Replacing Religions

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Since when were human emotional reactions required to be consistent? What I've been talking about in this thread are my emotional reactions to the game, trying to explain why I react to different things the way I do on an emotional level.

Well, the way I see it, you've been trying to explain your reactions via reason, not emotion. Once you dipped your toes into that water, consistency should become a natural consequence. Otherwise, it would be best just to leave it at not trying to justify the way you feel. If you want to admit your feelings aren't rational, fine--that's what people have been trying to point out.

Take a look at slavery in Civ 3. Do I beat slaves? No. Do I break up their families? No. Do I make them work longer hours or under worse conditios than other workers? No. Do I exercise more control over their lives than I do over other workers' lives? No. Everything that makes slavery evil in the real world is abstracted out of the Civ 3 concept of slavery to a point where the onlly way a player can view slavery in Civ as evil is to think about the things that make it evil in the real world but that aren't included in Civ.

This is so wrongheaded it's not funny. The primary evil of slavery is that is forcing people to live/work/reproduce in a matter that is against their will. Take away all those specific evils you mentioned, and slavery is still evil. The Mel Gibson view of slavery given in The Patriot is laughably thoughtless and actually quite offensive. "Nice" slavery is still slavery, and evil at its root.

Are you not bothered by slavery as a concept? I certainly am.

I don't know how logical these emotional reactions are or aren't. But because they are emotional reactions, there is no law that says they have to be particularly logical.

Those aren't emotional reactions, really, however. All of that was an attempt to logically justify your position on these matters. But it's still not consistent. I don't have any problem with you being offended/offput by the inclusion of real religions in the game, but if you're going to start trying to rationalize that feeling, you'd better expect people to point out how irrational it is to have such inconsistent views of the other morally questionable actions in the game.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by GeoModder
And for some reason you fail to "abstract" religion while you're perfectly capable of doing so for other features in the game.

If I have to (as I presumably will in Apolyton University games and if I play Civ 4 CivFanatics GOTMs), I can do the necessary abstracting. But the abstracting is easier and feels more comfortable and natural if the names of the abstracted religions are not names of real-world religions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GeoModder
And for some reason you fail to "abstract" religion while you're perfectly capable of doing so for other features in the game.

Bingo. The rest can be easily abstracted, but religion can't? WTF?

Hell, the only thing Christianity in the game shares with the religion in the real world is the NAME.

[Stuie]

Well, nice to see a bunch of people dog-piling on nbarclay.

He was just looking for some alternative names for the various religions in Civ4 - who cares why. And yes, it may seem irrational to some people, but why attack his beliefs?

nbarclay- I hope you didn't take my first post in this thread as any sort of an attack; I seriously am an atheist and was just presenting my view of how religions are implemented and the problem I have with the implementation (and I actually provided a suggestion for one or two of your re-named religions as well unlike a lot of the posters in this thread).

Maybe this thread needs to be put to bed now and once the game is out there can be a civil discussion of how to change various aspects of the game (including the religions).

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Verenti

And Mr. Nbarclay (Or would you rather N Barclay?) it does seem a touch unreasonable to conclude yourself as a man of reason and faith on page 2 and then now to defend yourself as an emotional being, which is not bound by reasonable thought on page 4. Truely, We are all often thrown to the whims of emotionalism, but unless we act reasonably in a manner which is fair and just to the public on which we expose ourselves to...which doesn't share our views then the chances of strong reaction is great and the chance productive co-existance is severely slimmed.

This is where Vulcans on Star Trek miss an extremely important aspect of logic that is essential to understanding human beings. Vulcans have the right idea to the extent that there are times when it is important to set emotion aside and do what is right or necessary or will result in the greatest good whether that course of action is emotionally appealing or not. But for human beings, especially where entertainment is concerned, our emotional responses to different choices are often an integral part of evaluating which choice is most logical. After all, where is the logic in making a choice that will make us less happy when another choice is just as good from a practical perspective but will make us happier?

Changing the names of the religions is like playing with alternative tile graphics: a cosmetic change that can make the game more enjoyable to some players (or at least to me) but that has no impact on gameplay. Where is the logic in not making the change if making such a change makes the game more enjoyable?

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Stuie
He was just looking for some alternative names for the various religions in Civ4 - who cares why. And yes, it may seem irrational to some people, but why attack his beliefs?

And I "helped" with both the main issues which came up by the thread starter.

