Atheism and religion

[Datajack Franit]

no no no communism is political, religion is personal

[Boris Godunov]

No no.

Communism is social. Religion is political. Spirituality is personal.

[MxM]

I do not want to argue about terminology, it is a question of definitions, after all. I will say this:

Both religion and communism give moral values to a person. (most of those values are actually very close, but that beyond the point) And the moral values, that set of behavior rules, define the society. From the game point of view, it does not matter if it was Muhammad, who established Islamic government, or communists, who established USSR. The mechanics of those events are very similar, and can be incorporated into the game as the same thing.

[Xorbon]

Still, I would find it to be quite weird to have things like communism and atheism in the game as 'religions'. If you put them in the game you'd have communist temples, atheist holy cities, and other odd combinations. Maybe it could be done for a scenario or a mod with a different scope than normal civ, but I don't think 'ideologies' fit in the same category as religions even for game purposes.

[Tassadar500]

It's a moot point anyway, since Firaxis obviously didn't include Communism or Atheism.

[Terra Nullius]

@ xorbon & mxm: sorry, i'm at work and feeling brain dead. i'll get back to you soon. for now i'd better deal with molly. you know how she gets without her daily flame.

Originally posted by molly bloom
No, it doesn't.

yes, it does
yes, it does
yes, it does

The concept of theocracy was first coined by Josephus Flavius in the 1st century. He defined theocracy as the characteristic government for Jews. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him.

Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the enlightenment era, when the term started to collect more universalistic and undeniably negative connotations, especially in Hegel's hands. After that 'theocracy' has been mostly used to label certain politically unpopular societies as somehow less 'rational' or 'developed'. The concept is often used in sociology also, but rarely or never properly defined for objective scientific usage.

i really like your definition, moll. erudite, well composed, with a certain hint of ascetic civ-ness about it. best of all, it succeeds in neither refuting my argument, nor advancing your own!

no, really it's a lovely definition. by all means continue,..

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by MxM
You had a very good post, but the question is of definitions, and not about budism.

agreed.

the reason i spent so much time trying to explain some basics about buddhism is only that it represents a clearly defined cognitive model that is logically distinct from classical western thought.

from all the conflicting definitions we have come up with so far, it seems clear to me that we still have a lot of work to do in understanding our own cognitive assumptions and building a satisfactory framework for discussion.

imagine
you're looking for a book on, let's say current research about the big bang. you go to a library, check the catalogue to get an index number and walk over to the shelves.
but,.. the book you want is out on loan.
so you go to the next library, taking your index number with you. upon arriving, you rush over to the shelves and there it is... (172.9436-big) just sitting there waiting for you.
only problem is, (172.9436-big) is actually a book that deals with tropical fruit fetishism.
so you go to the next library. yes, they do have the book (172.9436-big)!
you take it out on loan, go home, make yourself a cuppa, put your feet up and start reading - all there is to know about plaster-of-paris and jimi hendrix.

what happened? simple, while the first library indexed their stock according to the dewey decimal system, the second used the hewey system and the third library was indexed according to the louie decimal system.

this is the sort of problem we have with definitions. any given definition or statement is only really applicable within it's own system of reference.

paradigms
for some time, western thought (imho) had the luxury of working from a single cognitive model, or paradigm. from aristotle to aquinas to newton, there was (at least roughly speaking) a single, coherent system of thought. this meant generally consistent definitions of terms, consistent logical principles and a general agreement about the nature of reality.

one of the major challenges to this situation was the discovery of relativistic phenomena within the physical sciences. for eg. consider the wave/particle behaviour of light - light behaves either as a wave or a particle depending on the situation. the only problem here is this:
a wave is precisely that which a particle is not, and vice versa. according to scholastic philosophy, a thing cannot be 'that-which-it-is' and 'that-which-it-is-not' at the same time.

other influences include the development of modern and post-modern philosophies, increasing levels of communication and integration with other traditions, erosion of the roman ecclesiastic hegemony.

nonetheless, the idea of a single, coherent and self-sufficient cognitive model, is a persistent theme. many physicists, for eg. still pursue the idea of a 'grand unified theory of everything.' there is no reason to assume that any such theory exists.

at this stage, what we have are multiple cognitive models. each one has it's limitations. no single paradigm has any conclusive claim to be 'right', or to prove another 'wrong.' we are very much in the habit of preferring one cognitive model over another. and we simply are not used to the idea that several competing, and contradictory ideas can all be equally 'right.'

