Religion

[fed_up]

+1 Happiness, -25% Science?

Really?

Did you know that Religion fostered scientific study for much of the Renaissance era, and the term 'flat earth' was coined in a book in the 1920s?

Naw, but let's allow our prejudices to win over historical fact. Let's continue to be intolerant while crying we are "tolerant".

WTG

Maybe we should add:

Democrats: +1 happiness, -10000% economics?

[Lenny Ghoul]

Welcome to Civ. Political Bias is an unfortunate reality that has been a part of every Civ game I can remember. I just tend to ignore it because I enjoy the game too much to care( I hate when games Bias either side of any argument). Civ World so far seems to have the least thus far that I've seen compared to earlier Civ games. I don't blame anyone specifically it's just the PoV of the people making the game. The Dev's perception of History tells them to script historical events and civics the way they see it. Some see it differently then others.

Civ's always had issues with Historical accuracy as well, but it's really nit picking when you consider how much all Civ games do bring to the table (biased or not).

[gogogoff]

I must agree, considering Tesla Edison, and Einstein ALL believed in God.

[stream_mm]

Wow... and here I was thinking this was a game.... Did not know I was suppose to be taking history lessons from the game.

[Lenny Ghoul]

Da Vinci, Newton, Galileo, all the Old greats and even Modern guys like Stephen Hawking believe in God. But, I think the reason for the -25% is because of the timeline. There was a time when the worlds religions we so oppressive that science was considered a sin against Gods will, and many great scientists were punished for that crime. Many Rulers at that time were in fact heavily persuaded by some of the More corrupted avenues of religion using it as an excuse to govern and oppress.

[Glinda]

If we are going to start complaining about the real world issues in Civ then I am going to beef about the lack of representation of women in the icons.

[dScout]

... because gladiators made the Romans unable to retreat from any battles, universal suffrage makes people starve, a free press prevents revolutions and suppresses a nation's culture, public education has a net drain on the economy, and TV suppresses cultures, but radio improves them.

Civilization is obviously an accurate mirror of the world as a whole.

[Tobye]

Atheism: +25% soddomy -25% culture.

It would be fun if they made "Civ Simulation".

[Beengalas]

I must agree, considering Tesla Edison, and Einstein ALL believed in God.

I just have to do this: Einstein never believed in god in the way religion do. Several high-positional priest and bishops and what have you, tried to get him to leave USA due to his denouncation of god.

Other studies have shown for example that only a handful of the "founding fathers" of USA were religious at all. Heavy empirical evidence tend to point that highly educated people, through history, have had issue with religion or the concept of a god.

[gogogoff]

I just have to do this: Einstein never believed in god in the way religion do. Several high-positional priest and bishops and what have you, tried to get him to leave USA due to his denouncation of god.

Other studies have shown for example that only a handful of the "founding fathers" of USA were religious at all. Heavy empirical evidence tend to point that highly educated people, through history, have had issue with religion or the concept of a god.

That is total lies, read the ORIGINAL documents, letters, journal, and you will realize they (The Founding Fathers) have said MANY TIMES, IT IS ONLY DUE TO GOD, that we have what we have.

David Bartion has the ORIGINAL documents, and goes around DISPROVING HISTORY books, as LIES.

[Beengalas]

That is total lies, read the ORIGINAL documents, letters, journal, and you will realize they (The Founding Fathers) have said MANY TIMES, IT IS ONLY DUE TO GOD, that we have what we have.

David Bartion has the ORIGINAL documents, and goes around DISPROVING HISTORY books, as LIES.

This is why I just had to write my post above. And people wonder why religion was removed out of Civ series. :)

[JamesB]

The civic you are talking about is called Religious Freedom. It's obviously not referring to Europe in the renaissance. Perhaps it's more referring to modern American society where we have religious freedom. Does it make people happy? Sure. Does it allow people to go en masse to the Creation Museum? Yeah it does that too.

But don't let actually reading the titles of the civics get in the way of a good rant.

Btw, what downside to that civic would not have upset upset you? -25% production? -25% culture? -1 attack to all units?

Aslo, you can check out welfare state and universal healthcare, both of which have downsides, for political balance.

[Ironsmack]

This is neither the time or place to get into political rants. Whatever you guys read on the interwebs is not really very reliable. If you are going to make inflamitory statements, at least cite your specific and legitimate resource. If not, then please keep your comments related to the game.

