freedoms" is also fine.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I agree that "secular society" does not equate to "atheistic society." However, to me, labeling a society secular does carry a very strong connotation that the society has little interest in religious matters. That is, in a society I consider secular, the religious people tend to be focused mostly on secular aspects of life and not much on religious aspects.
|
That is your interpretation of the word secular. I have different interpretation. And even though I think that most of the people would agree with my interpretation, for the purpose of our discussion I agree to take you interpretation for our use. I just want to be on the same page with you, when we discuss this topics. As long as we both understand what do we mean by this word we are fine. Thus according to our agreement secular body is the body which is focused mostly on secular aspects of life.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
So I don't think labeling our society "secular" is a good fit.
|
According to just accepted definition, I agree. However, that was not the original topic of the conversation. The topic was about government.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
There is nothing "by definition" about it. Take a look at the types of religious activities and presentations that are prohibited in public schools in the United States, and consider the fact that government also refuses to provide anything resembling equitable funding for children's education if they attend any school where those religious activities and presentations are not deliberately prohibited. That is active interference in religious aspects of children's lives, not just government minding its own business and leaving religious choices in the hands of individual families. The question of what roles, if any, religion should play in any aspect of children's lives properly belongs on the church side of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Going through a schoolhouse door does not magically transfer religious aspects of children's lives from the church side of the wall to the state side.
|
Hmm. Don't you contradict yourself? First you refuse to call our government secular, and then you wonder why our "non-secular" government does not want to allow religious education in schools. It does that exactly because that it is secular, and thus, according to our definition of the "secular" word, does not want to have anything to do with religion in any of the state owned organizations. It makes sense to me.
So, it seems to me, that actually the reason that we having this discussion is not because of our government secular (or not), but because you do not want to be it secular, according to your (or mine, does not matter here) definition of this word. You want to have religious education in state owned schools, and you are frustrated that it is not so.
Even though it is way out of topic of Civ VI, I want to spend some time to support the US secular government. Suppose, just for the discussion, that I am an atheist (I am agnostic, but it is not that far stretch). So I would personally do not want that my tax money would go into religious education. The same way you do not want your tax money to be spend in the school, where children are taught that "god does not exist". So what is our common ground? How can the government satisfy both of us at the same time? The only answer I see is the absence of any religious or atheistic education in the school. And that is what our secular government does. And that is what I believe Jefferson meant by separation. If you want to give you children religious education, do it by you own, not on my money. If I want to give my children "atheistic" education, I will do it by my own, not using your money. However, again this is beyond the topic of discussions, but I can use you frustration with our school system as a conformation that our government IS secular.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If the goal of the game were to include every religious choice, it would certainly be necessary to include the active promotion of atheism as one of the choices. However, Firaxis decided to restrict themselves to seven religions because they thought that number seemed best for gameplay based on their testing. I don't see any way that the active promotion of atheism by government can be considered one of the seven most important and influential religious movements in history. Do you?
|
That is quite arguable. Not being able to model USSR, one of two superpowers of the twenties century is very large drawback in my book. I want to be able to do it, because it is very fresh in everyones memory.
I have a "western" culture, and I am not a historian. And for me the atheism is on the third place (after Cristian and Muslim religions) of what defined our civilization today, because 20 century is too recent in my memory. So I would say from this point of view USSR (and atheism) had more influence on western civilization, than, say, even Buddhism, as I know it. This is why I startid the whole topic.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
And the belief that God plays no active role in the universe at all also has nothing to do with science itself, but is the belief of some people. The scientific method is a tool for studying natural processes. The belief that everything in the universe operates exclusively according to natural processes, with no force from outside natural law ever intervening at all, is a matter of faith, not science.
|
What you say here, strictly speaking is right, but I think what you imply her is wrong. I think that you are implying here (I may be wrong of cause) is that the scientists have faith or believe that the universe operates exclusively according to the natural laws. And this statement is strictly speaking is wrong. Science does not take anything for granted. What science does is observe the effect, process it, make theories, verifies them, and then makes predictions. If there is any observable, measurable and repeatable influence of supernatural force in nature, science would observe it and study it as well as it does the "natural" forces. It is just does not matter for science.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Embryonic stem cell research is a special case because it is research on living organisms of the human species. Thus, people who view humanity as a matter of species rather than as a matter of some particular level of brain development object to experimentation on human embryos for much the same reason that they object to the Nazis' experimentation on Jews. Most people agree that there are limits to what kinds of scientific research can be considered ethical and moral.
|
Yes, sure. The question here WHAT is ethical and moral. And the religious norms of ethics and moral are much more strict than atheistic ones. This is why religion often impedes the science development. I do not pass the judgment here, I just make an observation.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In any case, it is not valid to use a single data point (USSR) as a basis for claiming the existence of a pattern (better science for atheists).
|
How about in combination with your other statement?
