Religions in Gods and Kings: Should Atheism be included?

[tempshemps]

Something I've been wondering about is whether or not Gods and Kings will allow us to choose Atheism as our "religion" for our nation (I know atheism isn't really a "religion" ... that's why I put it in quotation marks.) I realize the religions included in the game have already been released, but I just wanted to start a new discussion about this possibility.

In recent history, we have seen many governments/empires that were either officially or unofficially atheist in belief, largely (such as China or the USSR). Maybe Atheism or Agnosticism should be an option to choose for your civilization, which might have its own set of benefits, such as a science boost? It could be an alternative to the given selection of religions set to be included in the game with Gods and Kings.

I probably should have mentioned the possibility of Agnosticism in the poll, but I forgot. Just vote for the Atheism option if you are also interested in Agnosticism or Atheism please.

[inquisitiveowl]

No.

Historically, religion has always been a part of society (and, to a lesser extent, government). However, the strength of its influence has faded in recent centuries as societies become more and more secularised, to the point that today, as you point out, many states actually discourage the involvement of religion in government.

This will be reflected in Gods and Kings. The developers have stressed that religion only affects the game in the first few Eras, fading after the Renaissance, and will have little impact on the late game. There is no need for atheism to be represented any other way, as pretty much every early society formed with some religious belief in mind. Atheism is a relatively new way of thinking (I'm not going to attempt to suggest when it 'began', but I challenge anyone to come up with a state which has been inherently atheist from its very beginning and which began more than 200 years ago).

[zephyrtr]

Yeah, the rise of atheism is documented in the game in Religion's lack of weight on late game diplomacy. Since it's such a modern invention, it doesn't fit. And being able to invent Atheism with a Great Prophet sounds ridiculous. Agnosticism as well.

Also, your religion you choose doesnt have hard defined bonuses. It's just a name and symbol to go along with whatever beliefs you choose to purchase. Sikhism doesnt impart any particular bonus. Its the beliefs you purchase afterwards that do. In the game, Judaism or Buddhism are just names and symbols.

[Artifex]

Atheism is not a religion, any more than "off" is a TV channel.

You will not have to found a religion. Religions will spread to your cities but that doesn't make it "yours"

[istry555]

You "choose" atheism by not choosing a religion.

Atheism/agnosticism is represented by the decline in power of the religion mechanic once you reach the early-modern era.

Even modern atheistic states still have individuals that practice a religion.

Finally, it's as you said: "In recent history". The game starts in 4000 BCE not the 19th century (w/ Darwin) or even the 16th-17th century that saw the rise of accusations against "enthusiasm" (in the original meaning of the word). It is historically inaccurate to believe that there were any atheistic states/peoples (note groups, not individuals) before the modern era--and most of the game takes place decidedly before the modern era.

[PachaMinnie]

You can never teach an entire population to not believe in god/gods. No one founded Atheism, and the Science bonus you grant to Atheism is a bit.. odd. Charles Darwin and Albert Einstien both believed in a god. Plus Socrates and Aristotle where great thinkers and scientists and they where Polytheistic. Religion doesn't hinder scientific progress, unless this progress is out to prove it wrong.

"If Science proves something in Buddhism is wrong, then Buddhism will change" -Dalai Lama.

Here is a list of Scientists who believed in God
Albert Einstien
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Max Planck
William Thomson Kelvin
Gregor Mendel
Michael Faraday
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton

So Religion doesn't make people stupid. Religion sometimes has wrong views, but that doesn't mean before Atheism we were all banging rocks together singing Templar Chants. [I'm sure some where, rocks make a good beat].

Another thing that I don't like [I am not saying anyone said this, but now is a good time when I am on a role] is when people either don't respect, get angry when you mention, or just plain out hate Religion. It bugs me, I don't know why it just does. And then the Science book told Noah to follow his heart, and so he did. He built a boat and saved his family because no one at that time could build a boat strong enough or powerful enough to hold 2 of each kind of animal. Hail Darwin. Now if you turn to page Evolution 2:19 we will discuss some of Darwin's famous quotes.

[steveg700]

If you forego the piety social policy tree, you can select rationalism. This pretty well reflects the concept.

[Martinoguy]

I said no because atheism is not a religion. There is nothing more to discuss.

