Atheism and religion

[MxM]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The United States is not a "secular democracy" at all. Trying to define a free society by looking only at the actions of its government misses an enormous part of the nation's character. The fact that we confine our government to power only over secular matters in no sense implies that the nation as a whole is secular.

I strongly disagree with you here. Secular government does not imply at all that it is secular society. I consider Saddam's Iraq government (before the war) as secular. Can you say that Iraq itself is secular? Hell no! As I read your text that implication is the only real objection to call our government secular. Hence if you break this linkage, then you do not have any other real objections.

Think about this way. It is quite possible that the government has one official policy (even official religion) and the population has another.

However, I would argue that we here in US have a secular society. This is because most of us respect others religions and do not force their view on others. As oppose for some other countries were some particular religious views are enforced not only by law, but by people themselves.

Secular society does not equal to atheistic society.

Originally posted by nbarclay
Even our government can legitimately be viewed as secular only in the passive sense of having no power over religious matters, not in an active sense of being allowed or expected to actively promote secular viewpoints over competing religious viewpoints.

And that is why I want to have atheistic government in addition to secular. By definition, secular does not promote religion (or it's absence) at all, it just exists "in parallel" to it. To the contrary, the atheistic government would promote atheism, and religious government would promote religion.

Originally posted by nbarclay
I get extremely irritated when I see people try to claim that our government is secular because in my experience, people who use such a choice of wording almost invariably seem to have an active desire to use government power in ways that advance views that devalue religion at the expense of competing religious views.

And I get irritated when people get irritated instead of discussing the issue itself. I also get irritated when people make a conclusion about everyone, who uses some particular word, because some other people used the same word in some particular way. That is called discrimination, sir.

Originally posted by nbarclay
... Madison's and Jefferson's arguments that a major goal of religious freedom is to protect religion against government meddling.

But this is exactly what secular democratic government means. Or do you know better word?

Originally posted by nbarclay
In Civ 4 terms as I understand them, the United States is a nation with religious freedom where a large majority of the population is Christian but where significant religious minorities are scattered throughout the civilization (as opposed to existing essentially only in certain conquered cities). If my understanding of the game's religion model is accurate, nothing beyond that is needed to characterize the United States in regard to religious matters.

Even if you are right here, the original discussion was not about US, put about USSR, and similar countries and atheism.

Originally posted by nbarclay
As I understand it, the roots of modern science are found not in atheism but in the belief that God created a universe that normally operates according to orderly principles.

I have no idea what are you talking about. Do you mean "roots" as in "historically", because otherwise I have not seen the principle you have mentioned in any physics or mathematical or engineering book (I am scientist by education and profession)

Originally posted by nbarclay
In essence, the view is of God as a "watch-maker" who created the "watch," set it in motion, and at least normally allows it to operate according to the dictates of the principles built into it. That's not to say that the "watch-maker" can't ever reach in and reset this or that if He so desires, much as I can use my watch's reset buttons to circumvent its normal operation if I so choose. But if God does intervene, He does so rarely enough that predictions based on an expectation that the universe will follow natural laws are highly reliable.

What you are saying here has nothing to do with science itself, these are believes of some people.

Originally posted by nbarclay
The idea of a science bonus tied specifically to atheism would be highly offensive to those of us who hold the "watch-maker" view of the relationship between God and science.

Through the history, many times there were conflicts between science and religion. And quite often religious view were suppressing the science development. (Modern example - embryonic cell research, cloning and so on. I can give you many other historical examples as well). In this sense atheism does provide boost to science. Also, again, looking at USSR, the country that has huge losses in both world wars, and during revolution, that country being much weaker economically and technologically, was able to be at the level if not above in many theoretical sciences, such as physics, mathematics, etc. And that I think is directly related to the type of government they had. Religion is something what you take "on believe" and in sciences you do not do that. It is just very different approach. I think that vast majority of scientists are not religious.

Plus, being religious, and believe in God are two different things.

Originally posted by nbarclay
I don't think that's a hornet's nest Firaxis wants to stir up. At least I certainly hope they don't stir it up, because I would have serious misgivings about buying a game that promotes a viewpoint that is so directly and deliberately opposed to my beliefs.

