Animalism/tribalism/else: religion from the start?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by TechWins
Maniac, religion would be evolutionary from the view of it being used as a tool to control the masses -- sociologically and psychologically. But rather from the pure religious view, religion is not evolutionary. Polytheism is not a better suited form of religion over animism just as monotheism is not a better suited form of religion over polytheism.

From a pure moral-relativist point of view no religion is better than any other. However as you say from a sociological point of view some religions are better suited for complex civilizations. And since this game is called Civilization...

Also, those listings you provide fit more squarely with Western monotheistic (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) religions than the Eastern religions you mentioned. The Eight Fold Path in Buddhism is not the road to enlightenment for everyone but just so happened to be Siddhartha's road to enlightenment. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are closer to guidances than they are strict rulings of religion, such as Christianity may be.

While I know about the theoretical aspects of these religions, I know little how they worked in reality during history. I know enough though that every religion - both western and eastern - had both more tolerant but also dogmatic periods and branches during their history. Theravada for Buddhism to continue on the Buddhist example. And I know those four characteristics I mentioned can't be applied to every religion perfectly. That's why I said they all had them "to a certain degree". While Buddism may be less dogmatic than average, the claim to universality, the aspects of revelation (Siddharta) and salvation (enlightenment, incarnation...) certainly do apply to it.

[Nikolai]

While it would be nice for realism, as there are no bonuses and penalties for religions, a global starting religion as tribalism wouldn't add anything of worth. It would make the same use, and be easier for Firaxis, just to have "no" religion to start with.

[Kuciwalker]

It'd be simplest to have it the "default" religion a la Survival values in SMAC.

[Terra Nullius]

dear maniac

now, don't get upset, but i disagree with just about everything you said,..

Originally posted by Maniac
While religion or at least moral systems have always been present in human society

this is pure speculation

the earliest available evidence of religious belief is the practice of burial. this did not occur until sometime after the first humans came along. even then, "ceremonial burial" is not conclusive evidence of any kind of religion. it does appear to suggest some form of metaphysical awareness, but it's only an educated guess at best.

The religions were also very localized. One tribe could have their own gods to worship, while a tribe a few kilometers further could have a set of others.

now you're getting confused with paganism - a practice of honouring the local 'god of place'

furthermore, your assertion is unfounded. there is evidence that early religious practices showed significant uniformity across whole continents. clay "goddess" figurines have been found scattered over vast distances. again, this is not evidence of religious practice - they might have just been stone age barbie dolls.

This didn't cause problems. It was considered normal for everyone to have their own different gods.

ho hum...

... in the first millennium BC ...large empires started forming. In that setting of increasing complexity and interaction, the tribal beliefs no longer succeed(ed)

i dunno, tribal beliefs still work pretty well in india, circa 2000 ad

you're also neglecting the possibility that more efficient communications and greater geographical transfer of peoples facilitated new and deeper interactions between representatives of diverse faiths.

streamlining behaviour of all the ... different peoples in the empires.

that just sounds like silly polemic based on your own prejudices

Claim to universality

nope, come to think of it, christianity is the only one with such a claim.
judaism - "thou shall have no other god before me"
this is by no means conclusive, but it does suggest the existence, or at least the possibility of "other gods."
it does not say "everyone else is wrong." it just says, "if you worship me, it's gotta be me and only me"

greeks - so many damn gods, there's a new one born every time the pantheon gets horny

romans - tolerated the presence of many other faiths until the adoption of christianity. the only requirement was that the 'god of the emperor' be given due consideration.

islam - does not deny the existence or relevance of judaism or christianity. some evidence that other faiths were tolerated, but i'm no scholar of islamicism so i'll leave the details for anyone who might know better.

buddhism, taoism, confucianism - no evidence of any claim to be the unique source of truth. one can be a perfectly good buddhist and a perfectly good pagan/ christian / jew at the same time

christianity includes a belief that "i am the way, the truth, and the light. no man comes to the father except through me." does this really mean "if you're not christian you're bound for damnation???
i could go on about the semantics of this 'til kingdom come.