Any attempts to link atheism and science together is a logical fallacy. However, though religion does not make people stupid it does often hinder scientific progress by stunting rational inquiry. If you read Issac Newton, you will notice that the things he could explain had no supernatural explanations to them, but the moment he ventured into a problem he could not solve he immediately began musing at how the workings of a great creator are beyond our comprehension, and stopped researching the point completely. This of course is not to say the problem was insolvable, as Laplace, using the very math that Newton invented, demonstrated the the problem was solvable.

Now, if you want to talk about worshiping science or math or whatever like Pythagoros did then we might have an interesting discussion.

[ssbankss]

Atheism is an active repression of any religion by the government. As you said, many communists governments applied this policy at different level. So yeah, it should be available.

Should give bonus to spying effort :P

[steveg700]

Atheism is an active repression of any religion by the government. As you said, many communists governments applied this policy at different level. So yeah, it should be available.

Should give bonus to spying effort :P

This may be a language-barrier thing, but government repression of religion does not equate to atheism. The Tibetans didn't become atheist by virtue of having their temples smashed by the Chinese.

Having said that, it certainly seems exquisitely stupid that the order social confers a benefit for amassing faith, and I'm all for starting a gripe-thread that gives the dev's cause to reconsider the faith-for-GE's design. Doesn't make sense, and is probably much more powerful than faith for GG's or GA's.

[Aosher]

Remember that many religions, such as Mahayana Buddhism, Jainism and Reform Judaism, are atheistic.

It is not logically required for any religion to have a God.

[Off_pace]

To me this is a "is zero a number" or "can you travel a negative distance" kind of argument. Is the lack of religion a religion in itself?

[istry555]

Isaac Newton... the moment he ventured into a problem he could not solve he immediately began musing at how the workings of a great creator are beyond our comprehension, and stopped researching the point completely.

That's not completely true. Newton was a practicing alchemist. Many of his religious musings in regards to scientific problems were the result of his alchemical theories. Rather than stunting his rational inquiry, however, in the long run it only aided him. His theory of gravity was a direct result of earlier alchemical theories concerning occult forces.

[SlickSlicer]

You can name your religion Atheism. There. Problem solved. Atheism is in the game. Now let's end this dumb topic before it gets really dumb.

[PachaMinnie]

Remember that many religions, such as Mahayana Buddhism, Jainism and Reform Judaism, are atheistic.

It is not logically required for any religion to have a God.

It's called Nontheistic, and most of the Buddhists do not believe in God, a few Japanese Buddhists incorporated local gods into Buddhism and a small group worship the Buddha, but most are nontheistic.

A religion doesn't require a god, but it requires a code of laws and a founder. Neither of which Atheism has. Atheism is just a group of people that decided there isn't a god, it isn't organized, and there is no real founder. The whole argument is like "Is anarchy a government type." However Anarchy is not a form of Government.

[steveg700]

Remember that many religions, such as Mahayana Buddhism, Jainism and Reform Judaism, are atheistic.

It is not logically required for any religion to have a God.

What's that you say? There's a religion with all the hassles of devotion, but none of the pesky rewards? Sale!

[Joketa]

Having said that, it certainly seems exquisitely stupid that the order social confers a benefit for amassing faith, and I'm all for starting a gripe-thread that gives the dev's cause to reconsider the faith-for-GE's design. Doesn't make sense, and is probably much more powerful than faith for GG's or GA's.

Well, Communism is just part of the Order tree and not the other way around. None of the other policies necessarily suppressed religion.

You can also make the case that Communism just swapped people's faith in their religion for faith in the party. And since the currency of 'faith' is a meme that is built up in people for centuries, it's just swapping idols. I met some interesting Maoist diehards in China (they're a dying breed, but there still are some), and the way they talked about 'the party' sounded exactly the same as how religious diehards talk about their faith. Even the folklore and parables sound the same as the religious ones.

The game design makes perfect sense to me. It's just swapping idols, and in this case Great Engineers are the product of that reassignment of faith. I mean, how many artists in the post-industrial 'free' world are a direct product of religious faith? The final three policy trees are just about taking societal memes that were created by the religion and adjusting them to the modern world.

As far as the OP goes, I was going to say the same thing as SlickSlicer.

[Martinoguy]

That's not completely true. Newton was a practicing alchemist. Many of his religious musings in regards to scientific problems were the result of his alchemical theories. Rather than stunting his rational inquiry, however, in the long run it only aided him. His theory of gravity was a direct result of earlier alchemical theories concerning occult forces.