for example, let's say a neurologist, a psychologist and a shaman are investigating the nature of 'mind' and cognition. each of these people has a vocabulary and a method appropriate to their chosen field. each may be able to shed light on the other's insights. however, none of them is in a position to question the other on their own terms. and the insights gained in one field may or may not be useful to the others.

the big questions at this stage are:
is there a single 'grand unified theory' that explains everything?
is it possible to combine multiple cognitive models into a single cohesive framework?
how do we proceed in a situation where no single paradigm can actually claim to represent a final, conclusive truth?

another question is - can we find a way to translate statements faithfully from one system of reference to another?

i don't have the answers to these questions. it would seem, in fact, that nobody does. that is what i find so exciting about the whole subject. we are at a stage in history where there is no unified, conclusive truth. we do not know if there ever will be. we don't know if there is any way to translate from one system to another.

as a community, we are about to be thrown in at the deep end with multiple concepts of religion, ideology and so on. civ4 will bring religious trash-talk, theological strategies, competing ideologies and so on. i know it's brain-bending sometimes, but i genuinely feel that the effort we put in now to better understand and define the territory will be time well spent.

anyhoo, thanks for your time, hope i haven't rabbitted on too much.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum


i really like your definition, moll. erudite, well composed, with a certain hint of ascetic civ-ness about it. best of all, it succeeds in neither refuting my argument, nor advancing your own!

no, really it's a lovely definition. by all means continue,..

Your definition of a theocracy simply ignores what a theocracy is au fond, in favour of your own personal interpretation which bears little resemblance either to the style of government of Soviet Russia under Lenin or Stalin or their successors, or for instance to modern day Iran.


I'm all in favour of individualism, but when it comes to ignoring the perfectly obvious, well....


Oh, and when you quote, attribute it, please.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Your definition of a theocracy Your definition of a theocracy simply ignores what a theocracy is au fond
...bears little resemblance either to the style of government of Soviet Russia under Lenin or Stalin or their successors.

your post simply ignores the fact that a theocracy, al fondo, isn't.

i thought i made that quite clear. no thing (a priori) is. :geddit:

a thing can only be said to be in the context of some metaphysical system

more importantly, you are neglecting the basic function of definitions in logic. there is no requirement for a definition to reflect reality.
if i define a horse to be
the set of all points in a plane at a fixed distance, from a fixed point
then it is logically true to say that
the circumference of a horse is equal to pi multiplied by the diameter of that horse
granted. i'm being somewhat obtuse here, but i feel it's a significant point, and one that most people seem to be missing.

i understand and acknowledge your definition, but there is no associated argument. what are your assumptions? what conclusion do you draw from the fact that you see a theocracy as "... ..."?

why do i consider my definition to be worthwhile?
1) in civ4 (as far as i understand), these is a slider with a number of positions ranging from 'secular' to theocratic.'
imo, that means the historical ussr is best modelled as 'theocratic.'

2) language and meaning evolves over time
(really moll, i'm the one telling you this?!!)
while theocracy may have implied a certain type of government at a certain time. the meaning of that term has evolved and can (imo) reasonably be applied to other forms of government, although such forms of government would not have satisfied the original definition of a 'theocratic' state.

3) in scolastic philosophy, god is that being in which there is identity between the potentiality and the act of existence. god is the first cause of being, from which all other being emanates.
given the assumption that god does not possess the act of existence, communism (as far as i understand) substitutes material good and the good of the state or party as representing the principal good of the individual.
to put it simply, material good, the state and the party take the place of god in such a society.
and as such, the party members do (according to this interpretation) represent a kind of preisthood.

actually, looking at this last point, you can see that the problem is not in the definition. i can just as easily argue "that the ussr was a theocratic state" using your definition.
the reason i use my definition here is simply that it makes that point more explicit.

i do not see an a priori distinction between a 'priesthood' - having the authority and power to act on behalf of god - and a 'political' party - having the (authority?) and power to act on behalf of any similar set of metaphysical principles.

i simply do not see the two as being logically distinct. of course, you can choose your own vocabulary to fabricate that distinction, but that does not constitute a logical argument or (to my mind) a satisfactory (cognitive model/ philosophical system/ paradigm (pick one)).

4) i've come to realise from these discussions that i place a very high value on the principle of religious freedom. quite frankly, i cannot find a terminology to deliver adequate scorn upon those persons and governments which are guilty of religious persecution.
(hmm, becoming quite emotional, must report soon to vulcan high command)

5) i do not consider belief in god to be a prerequisite to theocratic government.
as far as the ussr is concerned, you could have shot me down from the start with historical citations. i know only the vaguest generalisations about soviet history. the ussr was just a convenient and (ok i'll admit, inflammatory) analogy. china would be another good example, however, off the top of my head, i can already think of som possible logical arguments that would exclude china.

so, to sum up:
i'm happy enough to admit i was wrong about soviet history if you are able to demonstrate that, but that's not the point.
definitions, by their nature are never 'right' or 'wrong.' They are a tool which allows objective argument to take place.