Seeing your reaction, I think that you may be right. But you have to put some effects of religion/atheism, otherwise what's the point of putting it there? May be in the age of political correctness we have to avoid introducing difference between different religions/ideologies, but then the gameplay would suffer.

Originally posted by nbarclay
The hornet's nest that Firaxis would stir up if it tried to assign specific benefits to particular religions would probably be even bigger. In effect, Firaxis would be putting itself in a position of passing judgment over religions, and would thus anger people who object to Firaxis's judgment regarding their religion.

The situation is further complicated by the enormous variations within each religion, both over time and between factions within the religion. Consider the difference between the brand of Christianity that launched the Crusades and the brand that launched religious freedom through the view that God wants willing converts rather than people compelled or coerced by law. No single concept of advantages and disadvantages to Christianity could even begin to cover both of those extremely different variants of the religion. And except as part of a scenario specifically recreating medieval Europe, I certainly would not want my "Christian" civilization in the game to be forced to embrace a medieval version of Christianity that I regard as a major perversion of Christ's teachings and intent.

I hear you. That's the problem we are facing here. Try to more accurately describe what are those religions/ideologies are about and model it accurately in the game and have fun gameplay, or make "politically correct" game with less game options, but with the goal of pleasing everyone. Unfortunately for gameplay, I think the second option is what will happen.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by MxM
Think about this way. It is quite possible that the government has one official policy (even official religion) and the population has another.

The thing is that the United States government is supposed to have no official policy regarding religion other than that religious matters are up to individual citizens and are something government must try not to interfere in.

However, I would argue that we here in US have a secular society. This is because most of us respect others religions and do not force their view on others. As oppose for some other countries were some particular religious views are enforced not only by law, but by people themselves

Secular society does not equal to atheistic society..

I agree that "secular society" does not equate to "atheistic society." However, to me, labeling a society secular does carry a very strong connotation that the society has little interest in religious matters. That is, in a society I consider secular, the religious people tend to be focused mostly on secular aspects of life and not much on religious aspects.

In contrast, it is possible to have a society where most people regard religion as very important, yet where people are willing to respect the freedom of others who believe differently. I regard it as highly misleading to characterize such a society as "secular" just because its people do not try to use government power to force their religion onto others. Using the same term to describe both types of societies makes it virtually impossible to get a picture of a society's religious character from a label calling the society secular. Thus, I regard "society that respects religious freedom" as a much better description than "secular society" for this type of society.

At present, the United States is somewhere between those two points on the spectrum. Huge numbers of Americans, including many who express religious beliefs, focus their lives almost entirely around secular matters. But there are a lot of others whose religion plays a much larger role in their lives. So I don't think labeling our society "secular" is a good fit.

At the very least, I think the label "secular society" is ambiguous enough that it leaves open a huge amount of room for people to interpret it differently. I think that makes it better to choose different words that are less likely to be misinterpreted or to stir up prejudices based on how others have used similar terminology.

And that is why I want to have atheistic government in addition to secular. By definition, secular does not promote religion (or it's absence) at all, it just exists "in parallel" to it.

There is nothing "by definition" about it. Take a look at the types of religious activities and presentations that are prohibited in public schools in the United States, and consider the fact that government also refuses to provide anything resembling equitable funding for children's education if they attend any school where those religious activities and presentations are not deliberately prohibited. That is active interference in religious aspects of children's lives, not just government minding its own business and leaving religious choices in the hands of individual families. The question of what roles, if any, religion should play in any aspect of children's lives properly belongs on the church side of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Going through a schoolhouse door does not magically transfer religious aspects of children's lives from the church side of the wall to the state side.

You may dismiss the public schools' restrictions regarding religion as too small to be important. But it is crystal clear that there are religious groups, factions, and families who consider the interference very important. Some even prove the strength of their concern by paying thousands of dollars extra per year per child for alternatives where their religion can be exercised freely. In the face of such proof of sincerity, government cannot dismiss the interference as too minor to be important without crossing Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" and passing judgment regarding what is very clearly a religious controversy.

It is that kind of willful interference in religious matters that makes my opposition to having our government or society labeled "secular" so strong. Such labels are too easily manipulated to turn Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" into a bulldozer that pushes religion out of government's way.

To the contrary, the atheistic government would promote atheism, and religious government would promote religion.