His alchemical theories don't really have anything to do with religion. In fact, Newton was probably the last serious scientific endeavor into alchemy before modern chemical theory and he took exquisitely detailed notes on the subject.

I was, in my original post, referring to Newton's basically giving up on figuring out what would be "perturbation theory" as it pertains to the laws of motion of the planets. A man who invented calculus because he needed it to explain something almost on a dare would have had no problem using that very math (as Laplace did) to explain the more complex relationships between gravitating bodies were it not for his feeling that, at the limit of his knowledge, that what explains those bodies must be a god rather than some naturalistic explanation that he does not know yet.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

To answer the topic, no. It's a lack of belief - the true reflection of atheism in the game is to not select a religion. If you're that desperate, just name your religion 'Atheism'. I, personally, am going to name every religion I found 'Batmanism'. He was awesome for your sins.

Charles Darwin and Albert Einstien both believed in a god.

No. Neither were religious, and Darwin did not convert to Christianity on his deathbed.

Isaac Newton

Some fun facts that most people don't know about Newton:

He was crazy.
He found his scientific experiments with gravity 'tedious'.
He was mostly focused on alchemy.
Even more crazily, he studied the Bible to see if he could find hidden messages left by God.

Note: I don't think because he believed in religion he was crazy. Certainly not. It's just that Newton devoted his life to alchemy and studying the Bible for hidden messages, and believed that it was his 'real work'. For a man that worked out gravity and discovered calculus, it's a little nuts.

[RideASpaceCowboy]

I would want it included, so long as it doesn't come with your proposed science bonus. Historically speaking, religions such as Christianity and Muhammadism laid down a philosophical framework that caused science to flourish in many societies which had adopted them; the perceived anti-science bias of religion (and by default "rationality" of atheism) is a recent and novel development.

[Hawk]

Hmm, the Dark Ages aren't exactly recent. I think it's a case of some do and some don't - as in during some periods certain religions have been responsible for slowing science down, but at the same time during periods religion didn't slow science down, but may have helped speed it on. Like some religions teach people to learn more, and to question more, while others have wanted people not to learn, and not to ask questions - referring to the time when simply owning a copy of the Bible was punishable by death, and all Bibles were written in Latin, and translating it into another language was also punishable by death...Although that was probably more of a case of "Can't let the common folk know what the Bible really says or we'll be in trouble!".

Interesting idea with atheism being a religion that you can choose, however like some have said, I think by either naming a religion "Atheist" or by not choosing any religion should pretty much do.

[steveg700]

I mean, how many artists in the post-industrial 'free' world are a direct product of religious faith?

You're right, that's dumb too. Good point. Everything else, not so much.

[Aosher]

It's called Nontheistic

The terms are synonyms and are used interchangeably - appropriately, as are the precise same thing. The Greek prefix 'a-' meants 'not'.

The opposite of religious is not atheist, it's irreligious. The opposite of atheist is theist. This distinction is important for this discussion, because while irreligion should absolutely not be modelled, atheism should be included amongst the options and value sets of a religion, as religions can, and historically frequently have, chosen to be godless.

most of the Buddhists do not believe in God, a few Japanese Buddhists incorporated local gods into Buddhism and a small group worship the Buddha

This is incorrect. I specified Mahayana Buddhism, which is what many consider to be "classical" Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism is really the only stream of Buddhism that is doctrinaire about its atheism - most practice of Buddhism in South-East Asia is conflated with Hinduism, and there is a constant source of tension within that faith between those who insist that the path to enlightenment is intellectual and evidence-lead, and those who chose to revere the Buddhas as ersatz Gods and prophets themselves.

A religion doesn't require a god, but it requires a code of laws and a founder. Neither of which Atheism has.

Again, it's important to distinguish between atheist an irreligious. I'm not really interested in non-religious atheism for the purposes of this discussion - I think it would only be interesting if religion was broadened into a kind of cultural philosophy mechanic, and while I really can't see that working, I do note that Civ 4 included Confucianism as a religion, when it is clearly a philosophy rather than a faith.

But history is littered with examples of atheist movements with codes of laws and spiritual practice. In fact, I would go so far as to say that only the later Abrahamic religions - Christianity and Islam - do not hold atheism to be viable choices. Hinduism and Shinto both allow for it. The idea that the world was religious until the Enlightenment is demonstrably false.