[MattijsV]

oooooooh, you americans. I respect, but don't understand, your passion for religion.

But to have facts right: Einstein didn't believe, and Stephen Hawking doesn't either. Not that long ago he finally said that very clear actually. But well... (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven)

Nevertheless, somebody pointed out that the civic is Religious FREEDOM... which means that you are free to think what you want, something that is clearly not enacted in the US of A, also shown in this thread. If you are not religious, then you're walking on the borders of society it seems. Would a politician that openly says he's an atheist be voted into office?

In EU we do have the civic enacted, which makes me very happy. That it affects science sounds weird to me, but well (it's a game). But at least people can believe or not believe, which is quite important to me. I respect people that believe. Most people that still believe in a religious way here, are believing on an individual basis anyways. Which is more than ok. Institutionalised belief is another matter altogether though. It's the institutions that are against Religious Freedom, not the people as such. Look at the history of those institutions. Look at what they represent now... Really, LOOK... It's horrible. Wars, supression (of women to start with), conservative into the ridiculous and dangerous, teaching utter non-sense (yes, you there in the USA, Darwin was mostly right, every well-thinking person knows that), ...

So no, I DON'T have respect for the institutions, for organised religion. It's horrible. I TRY to have respect for people that believe in those institutions. But common people, stand up and think for yourself. Why do you have to believe what someone else says, without questioning it? Why do you have to follow a certain outdated book? A book that, if you read it thoroughly, is not always very nice by the way... (and that counts for Bible, Quran and Torah). Look at the history, see what has happened throughout the history with people that just 'believed' without questioning, religiously or not religiously...

I really wish, out of my heart, and I have a very good heart, that people would stop this non-sense, that they would be able to think for themselves, that they would follow logic, that they would have respect for each other, that they would treat everybody as equal. And if you want to believe there's a being out there that created all this, that manages all this, well that's good. Believe that by all means!

Sorry, I might not be religous, but I am ALSO very passionate. I'm passionate about life, about logic, about freedom, about democracy, about people, about you!

[Ironsmack]

Matt, I'm sorry your experience with 'organized' religion has been so negative. In America, we do not have the church history that the europeans do. Many negative times in history can be attriubted to the church unfortunately. In the end, people are people whether they are in or out of organized religion. They are still just people. None of us are perfect and none of us can say we never did anything wrong or that we were not proud of.
Personally I do not base my personal faith in which scientist or politician is religious but I do respect those who stand up for their faith and strive to live a life that serves instead of takes. Our society teaches us to take what we want and live for our own hapiness, but there is more to life then serving yourself. Whether or not you believe in God or another deity or faith, I hope we are all trying to live a life of purpose and be a positive part of the society we live in.

[getrazol]

Da Vinci, Newton, Galileo, all the Old greats and even Modern guys like Stephen Hawking believe in God.

WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Religious_views

While many religion supporters love enumerating celebrities, that wouldnt help the argument, even if the statements were true :)

This is a game, relax!

[MattijsV]

Ironsmack: Where's that like-button when you need it!!!

One little thing: I totally agree that people are people. But religion is just an easy excuse to abuse... Religion is opium for the people, you know. About recent church history, it's not that different in EU as in US, on both sides of the ocean priests can't seem to get their hands off of children. (okay, that were two little things :-))

[Nathan J uK]

+1 Happiness, -25% Science?

Really?

Did you know that Religion fostered scientific study for much of the Renaissance era, and the term 'flat earth' was coined in a book in the 1920s?

Naw, but let's allow our prejudices to win over historical fact. Let's continue to be intolerant while crying we are "tolerant".

WTG

Maybe we should add:

Democrats: +1 happiness, -10000% economics?

To be fair most Religious people i know arent very smart.

[Carol Lewis]

1- There is a difference between Religious Freedom (a good idea, since you are also free to NOT believe in anything) and Organized Religion (bad idea, can you say The Inquisition?) which I think is not being given enough thought here.
2- +111111111 Glinda. The ladies would like some inclusion...

[Carol Lewis]

Oh and btw, Nikola Tesla was an atheist.

[Ironsmack]

People in power did not stop doing bad things just because the Catholic Church stopped influencing government.

[Tobye]

Hitler and friends = religion less evil than atheism, according to the formula most atheists base their arguements on. C'mon people, let's just get along and let happy people be happy and kill fools who try to kill us - we can all agree on that right? :)

[rezpatriot]

I thought Stalin shut down the churches in favour of communism.