If the goal of the game were to include every religious choice, it would certainly be necessary to include the active promotion of atheism as one of the choices. However, Firaxis decided to restrict themselves to seven religions because they thought that number seemed best for gameplay based on their testing. I don't see any way that the active promotion of atheism by government can be considered one of the seven most important and influential religious movements in history. Do you?

Maybe if Civ 5 makes its religious model more complex, its designers can consider including active promotion of atheism. But If I were working for Firaxis, I would be extremely nervous about attaching any special significance to that choice because of the massive disagreement between atheists and religious people regarding what the effects of a government's actively rejecting God ought to be.

And I get irritated when people get irritated instead of discussing the issue itself. I also get irritated when people make a conclusion about everyone, who uses some particular word, because some other people used the same word in some particular way. That is called discrimination, sir.

I'm sorry that I offended you, but I think you're overreacting. For one thing, I did discuss the issue itself by drawing a distinction between government being secular in the passive sense of staying out of religious matters and government being secular in the active sense of favoring secular viewpoints over competing religious viewpoints. So I don't think your words, "instead of discussing the issue itself," are warranted.

For another, note my words, "almost invariably." My point was that your choice of wording sounded like what I routinely hear from people who want government to actively favor secular viewpoints over competing religious viewpoints. But the fact that I said "almost" indicates that I recognize that people can use that choice of wording without falling into that category. Thus, while your choice of wording did raise suspicions regarding what your views might be, I stopped short of passing judgment based on those suspicions.

The reality is that people's reactions to the words we use are based not just on how we intend for our words to be interpreted but also on how people have seen others use similar words. Thus, no matter how you interpret the concept of our government's being secular, I object to the characterization because I've seen it misused in ways that deliberately favor secular viewpoints and choices over competing religous viewpoints and choices too many times. The best way to prevent the misuse is to fight against the use of that characterization at all.

But this is exactly what secular democratic government means. Or do you know better word?

"Democratic government with religious freedom" leaves less room for confusion regarding whether the government will be secular only in the passive sense of staying out of religious matters or in the active sense of promoting secularism at the expense of religion.

Even if you are right here, the original discussion was not about US, put about USSR, and similar countries and atheism.

But the piece of the discussion that I was addressing had drifted into the question of how the United States would be characterized in Civ 4 terms.

I have no idea what are you talking about. Do you mean "roots" as in "historically", because otherwise I have not seen the principle you have mentioned in any physics or mathematical or engineering book (I am scientist by education and profession)

Yes, I was referring to the historical roots of modern science.

What you are saying here has nothing to do with science itself, these are believes of some people.

And the belief that God plays no active role in the universe at all also has nothing to do with science itself, but is the belief of some people. The scientific method is a tool for studying natural processes. The belief that everything in the universe operates exclusively according to natural processes, with no force from outside natural law ever intervening at all, is a matter of faith, not science. What scientific test could possibly distinguish between a universe where supernatural forces intervene rarely following essentially unpredictable patterns and one where supernatural forces never intervene at all?

Through the history, many times there were conflicts between science and religion. And quite often religious view were suppressing the science development. (Modern example - embryonic cell research, cloning and so on. I can give you many other historical examples as well). In this sense atheism does provide boost to science. Also, again, looking at USSR, the country that has huge losses in both world wars, and during revolution, that country being much weaker economically and technologically, was able to be at the level if not above in many theoretical sciences, such as physics, mathematics, etc. And that I think is directly related to the type of government they had. Religion is something what you take "on believe" and in sciences you do not do that. It is just very different approach. I think that vast majority of scientists are not religious.

Embryonic stem cell research is a special case because it is research on living organisms of the human species. Thus, people who view humanity as a matter of species rather than as a matter of some particular level of brain development object to experimentation on human embryos for much the same reason that they object to the Nazis' experimentation on Jews. Most people agree that there are limits to what kinds of scientific research can be considered ethical and moral. We just draw the lines in slightly different places.

If you want to argue that religion has often worked against science, I will certainly agree. But I do not see any significant advantage to science in a society that is actively atheistic compared with science in a society that views science as the study of God's handiwork. The fact that atheism has a scientific advantage over some types of theistic beliefs does not mean that it has a scientific advantage over all types of theistic beliefs. Further, judging from history, by the time a society understands science well enough for active atheistic belief to be a viable large-scale alternative to religious belief, the alternative path of viewing science as the study of God's handiwork is readily available.