Originally posted by teh googlemeister
Oh, and when you quote, attribute it, please.

what quote?

i just made that bit up!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum


your post simply ignores the fact that a theocracy, al fondo, isn't.

i thought i made that quite clear. no thing (a priori) is. :geddit:

a thing can only be said to be in the context of some metaphysical system

We aren't discussing abstract philosophical speculations, or at least I wasn't.

I had believed we were discussing a particular state and political system that grew out of a specific set of circumstances in the 19th and 20th Centuries.


You can imagine that the U.S.S.R. was a 'theocracy' according to the way you choose to define a 'theocracy' which is unlike the way anyone else I have ever met has defined it, and completely unlike the way anyone I have ever read has defined one.


In a theocracy (whichever one you care to pick from history- I'm fondest of the Scottish Covenanters, Calvin's Geneva, the Puritan colonies in North America and Cromwell's commonwealth) god or gods are deemed the sovereign power, and the laws of the realm are regarded as divinely inspired rather than being human created ordinances- an easy matter when you have a Calvinist elect self-assured of their 'divine' inspiration or when in another state, the Caliph or Imam is rightly guided.

In this case the priesthood, or elders, or priestking become the officers of the invisible ruler.

language and meaning evolves over time (really moll, i'm the one telling you this?!!)

lebensraum


Don't flatter yourself- as far as I know the 'meaning' of theocracy is still derived from the Greek, theokratia-via krateein- to rule.

It hasn't, like the original meanings of 'nice' or 'presently' or 'naughty', altered over time through usage or suddenly jumped ship to mean the system of government of the Soviet Union under Lenin, Stalin or their successors.

Nice try, but like Dr. Johnson, I refute it, thus.

[Xorbon]

Damn! Things have gotten too philosophical around here! I'm used to dealing with concrete facts, not philosophical abstractions. I'm outta here! (For now...)

To quote someone I heard recently, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

[Soltz]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Hm lets see:
"Lets build a giant Statue of Stalin or our great leader will be unhappy"

I'm surprised that no one in this discussion mentioned Lenin's tomb which from what I understand is a very popular pilgrimage location for Russians.

This comes quite close to what some could consider to be a religious practice.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Xorbon
I'm outta here!
To quote someone I heard recently, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Don't think of retiring from the world until the world will be sorry that you retire. I hate a fellow whom pride or cowardice or laziness drives into a corner, and who does nothing when he is there but sit and growl. Let him come out as I do, and bark.
Samuel Johnson

and anyway, i thought you gave up a page ago!

now get gone. before someone 'round here gets a baptizin' !!

[Terra Nullius]

geez moll! tell me, do you and vmxa 1 get together every couple of years for a crotchety-old-bugger competition or what?

we were discussing the representation of atheism within civ4. at least that's what this thread is about. this also developed into a discussion about how ideological conflicts such as the cold war could be modelled.

since no-one seems to have understood what i'm on about, i'll restate it.

there is simply no vocabulary able to describe religion within the scope of civ4. there is no single cognitive model available which can faithfully represent all the observed phenomena.

why is this a problem?
1. almost any statement we make, although it may be true in the context of one system, can be shown to be false, or at least irrelevant in the context of a different system.
2. because of (1), no true statement can be made except by prefacing it "according to (christianity/buddhism/...etc)." this makes discussion heavy and cumbersome.
3. people get very emotional about the most unexpected things. if we intend to discuss that which is sacred, it's helpful to know what can be said without p_ing people off.

the whole theocracy definition is a good example. you can go ahead and turn yourself blue in the face citing all the most authoritative sources. but the moment i change paradigms, your whole argument goes up in smoke. we can argue the point as scholastics, post-moderns, taoists, animists and so on. every time you state something which is true in one context i only have to change context to show that your argument is a steaming pile of pou.

maybe it'll help if a paint you a picture. let's say, just for kicks, that there does exist a single paradigm.
imagine we are looking at a solar system where each religion is represented by a different planet.

for civ4, that gives us seven planets.

since civ3 included techs such as ceremonial burial, mysticism and polytheism, it's a fair guess to say that civ4 will follow a similar pattern. that means other faiths such as animism and paganism also fall within the scope, although they will not be amongst the magniloquent seven.