Revelation: "These truths are given to me, ... by God."...This gave the prophet's words a higher authority than those of a tribal religion.

i dunno. revelation is a pretty old tradition, also in use amongst tribal religions. the oracle's words were also taken pretty seriously at the time.

there really is no reason to suppose that people will automatically accept and obey every bloke who shows up and says "hey, i just got an sms from the big guy."

if anything, it suggests to me that people are quite accustomed to hearing news of "revelations" and making their own judgement about the worth of such claims.

Dogmatism: As said above, if the words come from God, you can't change them anymore after writing them down. Opposed to mythology, which was flexible.

again, this only applies to christianity, islam and some judaic sects.

the first page of the tao te ching states
the word that can be spoken is not the true word

i would agree that the development of writing significantly affected the reach and transferability of certain doctrines

Salvation: "Man is in a sad situation here on Earth. However by joining our One True Religion^TM, you can escape from this misery!

well, there's nothing new about this one. i don't see how you draw a distinction between archaic religion and the other listed religions in this respect.

anyway, most of the religions you have listed make no promise of "salvation" again, you are simply trying to generalise a christian concept.

So ...I'd say it's pretty realistic ... that everything that comes before those world religions...is simply represented as the initial starting condition 4000 BC without any benefits.

well you start off having to research ceremonial burial, which is the earliest 'religious' practice identified so far. therefore, i am inclined to disagree once again.

in terms of history, we simply do not know whether the earliest humans had any sense of metaphysics whatsoever. on the other hand, humans already practiced ceremonial burial by the time they found out about irrigation.

all done. no hard feelings??

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Maniac
as you say from a sociological point of view some religions are better suited for complex civilizations. And since this game is called Civilization...

now you're talkin' !!!

"the people are by nature fickle. it is easy to persuade them of something, but difficult to secure them in that conviction. for this reason it is worthwhile being organised in such a way that when people no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force"
niccolo machiavelli

[curtsibling]

While Bananalism is tempting, I hope there is a pagan option from the get go.

[Kuciwalker]

Maniac, though, there's no way any religion-specific bonuses will get in, even for something as general as "more universalist" or whatever. It's too controversial.

[Addled Platypus]

so we pick/build a church/religon and that is it

no happiness no nothing, just pay the cost to upkeep?

[Addled Platypus]

its been found that even the late Neaderthals burried their loved ones

who is to say when human understanding of death started

[Terra Nullius]

happy to improve your understanding any old time, plattie...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
so we pick/build a church/religon and that is it

no happiness no nothing, just pay the cost to upkeep?

All religious buildings may give happiness bonuses, but nothing religion-specific.

[Addled Platypus]

not evem the Mormons %15 tithe?


This ole dog still learn'n

[TechWins]

Originally posted by lebensraum
the earliest available evidence of religious belief is the practice of burial. this did not occur until sometime after the first humans came along. even then, "ceremonial burial" is not conclusive evidence of any kind of religion. it does appear to suggest some form of metaphysical awareness, but it's only an educated guess at best.

To help support Maniac, maybe you are misinterpretting what he meant by human society? When Maniac says society I would happen to believe he/she (?) means when civilizations began to develop, not just Neathandrals and the like.

Originally posted by lebensraum
nope, come to think of it, christianity is the only one with such a claim.

This is what I was trying to iterate in my previous post to Maniac but I did not explain in length. Christianity and moreso to the Western monotheistic religions are universal as opposed to Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism.

again, this only applies to christianity, islam and some judaic sects.

I would say it maybe relates to the powers in place through those religions as opposed to the religion itself. Not to say the religion doesn't promote dogmatic ways, but I think the churches themselves are the ones who have provided the inornamate amount of dogmatism.

anyway, most of the religions you have listed make no promise of "salvation" again, you are simply trying to generalise a christian concept.

What I attempted to say as well in previous post. The terms used to categorize several different religions were more generic Christian concepts.

well you start off having to research ceremonial burial, which is the earliest 'religious' practice identified so far. therefore, i am inclined to disagree once again.

I agree. Dubbing animism as the intial religion for every Civ at the beginning of the game would of course contradict the historical accuracy and be completely negligible. From the various American tribes that formed well after the rise of the major Western religions there are certainly new findings of animistic religion. Religion is continously changing but that does not imply it is an evolutionary process.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Maniac


From a pure moral-relativist point of view no religion is better than any other. However as you say from a sociological point of view some religions are better suited for complex civilizations. And since this game is called Civilization...