I would urge people to read Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht for a more comprehensive history of doubt and atheism in religious frameworks.

[SlickSlicer]

Again, the religions in Civ V are templates that you can rename to anything of your choosing. So you could easily have an Atheist state religion. Problem solved. This poll makes no sense because atheism is already an option within the game, as is literally anything else.

[Joketa]

You're right, that's dumb too. Good point. Everything else, not so much.

Care to explain why they aren't good points?

[SamBC]

The term "nontheist" is used as distinct from atheist due to the loaded meanings that atheist has gained above its literal construction; atheist is generally taken to mean a denial of anything beyond the mundane and physically apparent. Thus people feel confused or awkward when someone who professes a belief in reincarnation also describes themselves (or is described) as atheist. Many people would find the phrase "atheist Quaker" to provoke cognitive dissonance, so I call myself a "non-theist Quaker".

If, however, we take the opposite of atheist as theist, we can see that atheist shouldn't be considered a religion - it's is a characteristic of religious positions, rather than a position in itself, just as 'theist' is a characteristic of religious positions, not a position in itself, pertaining (I believe) to the existence of one or more personal, interventionist god(s). Thus atheist, taken as the opposite (really privative, but opposite will do) of this position is a belief that there are no personal interventionist gods.

[Aosher]

The term "nontheist" is used as distinct from atheist due to the loaded meanings that atheist has gained above its literal construction; atheist is generally taken to mean a denial of anything beyond the mundane and physically apparent. Thus people feel confused or awkward when someone who professes a belief in reincarnation also describes themselves (or is described) as atheist. Many people would find the phrase "atheist Quaker" to provoke cognitive dissonance, so I call myself a "non-theist Quaker".

I suspect that may be a local / regional dialect issue, as certainly in my experience and academic background atheist is used very happily in the context that I have given.

If, however, we take the opposite of atheist as theist, we can see that atheist shouldn't be considered a religion - it's is a characteristic of religious positions, rather than a position in itself, just as 'theist' is a characteristic of religious positions, not a position in itself, pertaining (I believe) to the existence of one or more personal, interventionist god(s). Thus atheist, taken as the opposite (really privative, but opposite will do) of this position is a belief that there are no personal interventionist gods.

Oh, sure; I'm arguing that atheist-centred options should be available as some of the customising factors of religions, not woven into the fundamental fabric of any of them. Civ V is allowing for modular belief constructions; why shouldn't atheist options be among them?

[SirMaru]

Religion dates back to the earliest cave man. Atheism also dates back to the earliest cave man skeptic.

The only official atheist nations were the Communist ones led by the USSR and Communist China. Thus, there should be a "religion" named atheism but only available in the modern eras. Maybe it should be given the name, "Communism," rather than atheism.

If that is allowed, then another religion called "Nazism" and / or "Fascism" should also be allowed in the modern eras since it also existed then.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Oh, sure; I'm arguing that atheist-centred options should be available as some of the customising factors of religions, not woven into the fundamental fabric of any of them. Civ V is allowing for modular belief constructions; why shouldn't atheist options be among them?

What would they be? You can't argue it's something to do with science - science and religion have coexisted quite happily in the past (most prominent of these is the Islamic Golden Age). Other then the general belief that atheists worship science, there's nothing that unites them. Nothing to proclaim that it produces more gold, or more happiness. I myself have actually felt more happy since I abandoned arguing with theists.

Like I said above, if you're really that desperate for Atheism to be in the game, just change the name of one of your religions. You don't see my arguing for Batmanism to be in the game, despite the fact that there could be more followers and arguably that they actually believe in something. Instead, I'm just going to name my religions that.

There's a reason the game allows the religions to be fully customisable - to avoid squabbles like these.

[RedRalph]

Actually there has only ever been one officially atheist country, and that's Albania.

[Joketa]

Like I said above, if you're really that desperate for Atheism to be in the game, just change the name of one of your religions. You don't see my arguing for Batmanism to be in the game, despite the fact that there could be more followers and arguably that they actually believe in something. Instead, I'm just going to name my religions that.

I'm definitely thinking Dudeism trumps Batmanism, Sidism, AND Atheism.

[stethnorun]

No. Neither were religious, and Darwin did not convert to Christianity on his deathbed.