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If you want to argue that religion has often worked against science, I will certainly agree.
|
So these two statements together with the following consideration:
US is and was much more prosperous country than USSR, or in game terms, it generated much more "trade". Now, how can USSR-like country compete in CIV game in science with US-like country, when it has much less trade? And the answer is give it somehow bonus in science. And I think in real life the reason was somewhat similar. (I hope that you will not argue that US was much more prosperous, and that USSR theoretical science was at least at the same level)
So those all 3 reasons combined leaded me to the suggestion of giving a science bonus to "atheistic government".
Last edited by MxM on 03-09-2005 at 01:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
Warning: MxM and I have been straying off topic to a point where this post is essentially completely off topic insofar as Civ is concerned. Those not interested in a debate regarding the issue of religious freedom will likely want to skip it.
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
Hmm. Don't you contradict yourself? First you refuse to call our government secular, and then you wonder why our "non-secular" government does not want to allow religious education in schools. It does that exactly because that it is secular, and thus, according to our definition of the "secular" word, does not want to have anything to do with religion in any of the state owned organizations. It makes sense to me. |
What we have is an accident of history. When public schools were first created, the intent was generally that they include enough religion to satisfy most families but that they handle religion in a non-sectarian way. That was necessary for the early public schools not to undermine religion by dramatically reducing the amount of religion in children's lives during school hours compared with private alternatives. Jefferson himself recognized that situation when, in his second public education proposal for Virginia, he did not demand the complete exclusion of religion but only the exclusion of religious elements "inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.”
Then, about a century later, the courts pulled a bait-and-switch, recognizing the need to provide greater protection for religious minorities but providing that protection in a way that deliberately damaged the religious freedom of the majority. I'm hoping we'll correct that accident and move to a choice-based structure that gets back to the constitutional principle that the question of what roles religion will or will not play in children's lives during school hours is none of government's business. But in the meantime, the nasty accidental side effect of the current structure provides a good example of the difference between an actively secular government that discriminates against religious choices and a passively secular government that merely regards religious matters as none of its business.
quote:
So, it seems to me, that actually the reason that we having this discussion is not because of our government secular (or not), but because you do not want to be it secular, according to your (or mine, does not matter here) definition of this word. You want to have religious education in state owned schools, and you are frustrated that it is not so. |
Actually, what I want is equitable support for all children's education no matter what kind of schools they attend as long as the schools provide a satisfactory quality of education and do not willfully promote hatred or prejudice or engage in arbitrary discrimination. That way, government would support education without caring what roles religion might or might not play in children's lives during school hours. That goes directly against the goals of people who want government to be actively secular - who want government to actively favor secular ideas and choices over competing religious ideas and choices. But it fits perfectly with the concept of a government that is secular only in the passive sense of regarding religious matters as none of its business.
quote:
Even though it is way out of topic of Civ VI, I want to spend some time to support the US secular government. Suppose, just for the discussion, that I am an atheist (I am agnostic, but it is not that far stretch). So I would personally do not want that my tax money would go into religious education. The same way you do not want your tax money to be spend in the school, where children are taught that "god does not exist". So what is our common ground? How can the government satisfy both of us at the same time? The only answer I see is the absence of any religious or atheistic education in the school. And that is what our secular government does. |
The problem is that what you are calling "common ground" is not truly common ground at all. It is ground that seems to be fine with almost all atheists and agnostics, and with a significant percentage of religious people, but that is resoundingly rejected as unacceptable by many other religious people. So the compromise is not neutral, but instead discriminates in favor of the atheists, agnostics, and religious groups and factions that like the public schools and against religious groups and factions that regard the public schools as religiously unacceptable. That is almost exactly the same sort of favoritism that state churches once engaged in, only aimed in a different direction.
Further, there is absolute, incontrovertible proof of the sincerity of many of the families who reject your alleged "common ground." They regard public schools as so unsuitable from a religious perspective that they are willing to pay thousands of dollars extra for alternatives that are a better religious fit - alternatives that very often cost less to operate than public schools do, but cost the families more only because of a discriminatory funding structure. (The situation is closely parallel to how any church other than the state church cost members more, even if its actual operating costs were less, because it didn't get the government support the state church did.) Any attempt by government to tell those families why they should view the public schools as religiously acceptable constitutes an attempt to establish versions of Christianity (and other religions) that view the public schools as acceptable in a favored position over those that do not.
quote:
And that is what I believe Jefferson meant by separation. If you want to give you children religious education, do it by you own, not on my money. If I want to give my children "atheistic" education, I will do it by my own, not using your money. |
That line of reasoning falls apart the moment you start demanding money for your alleged "compromise" schools that are acceptable to you but unacceptable to significant numbers of religious families. You demand that other people pay taxes for the kind of schools you want (albeit not as your first choice) but refuse to reciprocate by helping to pay for any kind of school that they regard as religiously acceptable. That is pretty much exactly what state churches used to do. The result is almost exactly the same kind of financial disparity and financial pressure to do what government wants even if if violates families' consciences that was created by tax-funded state churches.