I can speak only for myself here, so needless to say that personally I didn't "attack" his beliefs. Only stated my information in reponse to his.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Verenti


I think Mr. (Oscar) Wilde put it best (in The Soul of Man under Socialism):

"If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism."

And Mr. Nbarclay (Or would you rather N Barclay?) it does seem a touch unreasonable to conclude yourself as a man of reason and faith on page 2 and then now to defend yourself as an emotional being, which is not bound by reasonable thought on page 4. Truely, We are all often thrown to the whims of emotionalism, but unless we act reasonably in a manner which is fair and just to the public on which we expose ourselves to(Please. Everyone keep every part of your beings out of the gutter.) which doesn't share our views then the chances of strong reaction is great and the chance productive co-existance is severely slimmed.

Verenti - you make me proud that we share a nation, to say nothing of common set of values.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Stuie
Well, nice to see a bunch of people dog-piling on nbarclay.

He was just looking for some alternative names for the various religions in Civ4 - who cares why. And yes, it may seem irrational to some people, but why attack his beliefs?

nbarclay- I hope you didn't take my first post in this thread as any sort of an attack; I seriously am an atheist and was just presenting my view of how religions are implemented and the problem I have with the implementation (and I actually provided a suggestion for one or two of your re-named religions as well unlike a lot of the posters in this thread).

Maybe this thread needs to be put to bed now and once the game is out there can be a civil discussion of how to change various aspects of the game (including the religions).

Stuie - agreed. Nathan, I also suggested a religion, so it would be nice if you could compile the suggestions to-date, and say which ones you like. That was the intent of this thread in the first instance. The philosphical debate is just an added bonus.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Well, the way I see it, you've been trying to explain your reactions via reason, not emotion. Once you dipped your toes into that water, consistency should become a natural consequence. Otherwise, it would be best just to leave it at not trying to justify the way you feel. If you want to admit your feelings aren't rational, fine--that's what people have been trying to point out.

There is a middle ground in between logical consistency and irrationality. In that middle ground, we can make one choice based on one line of logic in one situation and make a different choice based on a different line of logic in another, very similar situation without bothering to try to figure out exactly why we made different choices in the different situations. Indeed, the different choices may be driven by something as simple as having different lines of logic pop into our heads first on different occasions.

Emotions often fall within that middle ground. There are often logical reasons that can contribute to understanding why we feel different ways in different situations, but the factors involved are often too complex and subjective to pin down a pattern that is completely logically consistent.

This is so wrongheaded it's not funny. The primary evil of slavery is that is forcing people to live/work/reproduce in a matter that is against their will. Take away all those specific evils you mentioned, and slavery is still evil. The Mel Gibson view of slavery given in The Patriot is laughably thoughtless and actually quite offensive. "Nice" slavery is still slavery, and evil at its root.

You obviously missed my words, "Do I exercise more control over their lives than I do over other workers' lives? No." The reality is that neither home-grown workers nor slaves in Civ 3 have a will of their own, so there is no particular reason for concern about forcing them to do things against their will. Slaves in Civ 3 aren't different enough from regular workers to stir up a moral conflict in me.

As for where the primary evil of slavery lies, I don't quite agree with you. There are three basic reasons to force someone else to do something.

1) Because it's necessary for the other person's good, as in forcing children to go to school whether they want to or not.

2) Because the person being forced is unwilling to accept a fair amount of responsibility for taking care of himself or herself voluntarily, as in requiring children to do a reasonable share of chores.

3) In order to give the person doing the forcing an unfair advantage at the expense of the person being forced.

I do not regard the first two types of situations as fundamentally evil. They can degenerate into evil in practice when the amount of control exercised goes beyond what is necessary or reasonable, but they can also be the best option for dealing with situations where no perfect answer exists. I regard that as true not only in the case of children, but also potentially in the case of adults who prove incapable of exercising adult responsibility.

In contrast, the third reason is morally indefensible. Even if the slaves are treated relatively well, that merely reduces the harm and does not eliminate it.

The kind of race-based slavery that existed in early America (among other places) fell squarely within the third category. There is no other plausible explanation for kidnapping people from another continent (or paying others to kidnap them), transporting them across an ocean under almost unimaginably horrible conditions, and making them slaves.

But slavery in the ancient world was often a much more complex issue. In some cases, if functioned as a way for people to survive when no one was generous enough to help them out without expecting something in return and servitude was all they could offer in return. In other cases, it provided a reason to allow conquered people to live instead of killing them. The situation wasn't always one of kidnapping people for the sole purpose of enslaving them.