This bears reposting. Because it's accurate. The only people that believe either of these two were theists never actually looked it up/saw an out of context quote. Learn to be skeptical when someone tells you something that sounds contradictory.

Oh and I agree with everyone else. Atheism isn't a religion and I'm glad the devs "included" it by having religion taper off in the modern era. Makes total sense.

[stethnorun]

(most prominent of these is the Islamic Golden Age)

Without wiki-ing that reference, I'm guessing that era was a long time ago.

[Aosher]

What would they be? You can't argue it's something to do with science

Which is why I'm not - frankly that feels like a bit of a straw man.

Also, I'm not really "desperate" for atheism to be in the game - ultimately it's just a game, and if they want to have religion use all-theist terminology for the sake of simplicity and for the avoidance of arguments then as far as I am concerned literally no ☺☺☺☺s shall be given. I just wanted to correct the idea from some of the early posts in this thread that atheism and religion were separate and distinct, or that atheism was a modern innovation spurred by the modern irrelevance of religion, when actually the two informed, co-mingled and co-existed for large parts of their history.

In terms of implementation I'm disinclined to offer firm suggestions, not least because if the developers draw upon concepts from Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, or others, then they're quite likely to be in the game anyway. Any suggestion I can make would be redundant at this stage.

[Aosher]

Without wiki-ing that reference, I'm guessing that era was a long time ago.

About 900 years ago, but these things tend to go in cycles.

[Balthazaar]

The great prophet Richard Dawkins has been born in Cartage...



select founder belief.... eh no

[Homero]

Religion dates back to the earliest cave man.

Talking about the religiousity of a pre-historic man, religion cannot be investigated archaeologically.
THE RECOGNITION OF RELIGION,Archeological Diagnosis and Implicit Theorizing,
"Students of religion have many good reasons to avoid the domain of prehistory...Instead of calling attention to the fact that prehistoric societies did not leave behind documents that allow us to enter into cultural subtleties and diversities, some scholars prefer to present them as perfectly legible, as more or less analogous and transparent"
Link

[JFD]

This argument seems a little silly. The ingame religions are just arbitrary labels. If you choose Islam it is not because the Great Prophet that was born was Mohammad, nor if you choose Christianity are you expected to get tipsy off the blood of Christ. Some of the given religions are even philosophies. More to the point, though, this game shouldn't be a means to validate one's own beliefs.

The way in which religion is being implemented should be a chance to get creative. I can't help but think someone is just trying to defend Athiesm by suggesting this when they think that it has been purposely neglected by Firaxis. But Firaxis has given the means to incorporate Athiesm into the game anyway. Not only can you rename your religion, religion starts to wane. Obviously the latter isn't explicitly driven by Athiesm, but if the player is so desperate to have Athiesm represented then they can have it so.

Is it just me, or does this sort of feel like a Poland argument?

[istry555]

Talking about the religiousity of a pre-historic man, religion cannot be investigated archaeologically.
THE RECOGNITION OF RELIGION,Archeological Diagnosis and Implicit Theorizing,
"Students of religion have many good reasons to avoid the domain of prehistory...Instead of calling attention to the fact that prehistoric societies did not leave behind documents that allow us to enter into cultural subtleties and diversities, some scholars prefer to present them as perfectly legible, as more or less analogous and transparent"
Link

Well, it depends on how far back you mean when you say pre-historic. Most pre-historic religion is mapped nowadays by comparative linguistics and reconstructions of proto-languages. So, for example, the religious schema of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and, to a lesser extent, the Proto-Afro-Asiatic peoples is fairly well mapped out. However, these are defined to very specific areas and are useless when comparing contemporaneous groups in other parts of the world.

Areas without an accepted reconstructed proto-language (or where one is not possible) or when dealing only with purely hypothetical macrofamilies which can't be reconstructed or may have never existed (like Nostratic), then, yes, people start jumping to conclusions based only on archeological findings which, as the article points out, are easily misinterpreted.

[Artifex]

science and religion have coexisted quite happily in the past

Oh, really. Do you think there has been a net synergy or conflict between these two?
Come now, cherry picking a single situation out of all of history where there was relative tolerance is merely an exception that proves the rule.

They are polar opposites.
Science is the process of questioning everything, and assuming nothing.
Religious faith says we know the answer, so why question.

But that does not mean atheism is scientific. It is not anything, it is simply the lack of something else.