would the 'primitive' religions then best be represented by planets, asteroids, comets, other?

where does atheism fit in?
is it a planet? personally, i don't think so. at least two of these planets (buddhism & taoism) are arguably atheist, and neither of them has much in common with 'european' atheism.
if it is not represented by a planet, like the 'other' religions, what is it? is it like a shared atmosphere, an asteroid belt, or something altogether different?

is there a sun?
if so does the sun represent 'god'?
if the system has just one sun, why is it seen differently from different planets?

the really significant question to my mind is this.
is there a single set of logical principles which can be applied throughout the scope?

in our imagined solar system, this equates to saying "does the same set of physical laws apply everywhere?"

again, i don't think so. we know that different religions in fact operate according to different logical principles. if anything, i envision something like the classical vs. relativistic physics paradigm.
in other words, i would expect that, in their relation to one another, the planets would behave according to one set of principles (like normal objects obeying the laws of classical physics). however, on any given planet a different set of principles would apply (like sub-atomic particles obeying a completely different set of rules).
hmm, maybe that's too complicated to start with.
basically, the question is..
is there a single set of logical principles that apply equally to all the planets, or does each planet behave according to its own, unique standards.

to put it another way, is it possible, like the child in kubrick's 2001, to stand outside of any particular system and observe them all with equanimity.

this seems to be where we disagree. you, along with many others, seem to be assuming that you have already achieved that perspective.

i actually do not think that such a perspective is possible. or at best, it is only achieved through tremendous effort and even then perhaps only fleetingly. i do not think that any such simple perspective is likely to reflect truth and i am much more comfortable with acknowledging that my perceptions are jagged, inaccurate, conflicting and inconclusive.

as i see it, we stand with our feet firmly planted on the soil of one or another planet of our own choosing. we observe the goings-on of distant planets only as through a telescope (built of the cognitive assumptions and logic of our native planet).

in other words; one, single, self-sufficient paradigm is either impossible or unlikely. only by admitting the co-existence of multiple paradigms can we hope to approach anything close to truth.

well that's about it. i don't think my 'solar system' model is actually very useful generally speaking, but if it serves to illustrate the problem, then it has done the job for now.

i respect your opinion. your knowledge and skills in language, etymology, history and research are one of poly's great assets. what i am asking you to do is step outside of your familiar paradigm. firstly, to go beyond the confines of 'language' and look to the basic rules of classical logic. secondly, to leave behind the principles of that logic also, and step into a (uni)verse which is as yet vague and unexplored.

now, as far as the theocracy thing goes;
1. as stated, even with your definition, i feel that an argument can still be made that the ussr was theocratic, that the party represented surrogate priesthood and that communism represented a form of de-facto religion. i have no great interest in making such an argument, but i do not think it would be completely without foundation.
2. i'd be happy to flatter hatsheput instead, but there's been no sign of her in this thread.
3. in the context of civ4 and 'poly forums, my definition is more practical.
still disagree? fine. if, within six months of civ4's release, people are not using the term 'theocracy' along the lines of what i have defined, i promise to eat at least part of samuel johnson.
(nb. offer only applies on the assumption that mg sends me a free copy of the game and a machine capable of running it!)

but, if you feel the need to discuss it further, by all means start up a new thread. i'll come on over and see if i can't tear you a brand spanker.

lastly, like homer i paraphraseth:
"oh molly, it doesn't have to make sense."

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Soltz
I'm surprised that no one in this discussion mentioned Lenin's tomb which from what I understand is a very popular pilgrimage location for Russians.

This comes quite close to what some could consider to be a religious practice.

doesn't satisfy the burden of proof for me, personally.

from a buddhist perspective, i'd say that without first knowing the (heart/mind) intent which directed the act, there is no cause for drawing a conclusion.

from a more western perspective, i would agree that it points to some kind of underlying spiritual belief. but it looks more like an act of individual preference/respect rather than a formal religious practice.

from a (i guess) sociological perspective i would suggest that it doesn't really say much on it's own. maybe they are basically just tourists, curious to see what's there. you would have to show that there was some specific appeal to spiritual values before coming to a positive conclusion.

for me, an act such as laying a wreath comes closer to what might be classified as religious practice. even then, it probably says more about the individuals who choose to perform that act. i don't know that it really says anything much about the party per se.

i dunno, you could be onto something, but i don't see it as conclusive in itself. heck, i know i'm a big fan of hanging around at grave-sites, but that's just 'cos i like the company.