Further, in societies where slavery was allowed, good people who weren't self-sacrificing enough to expend wealth buying slaves in order to set them free might buy slaves on the theory that they would treat the slaves better than other masters would. In that case, the decision would be made not just on a basis of what is most profitible for the master but also with a lot of consideration to what is best for the slaves.

All in all, the issue is more complex than most modern people give it credit for being.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Beta


Stuie - agreed. Nathan, I also suggested a religion, so it would be nice if you could compile the suggestions to-date, and say which ones you like. That was the intent of this thread in the first instance. The philosphical debate is just an added bonus.

I've pretty much decided to go with the list I came up with earlier (Firaxianism, Apolytonism, and so forth), or with a variant of that list.

[Dominae]

All the Religions in CIV are identical in their effect on gameplay, with the exception: some appear earlier and some later.

These "effects" are, how can I say, spiritually neutral: they're only related to what happens when people believe in such and such a Religion, whether or not the object of their belief exists or not. The types of things I'm talking about are happiness, cultural works (art, etc.) various monuments.

It's impossible to deny that, even though you may believe, say, Islam to be "wrong", nonetheless the belief in Islam (well founded or not) has had profound effects on humanity. In CIV, like I said, these "effects" are all the same (something which is highly unrealistic in and of itself, but I digress).

So maybe this explains the reaction of posters in this forum who do not understand why you find the label and icon of Islam (or Hinduism, etc.) offensive, while the labels and icons of other things (like Stalin, or slavery, or war) unoffensive. Why do some icons have more representational power to you than others, and why those?

I guess the fundamental issue is that you know you will dislike to "use" the "power" of the belief in, say, Islam, to lead your "people" to "glory" in a computer game. And as you said, that's an emotional reaction that no one is entitled to criticize you for. Mod away!

If this is the worst of the religious "backlash" we're going to get from CIV, I think Firaxis has done a fine job.

[Blake]

I am so going to use Aislam as a religion. And I don't mean to make fun of Islam it's just AIs fits with Islam so well. And Aiism looks stupid.

Taking religions seriously offends my religious beliefs.

Discordianism; because religions should be silly!
--- me.


Okay more fictional religions:

Smacism (priests are known as Transcendi) - the belief that humanities destiny is amoungst the stars; that life (in Civ) is really like a pre-life.

Modism - the belief that there are multiple, equally valid realities, that the nature of reality is not fixed but is at the whim of the all-powerful gods.

Vatism - the belief that reality is a deception; that you could be a brain in a vat tricked into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

It's impossible to deny that, even though you may believe, say, Islam to be "wrong", nonetheless the belief in Islam (well founded or not) has had profound effects on humanity. In CIV, like I said, these "effects" are all the same (something which is highly unrealistic in and of itself, but I digress).

So maybe this explains the reaction of posters in this forum who do not understand why you find the label and icon of Islam (or Hinduism, etc.) offensive, while the labels and icons of other things (like Stalin, or slavery, or war) unoffensive. Why do some icons have more representational power to you than others, and why those?

It's not so much a matter of things being offensive to me, but rather me feeling like it's less respectful toward God than I prefer to be. Taking Christianity, where God's Son gave His life for our eternal salvation, and turning it into something purely secular that is interchangeable with any other religion, makes me feel less than entirely comfortable even when I know I'm just doing it in a game. Removing the labels of Christianity and its competitors adds some distance, making it clearer that religion in the game has little to do with real-world religion - especially where the spiritual dimension is concerned.

I don't mind beating up America in the game because while I love my country, I recognize that the "America" in the game is not my America. Further, as much as I care about America, I do not view it as something so holy as to raise questions about the propriety of borrowing its name for a fictional counterpart that is clearly is not really America. But because I believe God and Christ are holy, I don't like the idea of taking the label Christianity and attaching it to something that has little to do with real Christianity and that is defined in the game universe as being no more holy or special than any other religion.

I know I keep explaining this in different ways. It's hard to sort out the thoughts that underlie my feelings well enough to explain them, and to figure out how to put them into words. But basically, it comes down to God's greatness and holiness causing me to prefer not to include religion in a game unless it's so abstracted that it doesn't feel to me like it has anything to do with God. Keeping the names of real-world religions gets in the way of that in my mind.

[Nikolai]

I understand you nbarclay. I have had similar thoughts. And while I have come to a different conclusion, I think it's important that you do what you think is right. God sees to what's in our hearts and whether or not we follow that. I say do what you feel is right mate.

[Senethro]

Some people take themselves too seriously.