[Tobye]

Benito Mussolini: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Religious_beliefs

Wow, religion is looking pretty damn cool! xD

[MattijsV]

When did the Catholic Church stop influencing government then? Even in lots of countries in Europe, the church is a political power to be reckoned with. Even in very secular Belgium, one of the big ruling parties are 'Christian Democrats'...

Tobye, you don't make much sense to me. About your last post... Typical religious thinking... One guy that thinks differently than me is bad, so therefore they must all be bad... You're pointing out exactly what I was talking about, thank you for supporting my view that religious thinking (and following) is clearly a bad idea.

I didn't get your previous post though. But Hitler and friends were just another example of following somebody, or an organisation, without thinking about it. Or do you really think that the majority of Germans are/were just plain evil? THAT is the danger of religion...

So again, people, think for yourself please! And if you find some supreme being in your thinking, that's all good. If you don't, that's all good as well.

[Tobye]

Heh, nah all I am saying is that you CAN'T use that type of arguement as most people do (they say "relgion causes war, because wars were started by religioius people"). So, in effect, I agree with you - perhaps lost in sarcasm.

[MLightning]

+1 Happiness, -25% Science?



I agree with this.
Because of Darwin's Evolution Theory, which religion does not agree with.
This thread feels more political and generic Science vs Religion :)

[Tobye]

Evolution: PROVE IT! :P Even though I don't believe in a 4,000 year old Earth or whatever the bible says doesn't mean I have to swallow an unproven theory. Evolution amongst species IS proven, all good with that, but you think with all our research nowadays we would have found the missing link right? Or have we found it and no-one bothered to tell me? Seriously! I want to know.

[LeyAsh Kahonnajonnanaas]

lolol I wonder what political affiliation the OP has... I hope he realizes he's probably outnumbered in an online strategy game! xD

[MLightning]

Evolution: PROVE IT! :P Even though I don't believe in a 4,000 year old Earth or whatever the bible says doesn't mean I have to swallow an unproven theory. Evolution amongst species IS proven, all good with that, but you think with all our research nowadays we would have found the missing link right? Or have we found it and no-one bothered to tell me? Seriously! I want to know.

Watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes It will prove it! :P

That was a joke and does not mean anything other than to make you lol.
I want to know too :D
we're related to mice?!?! sounds likes a lie!

[JamesB]

We have lots of "missing links" or a scientist call them transitional fossils. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

However, you must remember that all life is in transition at all times. And also that all creatures alive today evolved from earlier forms. Modern humans did not arise from modern apes, instead we both arose from something that had a lot of features we share in common with apes, but not many features now unique to one or the other.

This guy is the ancestor of us and the chimps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

Smaller brains than us; not as good at climbing trees as a chimp.

Also the genetic evidence is pretty conclusive. If it confirmed more often than not the family trees that had all ready been drawn. So, either evolution is true or God is planting evidence.

[MattijsV]

Well, Tobye... I'm going to say something really bad now: In the civilized world there's no doubt at all about evolution... The only country that seems to have a sizable part of their population that, weirdly and completely inunderstandably, tries to desperately shake of the facts and all the proof is.... your country. Mind you, I don't have any problem with the US of A as such, but I just can't get my head around a country that is clearly well civilized, clearly well off, being so fanatic that they even put aside something as clear as water as evolution. That is really inexplicable.

In EU there's still a lot of people that belief in (a) god, there's also a small portion that still supports an organised religion, but it would be very very hard to find anybody that doesn't know evolution has happened and is happening... I have never in my life encountered anybody here in EU that ignores evolution. That is a fact. Religious Freedom Civic and all... You CAN believe if you want to, but even if you choose to believe, you don't have to follow every little thing some crazy old man in Rome (replace by whichever religion you are into) says...

Thus... Actually, I'm going to harden my stance: Religous Freedom: +1 happiness +25% science (before I left the science thing in the middle...)

Have you ever read Origin of Species? Really? According to me it's just impossible to read Origin of Species and NOT UNDERSTAND that this happens. It's actually quite a well written book for a scientist. And it's ooooo soooo clear.

Anyways, evolution is damn beautiful! Nature is amazing, man! Such a pity that you don't open your eyes for what's happening in front of our eyes.