I should have said: "Maniac, religion could (not would) be evolutionary from the view of it being used as a tool to control the masses -- sociologically and psychologically." Following that, because a religion may be more useful for controlling the masses certainly does not mean it is better suited for complex civilizations. The Mayans and Incans both had very complex civilizations; forms of animism worked out perfectly fine for them and their great empires would be here today were it not for the advent of gunpowder. Although the fatalistic (Stoic) beliefs of the Romans of course helped them build their mighty empire. Religion, while it can be used against the people as can be seen throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, in essence helps shape a society to what it is, so it's difficult to say any religion is suited for a complex civilization. Then comes the question of what makes a civilization complex? (j/k about the last sentence...).

While I know about the theoretical aspects of these religions, I know little how they worked in reality during history. I know enough though that every religion - both western and eastern - had both more tolerant but also dogmatic periods and branches during their history. Theravada for Buddhism to continue on the Buddhist example. And I know those four characteristics I mentioned can't be applied to every religion perfectly. That's why I said they all had them "to a certain degree". While Buddism may be less dogmatic than average, the claim to universality, the aspects of revelation (Siddharta) and salvation (enlightenment, incarnation...) certainly do apply to it.

Were those dogmatic periods due to religion or other outside factors? It's also easier to note that the dogmatic period of Europe was partly, or mostly, caused by Christianity considering that was the stingent religion throughout Europe. Whereas China had several different religious influences floating throughout their empire, so it's hard to say if one specific religion caused any sort of dogmatic period there.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by lebensraum
dear maniac

now, don't get upset, but i disagree with just about everything you said,..
...
all done. no hard feelings??

Actually I don't really understand what's the point you want to make. You seem to say some things that seem contradictory to me.

Also I don't know all the answers to what you say. Basically I was just repeating in short what I had been taught in university during history of philosophy classes. If you disagree with what I say, go argue with my professor. j/k

Anyway, some things that I can respond to:

this is pure speculation

the earliest available evidence of religious belief is the practice of burial. this did not occur until sometime after the first humans came along. even then, "ceremonial burial" is not conclusive evidence of any kind of religion. it does appear to suggest some form of metaphysical awareness, but it's only an educated guess at best.

This all depends on the definition of religion. Because I know the definition can be discussed, I said: "While religion or at least moral systems have always been present in human society..." I guess humans, while not having some organized religious system, would always have had some basic moral values (which don't have to be metaphysical as far as I can see ).

now you're getting confused with paganism - a practice of honouring the local 'god of place'

I don't understand what you're saying? What am I confusing with paganism?

furthermore, your assertion is unfounded. there is evidence that early religious practices showed significant uniformity across whole continents. clay "goddess" figurines have been found scattered over vast distances. again, this is not evidence of religious practice - they might have just been stone age barbie dolls.

Again I'm not sure what you want to say here. Are you trying to prove that people worshipped the same gods from very early on, instead of each tribe worshipping their one?? If so, I don't see why everyone making similar clay "godess" figurines would mean those clay figures would represent the same gods. Just a similar human need that leads to similar ideas or art.

ho hum...

Could you elaborate what you mean by "ho hum"?
Do you deny that IIRC Egyptian or Indian cities all had their own god?

i dunno, tribal beliefs still work pretty well in india, circa 2000 ad

I agree Hinduism is the current world religion that has most kept its local-popular/tribal character. However (as far as I know at least - which is not that much) it's not like Hinduism is completely different in every region. But don't forget there are the Vedas. Common Hindu beliefs were written down, which let to a certain uniformization of the religion (or at that time - different but similar tribal beliefs). So Hinduism certainly can't be called a pure tribal religion. It stayed stuck somewhere between that and a universalist/salvation religion I guess. In any case, AFAIK from a sociological point of view it performed the same function in binding Hindu society as other religions elsewhere did, so IMO it certainly deserves to be included in the list of universalist world religions.

you're also neglecting the possibility that more efficient communications and greater geographical transfer of peoples facilitated new and deeper interactions between representatives of diverse faiths.

That's exactly my point. Because there were increasing and deeper interactions between people of different faiths within growing empires or between trading city states, it became more and more obvious to the people of that time that all those different tribal beliefs made no sense. Before there was less contact so it wasn't so much of an issue everyone believed something different. Ultimately this increased contact in the great civilized areas led to the current world religions.