I'm also skeptical about the use of the U.S.S.R. as an example. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was heavily militaristic in its orientation, and thus pushed very hard in areas of science that had potential military applications. The Soviet Union also invested in things it thought could showcase for other nations (its Olympic team, for example), and may have engaged in a few pieces of scientific research for that purpose. The space race catered to both of those interests, offering military potential while at the same time providing achievements the Soviet Union could showcase for other nations. But can you show evidence that the Soviet Union's general, across-the-board interest in science was greater?

In any case, it is not valid to use a single data point as a basis for claiming the existence of a pattern. What is true of the Soviet Union might or might not be true of another actively atheistic society.

Seeing your reaction, I think that you may be right. But you have to put some effects of religion/atheism, otherwise what's the point of putting it there? May be in the age of political correctness we have to avoid introducing difference between different religions/ideologies, but then the gameplay would suffer.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the idea that there are times and places for taking stands regarding controversial issues, and times and places where it is better to look for solutions that avoid giving unnecessary offense. The idea that if you want to appeal to the broadest possible audience, you avoid taking sides in controversies that divide that audience, predates modern "political correctness" by a long time.

As for whether gameplay would suffer, it would be possible to do something with gameplay effects similar to what you want without stirring up nearly as much controversy. The real central issue regarding science is not whether a society is atheistic, but rather is whether the society believes that the universe normally operates according to natural laws. Thus, it would be possible to introduce a concept of Naturalism defined in a way that favors neither atheistic concepts of science nor concepts that view science as the study of our Creator's handiwork. Such a concept should give almost none of Firaxis's customer base reason to take significant offense, at least if the Civilopedia entry would be written well and people would bother to read it.

The effects of such a form of Naturalism would be to improve science and to make the advantages of religious freedom greater and those of theocracy less. That, in turn, would reflect the real-world changes that make religious freedom more attractive and theocracy less attractive in the modern era.

I hear you. That's the problem we are facing here. Try to more accurately describe what are those religions/ideologies are about and model it accurately in the game and have fun gameplay, or make "politically correct" game with less game options, but with the goal of pleasing everyone. Unfortunately for gameplay, I think the second option is what will happen.

With any feature, Firaxis has to balance the views of players who would find the feature fun against the views of those who would find it annoying. The trick is to find features and ways of implementing features that maximize fun and minimize annoyance.

Many players would find it annoying to play a game that offends their religious beliefs. Therefore, the goal of finding ways to make religion a fun aspect of the game while at the same time minimizing offense to players' various religious beliefs is an integral part of maximizing fun. It is not a case of sacrificing fun on the altar of political correctness.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum



otherwise, there is no need for me to present historical facts as i am not attempting to make an historical argument.

the soviet government actively promoted an atheist state and persecuted those who did not adhere to it's ideals.

this is what we in the trade refer to as "common knowledge."

'We in the trade'....

It still doesn't make the Soviet Union a theocracy.

I'd say it's common knowledge by now, amongst readers of this thread that:

a) you haven't adequately defined a theocracy (as distinct from any other form of government)

b) you still haven't learned much about the U.S.S.R. 's government structure.

A policy with regard to religion or religious practices does not define a structure of government.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
The true meaning of a word is not necessarily the literal one.
And your opinion about what "atheist" means is, imho, in minority.

The "true" meaning of atheist is exactly what I said.

Whether or not a majority of people know the true definition of a word doesn't change the meaning of that word. Lots of people misuse the word "literally," for instance, but it doesn't change the actual meaning of the word.

Of course, being lectured on English--wrongly, I might add--by someone who isn't even a native English speaker is rich.

[Boris Godunov]

Lebensraum's "argument" is nothing more than babble about how language isn't 100% precise, so he feels he can redefine the word to mean whatever he wants. It's sophistry at its best (worst)? Certainly not worth talking about any more. It seems he just likes to see himself type a lot of words.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

It seems he just likes to see himself type a lot of words.

You're darn tootin'.

I'm not going to feed the troll any more, since his argument has not progressed one iota, and eschews any connection with the history of forms of government or anyone else's definitions of structures of government.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The "true" meaning of atheist is exactly what I said.