And actually, we're quite the same. you and me are both atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. I only go one god further. (stolen quote)

[MattijsV]

JamesB... God works in mysterious ways! So mysterious that it must be true that he plants evidence. It's his personal little joke. I'm sure! :-)

[Tobye]

I resent your statement: I AM NOT from America thank you very much ;) I had the awful experience of visiting there once...gah.

Anyway here in Oz, we are taught to question what we do not understand and up until this point I can't say I've done a lot of study on the subject personally (no I have not read teh origin of species), hence why I earnestly asked for information :) But also don't forget just because many people believe something doesn't make it true - global warming or "climate change" has been disproven just as many times as proven. Even science disagrees with itself on a regular basis.

[MattijsV]

You're right about the climate change issue. But you would be hard pressed to find a scientist that doesn't know evolution is true! Well, there's always one calling himself a scientist and doesn't, but well... we're talking 0.0005% of all scientists here, and then they win Templeton Prize... :-).

About reading: Go Origin of Species, continue with Selfish Gene (Dawkins). I would be baffled if you don't understand after reading those two books. You will understand then that it's not a theory, it's a fact. The word 'theory' just stuck, like so many other clearly proven theories (thinking theory of relativity for example)

Anecdote: Well, you're from Oz then... I actually LIED in my previous post :-). I actually HAVE met somebody that didn't know evolution was a fact. She was Australian and totally stunning (afterwards I found out she was a model). I was interested. She was interested. We weren't very sober. It was fun. And then, don't know why, we actually started talking :-). And well... I couldn't believe my ears that she was very religious and was a form of creationist. It was even more weird, because she surely didn't act like someone religious.... :-). So we kinda had to decide to stop talking, especially about that subject... Which I didn't mind. Mèh!

[Tobye]

LIAR! Haha, yeah everyone always seems to like Aussie women...except Aussie men! xD As a matter of fact all Western women in general have lost ground here to cheap Asian imports :P Known a bunch of cool German girls though.

[spacechampion]

Dear non-scientists, evolution is not a theory it is an observation of the natural world. Natural selection is the theory that explains the observation of evolution. It has been observed happening in bacteria, viruses, insects, plants, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc. In some species, like humans, it takes millions of years, in others like bacteria is has been directly observed to occur over the hundred of generations that takes just a few days to be born, breed and die.

[spacechampion]

You're right about the climate change issue.

Sorry Matt, he is not. The fact is the 100% of real climate / atmospheric scientists are convinced that it is occurring, and that it is due to human activity, while the people who don't believe it or cook up their own "facts" are not scientists (lawyers, PR flacks, journalists), not climate scientists, or are paid-for shills of petroleum companies (even these shills are not climate scientists, they are in field that have nothing to do with climate science). The vast amount of "evidence" people cite to "disprove" climate change are words twisted out of context, and every single paper cited by the deniers usually say the opposite (the authors of those papers typically protested being cited by the deniers).

[Chronic.demonik]

This thread has made me lose faith in humanity. That is all...

[Tobye]

Sorry Matt, he is not. The fact is the 100% of real climate / atmospheric scientists are convinced that it is occurring, and is due to human activity, while the people who don't believe it or cook up their own "facts" are not scientists (lawyers, PR flacks, journalists), not climate scientists, or are paid-for shills of petroleum companies (even these shills are not climate scientists). The vast amount of "evidence" people cite to "disprove" climate change are words twisted out of context, and every single paper cited by the deniers usually say the opposite (the authors of those papers typically protested being cited by the deniers).

Yeah...sure. We just talked for waaay too long about religion, I'm not going to even start disproving to the most fanatic religious group of all. I'll let you figure it out yourself ;)

[MattijsV]

You're right Spacechamp, I don't question that climate change is happening and is mainly due to human activity. But the whole process is far from 100% understood. Not only the process, but also the precise cause and effect. That is still under honest scientific research and debate. I also might've been just a bit over-diplomatic :-).

Oh, Tobye, even Oz men would've been interested :-).

[Tobye]

DAMN, that hot?? You lucky man ;) And if it is not 100% understood, you should not believe without questioning ;)

[DngrRngr]

You're right, the religion civic should more accurately reflect real life: take offense to everything that even remotely mentions religion +10,000,000%, intelligence: -10,000,000%. Religion kills.

[audioboxer217]

There are actually many Theistic Scientists that believe in the proven theories of evolution AND a god. The fact is they aren't mutually exclusive. If one is a theist then he would believe that god created the world with set rules (the laws of nature) and one of those rules could be evolution.