For example the reason why some Greeks such as Thales of Milete (which IIRC was a priest of the traditional Greek religion which we all know from mythology) began pondering about nature philosophy and the quest for some "universal basic element" (water, air, or would it be fire??...) was because they were living in trade cities that had increasing contact with other people and beliefs. Making them realize their traditional local religions made little sense, and searching for something more universal.

that just sounds like silly polemic based on your own prejudices

What prejudices? I get the feeling you're attributing some thoughts to me that I do not have.

nope, come to think of it, christianity is the only one with such a claim.
judaism - "thou shall have no other god before me"
this is by no means conclusive, but it does suggest the existence, or at least the possibility of "other gods."
it does not say "everyone else is wrong." it just says, "if you worship me, it's gotta be me and only me"

greeks - so many damn gods, there's a new one born every time the pantheon gets horny

romans - tolerated the presence of many other faiths until the adoption of christianity. the only requirement was that the 'god of the emperor' be given due consideration.

islam - does not deny the existence or relevance of judaism or christianity. some evidence that other faiths were tolerated, but i'm no scholar of islamicism so i'll leave the details for anyone who might know better.

buddhism, taoism, confucianism - no evidence of any claim to be the unique source of truth. one can be a perfectly good buddhist and a perfectly good pagan/ christian / jew at the same time

christianity includes a belief that "i am the way, the truth, and the light. no man comes to the father except through me." does this really mean "if you're not christian you're bound for damnation???
i could go on about the semantics of this 'til kingdom come.

First, for the record, with the characteristic "claim to universality" I mainly mean that the beliefs of the religion are valid for all people, not just for local tribes that each worship a different god. As pointed out earlier, this aspect counts less for Hinduism, though they too had their periods of proselytism.

But to adress your points:

Judaism was at first (and partly still is I'd say) a local-tribal/popular belief existing right next to tribes with different gods, before it evolved to universalist monotheism. So the phrase you quote comes from their pre-universalist period.

The Greek and Roman mythological religions are perfect examples of pre-universalist local-popular religions. Which is why IMO it would be bull**** to include them in the list of religions alongside the current confirmed ones. (That's by the way the point I'm trying to make.)

Islam - IIRC they recognize Abraham and Jezus as prophets from the god all three religions worship. But Mohammed is the last prophet, and he has the latest correct version of Teh Truth straight from God. So muslim theory considers their faith more correct than christian or jewish IIRC.

again, this only applies to christianity, islam and some judaic sects.

the first page of the tao te ching states
the word that can be spoken is not the true word

Yet despite this promising start the book continues to make claims about the universe and how one should live in it. *cough¨hypocrits *cough*
I guess the dogmatic nature of western religions is beyond doubt. I don't understand why you wouldn't call the eastern ones dogmatic though.
Confucianism regulated many aspects of Chinese lives. Hinduism: while in some ways they are very un-dogmatic, in other words they are the opposite. If you don't call their caste system rigid and dogmatic, I don't know what is.

Buddhism - from Wikipedia:

Three months after the passing of Gautama Buddha, The First Council was held at Rajagaha by his immediate disciples who had attained Arahantship (Enlightenment). Maha Kassapa, the most respected and elderly monk, presided at the Council. Only two sections the Dhamma and the Vinaya were recited at the First Council. All Arahants unanimously agree that no disciplinary rule laid down by the Buddha should be changed, and no new ones should be introduced. At this point, no conflict about what the Buddha taught is known to have occurred, so the teachings were divided into various parts and each was assigned to an elder and his pupils to commit to memory. These groups of people often cross-checked with each other to ensure that no omissions or additions were made.

Seems pretty dogmatic to me.

well, there's nothing new about this one. i don't see how you draw a distinction between archaic religion and the other listed religions in this respect.

anyway, most of the religions you have listed make no promise of "salvation" again, you are simply trying to generalise a christian concept.

First you say there's nothing new about it; then you say only christianity has it.

In any case:
Christianity/Judaism/Islam: Heaven
Buddhism: Nirvana
Hinduism: free oneself from the cycle of rebirth
Just to give some examples that I can come up with right now.