Whether or not a majority of people know the true definition of a word doesn't change the meaning of that word. Lots of people misuse the word "literally," for instance, but it doesn't change the actual meaning of the word.

Of course, being lectured on English--wrongly, I might add--by someone who isn't even a native English speaker is rich.

"atheism" is an international word.
And it's what people think it is makes it what it is, definitions are based on common understanding, not the other way round (mostly)

[nbarclay]

If just an absence of belief in God is enough to make someone an "atheist," that pretty much destroys the distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic." I've always understood the words in terms of an atheist is someone who believes that there is no God, while an agnostic is someone who is not sure one way or the other. Since an agnostic is unsure, the agnostic cannot reasonably be characterized as believing in God, but he is not an atheist because he doesn't believe that there is no God either.

[MxM]

Originally posted by nbarclay

Originally posted by MxM
Think about this way. It is quite possible that the government has one official policy (even official religion) and the population has another.

The thing is that the United States government is supposed to have no official policy regarding religion other than that religious matters are up to individual citizens and are something government must try not to interfere in.

That was not my point here. You misread my text. My point was that even if in some particular country there is a dominant religion, the government of that country does not need to have that religion as a state religion, or it can, as in case of US, have no official religion at all, or secular (more on that is below). "Government with religious freedoms" is also fine.

Originally posted by nbarclay

I agree that "secular society" does not equate to "atheistic society." However, to me, labeling a society secular does carry a very strong connotation that the society has little interest in religious matters. That is, in a society I consider secular, the religious people tend to be focused mostly on secular aspects of life and not much on religious aspects.

That is your interpretation of the word secular. I have different interpretation. And even though I think that most of the people would agree with my interpretation, for the purpose of our discussion I agree to take you interpretation for our use. I just want to be on the same page with you, when we discuss this topics. As long as we both understand what do we mean by this word we are fine. Thus according to our agreement secular body is the body which is focused mostly on secular aspects of life.

Originally posted by nbarclay
So I don't think labeling our society "secular" is a good fit.

According to just accepted definition, I agree. However, that was not the original topic of the conversation. The topic was about government.

Originally posted by nbarclay

There is nothing "by definition" about it. Take a look at the types of religious activities and presentations that are prohibited in public schools in the United States, and consider the fact that government also refuses to provide anything resembling equitable funding for children's education if they attend any school where those religious activities and presentations are not deliberately prohibited. That is active interference in religious aspects of children's lives, not just government minding its own business and leaving religious choices in the hands of individual families. The question of what roles, if any, religion should play in any aspect of children's lives properly belongs on the church side of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Going through a schoolhouse door does not magically transfer religious aspects of children's lives from the church side of the wall to the state side.

Hmm. Don't you contradict yourself? First you refuse to call our government secular, and then you wonder why our "non-secular" government does not want to allow religious education in schools. It does that exactly because that it is secular, and thus, according to our definition of the "secular" word, does not want to have anything to do with religion in any of the state owned organizations. It makes sense to me.

So, it seems to me, that actually the reason that we having this discussion is not because of our government secular (or not), but because you do not want to be it secular, according to your (or mine, does not matter here) definition of this word. You want to have religious education in state owned schools, and you are frustrated that it is not so.

Even though it is way out of topic of Civ VI, I want to spend some time to support the US secular government. Suppose, just for the discussion, that I am an atheist (I am agnostic, but it is not that far stretch). So I would personally do not want that my tax money would go into religious education. The same way you do not want your tax money to be spend in the school, where children are taught that "god does not exist". So what is our common ground? How can the government satisfy both of us at the same time? The only answer I see is the absence of any religious or atheistic education in the school. And that is what our secular government does. And that is what I believe Jefferson meant by separation. If you want to give you children religious education, do it by you own, not on my money. If I want to give my children "atheistic" education, I will do it by my own, not using your money. However, again this is beyond the topic of discussions, but I can use you frustration with our school system as a conformation that our government IS secular.

Originally posted by nbarclay
If the goal of the game were to include every religious choice, it would certainly be necessary to include the active promotion of atheism as one of the choices. However, Firaxis decided to restrict themselves to seven religions because they thought that number seemed best for gameplay based on their testing. I don't see any way that the active promotion of atheism by government can be considered one of the seven most important and influential religious movements in history. Do you?