The only way we can fund education without engaging in that kind of discrimination and favoritism is to fund everyone's choices without regard to religious considerations. Then my paying for the kind of schools you want and your paying for the kind I want essentially cancels out so that in effect we are each paying for what we want. There would be some net flow of money from wealthier groups to less wealthy groups, but there would be no organized discrimination and no specter of forcing people to choose either to give up valuable government benefits or to make a religious choice that violates their consciences.
quote:
However, again this is beyond the topic of discussions, but I can use you frustration with our school system as a conformation that our government IS secular. |
There is an ongoing battle among people who want government to promote secularism at the expense of religion, people who want government to actively support Christianity (or in some cases religion in general), and people who want government to interfere in religious aspects of people's lives as little as possible. Sometimes one side wins, and sometimes another side wins. Thus, we forbid even voluntary public prayers in public schools, yet we have "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. The fact that a particular side wins particular battles does not form a legitimate basis for classifying the character of the nation as a whole.
Looking back at the arguments of Madison and Jefferson, it is clear that their intent was that individual citizens be free to make whatever religious choices we want to without government interference. Deliberate government favoritism toward secular choices and against religious choices violates that principle just as surely as deliberate government favoritism toward religious choices and against secular choices does.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
That is quite arguable. Not being able to model USSR, one of two superpowers of the twenties century is very large drawback in my book. I want to be able to do it, because it is very fresh in everyones memory. |
All you'd have to do would be to mod in Atheism as a religion and set up an atheistic theocracy (or maybe the next level of religious tyranny below theocracy). The word "theocracy" is a bit off target, but for modeling purposes, the Soviet Union acted much like one would expect a theocracy that’s out to convert the world to its religion by force if necessary to act. Modeling the Soviet Union seems more like something a person would do in a scenario than in a regular epic game anyhow.
quote:
I have a "western" culture, and I am not a historian. And for me the atheism is on the third place (after Cristian and Muslim religions) of what defined our civilization today, because 20 century is too recent in my memory. So I would say from this point of view USSR (and atheism) had more influence on western civilization, than, say, even Buddhism, as I know it. This is why I startid the whole topic. |
But Civ isn't just about western civilization today. It's about more than six thousand years of civilization across the entire planet.
quote:
What you say here, strictly speaking is right, but I think what you imply her is wrong. I think that you are implying here (I may be wrong of cause) is that the scientists have faith or believe that the universe operates exclusively according to the natural laws. And this statement is strictly speaking is wrong. Science does not take anything for granted. What science does is observe the effect, process it, make theories, verifies them, and then makes predictions. If there is any observable, measurable and repeatable influence of supernatural force in nature, science would observe it and study it as well as it does the "natural" forces. It is just does not matter for science. |
Suppose a scientist did discover a "supernatural" phenomenon that is sufficiently observable, measurable, and repeatable to verify its existence. How would scientists reach a conclusion that the phenomenon is truly supernatural rather than a previously undiscovered facet of nature?
Ultimately, I can find no way that the scientific method could possibly either verify or falsify the existence of a force that is truly outside natural law. Therefore, the decision of whether or not to believe in a force outside natural law is a matter of faith, not a matter of science.
quote:
Yes, sure. The question here WHAT is ethical and moral. And the religious norms of ethics and moral are much more strict than atheistic ones. This is why religion often impedes the science development. I do not pass the judgment here, I just make an observation. |
I think the fact that such situations tend to be so controversial makes it easy to overestimate their importance. A lot of research is in areas that are not affected by such ethical differences of opinion at all, or are only affected to a very tiny degree. So I'm highly skeptical as to whether the relatively few areas of ethical and moral controversy add up to something that would be significant in game terms.
quote:
So these two statements together with the following consideration:
US is and was much more prosperous country than USSR, or in game terms, it generated much more "trade". Now, how can USSR-like country compete in CIV game in science with US-like country, when it has much less trade? And the answer is give it somehow bonus in science. And I think in real life the reason was somewhat similar. (I hope that you will not argue that US was much more prosperous, and that USSR theoretical science was at least at the same level) |
I've long had the impression that a capitalistic economy is not geared nearly as well for theoretical research as it is for applied science. Corporations have a lot of incentive to engage in types of research that promise a payoff in the reasonably near term, but have far less incentive to engage in theoretical research where they don't even know what they might discover or what benefits a discovery might eventually bring. So what we had in the U.S. was a nation with the "luxury slider" set sky high and where most of the scientific effort was aimed at practical rather than theoretical matters. On top of that, much of our theoretical research in areas that weren't militarily sensitive was done through universities and was freely accessible to people all over the world. So I don’t see how you get that it was the Soviet Union’s atheism rather than other factors that allowed it to keep up.
Nor do I regard a bonus for atheism as a reasonable way to help economically weaker civs keep up with economically stronger ones in research. To make the game balance work, atheism would have to provide its bonus to economically weak civs but not to economically strong ones; otherwise, economically strong civs could keep their advantage by becoming atheistic. By the time a game would tie scientific progress to atheism and then rig atheism so its benefits apply only to economically weaker civs, the mechanism would look way too contrived to me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-08-2005 18:57
|