Now, of course, there are varying degrees of this that all fit within the proven parts of evolution. Most of them actually base around Chemical Evolution (how did we get from non-life to the first life?) and where/how the original components of DNA came into existence. One example of a Christian resources for this is Dr. Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell".

[DngrRngr]

That is total lies, read the ORIGINAL documents, letters, journal, and you will realize they (The Founding Fathers) have said MANY TIMES, IT IS ONLY DUE TO GOD, that we have what we have.

David Bartion has the ORIGINAL documents, and goes around DISPROVING HISTORY books, as LIES.

He's got a handful of documents, that he misrepresents in order to make the points he's trying to make. Religion has made anyone with half-a-brain its enemy because it knows it can't convince smart people that the BS it sells is true.

[audioboxer217]

He's got a handful of documents, that he misrepresents in order to make the points he's trying to make. Religion has made anyone with half-a-brain its enemy because it knows it can't convince smart people that the BS it sells is true.

There actually are many documents showing that the Founding Fathers of the US had religious affiliations. However, ultimately that really quite irrelevant unless you're trying to show that the US has a Christian slant even though it has no 'official' religion. I don't think anyone would really debate you on that though.

However, I would like to hear some proof of the claim that you've made. There have been many great scientist that were/are either Theists or fully Christian (see http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/07/scientists-of-faith.html for just a few). I would admit, sadly, that many Christians don't use their brain much, but this has more to do with a perceived Science vs Religion dichotomy that was unheard before the 1800s and even well into the 1800s. There many - in my experience a growing number - of Christians that have fully embraced science and scientific exploration without giving up their belief in God.

[DngrRngr]

There actually are many documents showing that the Founding Fathers of the US had religious affiliations. However, ultimately that really quite irrelevant unless you're trying to show that the US has a Christian slant even though it has no 'official' religion. I don't think anyone would really debate you on that though.

However, I would like to hear some proof of the claim that you've made. There have been many great scientist that were/are either Theists or fully Christian (see http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/07/scientists-of-faith.html for just a few). I would admit, sadly, that many Christians don't use their brain much, but this has more to do with a perceived Science vs Religion dichotomy that was unheard before the 1800s and even well into the 1800s. There many - in my experience a growing number - of Christians that have fully embraced science and scientific exploration without giving up their belief in God.

Which claim? The one about Bartion's book? I've read Original Intent and it wasn't convincing. I can't prove much more beyond that as there was no factual claim made. The one about smart people and religion? That wasn't really a claim suggesting that atheists are smart and religious people are stupid. A smart person can believe in god and an idiot can favor science. It was more-or-less a stab at those who took take religion far too seriously, refuse to see the faults in it, and then take to forums to complain about how its faults were represented in a game.

[trst]

In this game you need Religion to build cannons and to research the printing press. That indicates to me that this tech is taking place sometime around 1000ce, clearly well in advance of the colonization of the Americas or whatever people were talking about.

It feels like a weird point in time to posit "Religious Freedom". Maybe they should change the name of the policy to Theocracy?

[audioboxer217]

ok, DngrRngr, in that particular case I would agree with you. There are both educated and ignorant, smart and dumb people for every position. I'd also agree that the original post was a bit over-zealous since this is just a game. However, I don't fault him because whether we admit it or not we all have a Worldview that we use to perceive the world and it affects every aspect of our lives.

Where I have problems with your comments is that some are just random ad hominem attacks that seem to serve not other purpose that to stir up controversy. You basically admit as much in your last post "It was more-or-less a stab at those who took take religion far too seriously".

[TheQ]

Would it be ok if it said : It provides +1 happiness to all citizens but also a -25% drain to production?

[trst]

or maybe if it stays religious freedom the penalty could hit culture because with no state religion culture branches and is not nationally homogeneous?

[MattijsV]

uh? or "maybe" it benefits culture... following your line of thinking..., because culture in a society that has no state religion (brr, only the idea of a state religion makes me shiver) is more diverse?

[trst]

sure. that one could go either way. you could argue that things like a national language, religion, identity, etc., help define a people and allow for single-minded culture advancements, or you could argue that diversity is the key to culture. personally i favor diversity, but you could make a case for either, especially as the quality of culture is not measured in civ, only the quantity.

Really IMO they should change "Religious Freedom" to "Theocracy" and keep the benefit/penalty as it is. It's pretty easy to point to examples of Theocracy limiting scientific development.