That is quite arguable. Not being able to model USSR, one of two superpowers of the twenties century is very large drawback in my book. I want to be able to do it, because it is very fresh in everyones memory.

I have a "western" culture, and I am not a historian. And for me the atheism is on the third place (after Cristian and Muslim religions) of what defined our civilization today, because 20 century is too recent in my memory. So I would say from this point of view USSR (and atheism) had more influence on western civilization, than, say, even Buddhism, as I know it. This is why I startid the whole topic.

Originally posted by nbarclay
And the belief that God plays no active role in the universe at all also has nothing to do with science itself, but is the belief of some people. The scientific method is a tool for studying natural processes. The belief that everything in the universe operates exclusively according to natural processes, with no force from outside natural law ever intervening at all, is a matter of faith, not science.

What you say here, strictly speaking is right, but I think what you imply her is wrong. I think that you are implying here (I may be wrong of cause) is that the scientists have faith or believe that the universe operates exclusively according to the natural laws. And this statement is strictly speaking is wrong. Science does not take anything for granted. What science does is observe the effect, process it, make theories, verifies them, and then makes predictions. If there is any observable, measurable and repeatable influence of supernatural force in nature, science would observe it and study it as well as it does the "natural" forces. It is just does not matter for science.

Originally posted by nbarclay
Embryonic stem cell research is a special case because it is research on living organisms of the human species. Thus, people who view humanity as a matter of species rather than as a matter of some particular level of brain development object to experimentation on human embryos for much the same reason that they object to the Nazis' experimentation on Jews. Most people agree that there are limits to what kinds of scientific research can be considered ethical and moral.

Yes, sure. The question here WHAT is ethical and moral. And the religious norms of ethics and moral are much more strict than atheistic ones. This is why religion often impedes the science development. I do not pass the judgment here, I just make an observation.

Originally posted by nbarclay
In any case, it is not valid to use a single data point (USSR) as a basis for claiming the existence of a pattern (better science for atheists).

How about in combination with your other statement?

Originally posted by nbarclay
If you want to argue that religion has often worked against science, I will certainly agree.

So these two statements together with the following consideration:
US is and was much more prosperous country than USSR, or in game terms, it generated much more "trade". Now, how can USSR-like country compete in CIV game in science with US-like country, when it has much less trade? And the answer is give it somehow bonus in science. And I think in real life the reason was somewhat similar. (I hope that you will not argue that US was much more prosperous, and that USSR theoretical science was at least at the same level)

So those all 3 reasons combined leaded me to the suggestion of giving a science bonus to "atheistic government".

[nbarclay]

Warning: MxM and I have been straying off topic to a point where this post is essentially completely off topic insofar as Civ is concerned. Those not interested in a debate regarding the issue of religious freedom will likely want to skip it.

Originally posted by MxM
Hmm. Don't you contradict yourself? First you refuse to call our government secular, and then you wonder why our "non-secular" government does not want to allow religious education in schools. It does that exactly because that it is secular, and thus, according to our definition of the "secular" word, does not want to have anything to do with religion in any of the state owned organizations. It makes sense to me.

What we have is an accident of history. When public schools were first created, the intent was generally that they include enough religion to satisfy most families but that they handle religion in a non-sectarian way. That was necessary for the early public schools not to undermine religion by dramatically reducing the amount of religion in children's lives during school hours compared with private alternatives. Jefferson himself recognized that situation when, in his second public education proposal for Virginia, he did not demand the complete exclusion of religion but only the exclusion of religious elements "inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.”

Then, about a century later, the courts pulled a bait-and-switch, recognizing the need to provide greater protection for religious minorities but providing that protection in a way that deliberately damaged the religious freedom of the majority. I'm hoping we'll correct that accident and move to a choice-based structure that gets back to the constitutional principle that the question of what roles religion will or will not play in children's lives during school hours is none of government's business. But in the meantime, the nasty accidental side effect of the current structure provides a good example of the difference between an actively secular government that discriminates against religious choices and a passively secular government that merely regards religious matters as none of its business.

So, it seems to me, that actually the reason that we having this discussion is not because of our government secular (or not), but because you do not want to be it secular, according to your (or mine, does not matter here) definition of this word. You want to have religious education in state owned schools, and you are frustrated that it is not so.

Actually, what I want is equitable support for all children's education no matter what kind of schools they attend as long as the schools provide a satisfactory quality of education and do not willfully promote hatred or prejudice or engage in arbitrary discrimination. That way, government would support education without caring what roles religion might or might not play in children's lives during school hours. That goes directly against the goals of people who want government to be actively secular - who want government to actively favor secular ideas and choices over competing religious ideas and choices. But it fits perfectly with the concept of a government that is secular only in the passive sense of regarding religious matters as none of its business.

Even though it is way out of topic of Civ VI, I want to spend some time to support the US secular government. Suppose, just for the discussion, that I am an atheist (I am agnostic, but it is not that far stretch). So I would personally do not want that my tax money would go into religious education. The same way you do not want your tax money to be spend in the school, where children are taught that "god does not exist". So what is our common ground? How can the government satisfy both of us at the same time? The only answer I see is the absence of any religious or atheistic education in the school. And that is what our secular government does.

The problem is that what you are calling "common ground" is not truly common ground at all. It is ground that seems to be fine with almost all atheists and agnostics, and with a significant percentage of religious people, but that is resoundingly rejected as unacceptable by many other religious people. So the compromise is not neutral, but instead discriminates in favor of the atheists, agnostics, and religious groups and factions that like the public schools and against religious groups and factions that regard the public schools as religiously unacceptable. That is almost exactly the same sort of favoritism that state churches once engaged in, only aimed in a different direction.

Further, there is absolute, incontrovertible proof of the sincerity of many of the families who reject your alleged "common ground." They regard public schools as so unsuitable from a religious perspective that they are willing to pay thousands of dollars extra for alternatives that are a better religious fit - alternatives that very often cost less to operate than public schools do, but cost the families more only because of a discriminatory funding structure. (The situation is closely parallel to how any church other than the state church cost members more, even if its actual operating costs were less, because it didn't get the government support the state church did.) Any attempt by government to tell those families why they should view the public schools as religiously acceptable constitutes an attempt to establish versions of Christianity (and other religions) that view the public schools as acceptable in a favored position over those that do not.

And that is what I believe Jefferson meant by separation. If you want to give you children religious education, do it by you own, not on my money. If I want to give my children "atheistic" education, I will do it by my own, not using your money.

That line of reasoning falls apart the moment you start demanding money for your alleged "compromise" schools that are acceptable to you but unacceptable to significant numbers of religious families. You demand that other people pay taxes for the kind of schools you want (albeit not as your first choice) but refuse to reciprocate by helping to pay for any kind of school that they regard as religiously acceptable. That is pretty much exactly what state churches used to do. The result is almost exactly the same kind of financial disparity and financial pressure to do what government wants even if if violates families' consciences that was created by tax-funded state churches.

The only way we can fund education without engaging in that kind of discrimination and favoritism is to fund everyone's choices without regard to religious considerations. Then my paying for the kind of schools you want and your paying for the kind I want essentially cancels out so that in effect we are each paying for what we want. There would be some net flow of money from wealthier groups to less wealthy groups, but there would be no organized discrimination and no specter of forcing people to choose either to give up valuable government benefits or to make a religious choice that violates their consciences.

However, again this is beyond the topic of discussions, but I can use you frustration with our school system as a conformation that our government IS secular.

There is an ongoing battle among people who want government to promote secularism at the expense of religion, people who want government to actively support Christianity (or in some cases religion in general), and people who want government to interfere in religious aspects of people's lives as little as possible. Sometimes one side wins, and sometimes another side wins. Thus, we forbid even voluntary public prayers in public schools, yet we have "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. The fact that a particular side wins particular battles does not form a legitimate basis for classifying the character of the nation as a whole.

Looking back at the arguments of Madison and Jefferson, it is clear that their intent was that individual citizens be free to make whatever religious choices we want to without government interference. Deliberate government favoritism toward secular choices and against religious choices violates that principle just as surely as deliberate government favoritism toward religious choices and against secular choices does.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by MxM
That is quite arguable. Not being able to model USSR, one of two superpowers of the twenties century is very large drawback in my book. I want to be able to do it, because it is very fresh in everyones memory.

All you'd have to do would be to mod in Atheism as a religion and set up an atheistic theocracy (or maybe the next level of religious tyranny below theocracy). The word "theocracy" is a bit off target, but for modeling purposes, the Soviet Union acted much like one would expect a theocracy that’s out to convert the world to its religion by force if necessary to act. Modeling the Soviet Union seems more like something a person would do in a scenario than in a regular epic game anyhow.

I have a "western" culture, and I am not a historian. And for me the atheism is on the third place (after Cristian and Muslim religions) of what defined our civilization today, because 20 century is too recent in my memory. So I would say from this point of view USSR (and atheism) had more influence on western civilization, than, say, even Buddhism, as I know it. This is why I startid the whole topic.

But Civ isn't just about western civilization today. It's about more than six thousand years of civilization across the entire planet.

What you say here, strictly speaking is right, but I think what you imply her is wrong. I think that you are implying here (I may be wrong of cause) is that the scientists have faith or believe that the universe operates exclusively according to the natural laws. And this statement is strictly speaking is wrong. Science does not take anything for granted. What science does is observe the effect, process it, make theories, verifies them, and then makes predictions. If there is any observable, measurable and repeatable influence of supernatural force in nature, science would observe it and study it as well as it does the "natural" forces. It is just does not matter for science.

Suppose a scientist did discover a "supernatural" phenomenon that is sufficiently observable, measurable, and repeatable to verify its existence. How would scientists reach a conclusion that the phenomenon is truly supernatural rather than a previously undiscovered facet of nature?

Ultimately, I can find no way that the scientific method could possibly either verify or falsify the existence of a force that is truly outside natural law. Therefore, the decision of whether or not to believe in a force outside natural law is a matter of faith, not a matter of science.

Yes, sure. The question here WHAT is ethical and moral. And the religious norms of ethics and moral are much more strict than atheistic ones. This is why religion often impedes the science development. I do not pass the judgment here, I just make an observation.

I think the fact that such situations tend to be so controversial makes it easy to overestimate their importance. A lot of research is in areas that are not affected by such ethical differences of opinion at all, or are only affected to a very tiny degree. So I'm highly skeptical as to whether the relatively few areas of ethical and moral controversy add up to something that would be significant in game terms.

So these two statements together with the following consideration:
US is and was much more prosperous country than USSR, or in game terms, it generated much more "trade". Now, how can USSR-like country compete in CIV game in science with US-like country, when it has much less trade? And the answer is give it somehow bonus in science. And I think in real life the reason was somewhat similar. (I hope that you will not argue that US was much more prosperous, and that USSR theoretical science was at least at the same level)

I've long had the impression that a capitalistic economy is not geared nearly as well for theoretical research as it is for applied science. Corporations have a lot of incentive to engage in types of research that promise a payoff in the reasonably near term, but have far less incentive to engage in theoretical research where they don't even know what they might discover or what benefits a discovery might eventually bring. So what we had in the U.S. was a nation with the "luxury slider" set sky high and where most of the scientific effort was aimed at practical rather than theoretical matters. On top of that, much of our theoretical research in areas that weren't militarily sensitive was done through universities and was freely accessible to people all over the world. So I don’t see how you get that it was the Soviet Union’s atheism rather than other factors that allowed it to keep up.

Nor do I regard a bonus for atheism as a reasonable way to help economically weaker civs keep up with economically stronger ones in research. To make the game balance work, atheism would have to provide its bonus to economically weak civs but not to economically strong ones; otherwise, economically strong civs could keep their advantage by becoming atheistic. By the time a game would tie scientific progress to atheism and then rig atheism so its benefits apply only to economically weaker civs, the mechanism would look way too contrived to me.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Warning: MxM and I have been straying off topic to a point where this post is essentially completely off topic insofar as Civ is concerned.

This thread went off-topic on page 1... I'm still deciding what to do with it, and other threads of its sort, since most religion-related threads seem to stray off-topic pretty sooner or later. Expect this to be closed shortly -- I may close close it, I may not, but keep it in mind as a possibility -- so if you have any important points to make, make them fast

[Solver]

Thread closed.

Please, if you want to discuss real-life religion, atheism, and the like, do so in the off topic. In this forum, do your best to try to keep the religion discussions be on the topic of religion as it is in Civ4.