What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

[Artaraxl]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
The other major disadvantage is that your state religion will have an impact on your relations with other civs. Again, as I understand it, having friendly relations with civs with a different state religion to you will be quite difficult-particularly if you are a theocratic state. I get the feeling that this disadvantage too will be reduced (or eliminated) by the adoption of 'Freedom of Religion'.

That sounds good -- where did you read about "freedom of religion?" I did find a review that mentioned the religions will affect diplomacy, but it didn't mention inter-city problems or "freedom of religion."

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, if you have a look at the civics screen-very closely-in one of the Civ4 Preview videos (the one with the Indian guy asking the questions), you can see that one of the Civics options for religion is 'Freedom of Religion'-with the others being (IIRC) Primitive (eg. Pagan), Organised Religion (i.e. Standard State religion), Theocratic (eg. State religion, with persecution of other non-state faiths) and Pacifism (no idea how that one works). A word of warning, though, is that obvsiouly this may not be the last word on the Religious Civics, but at least it indicates that there will be a difference between a repressive religious state, a 'standard' religious state, and a secular state.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Sandman]

Re: What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

Originally posted by Artaraxl
So, I have read there will be religions to choose from, each with its own advantages.

It was my understanding that all the religions are generic, with nothing to differentiate them except their geographic spread.

[Nikolai]

I remember reading or hearing in one of the previews/video interviews that you can choose a civic giving religious freedom. I guess that counts as "no religion" in this context?

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

Originally posted by Artaraxl


Of course, the money had to come from somewhere. The pilgrimages may have juiced the economies of Canterbury and towns on the road to Canterbury, but the pilgrims could have spent thier dough on coffee and cigarettes, or their time inventing a better catapult, or the telescope...

Not everyone is a scientist- or an inventor fo r that matter. However, as the Abbasid Caliphate and the Sassanid Empire show, it is possible to combine the religious impulse with scientific enquiry- Islamic science combined and synthesized knowledge from many different religions and sects, and the different Iranian empires acted as bridges between eastern and western fields of enquiry.

Why even the Venerable Bede in Jarrow could scientifically observe the motion of the tides, and give us the dating system we use across the Western world- he popularized 'anno domini'.

[Artaraxl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

Originally posted by molly bloom
Why even the Venerable Bede in Jarrow could scientifically observe the motion of the tides, and give us the dating system we use across the Western world- he popularized 'anno domini'.

Okay, okay, now you're just showing off...

But seriously, I really wasn't trying to suggest that organized religion brings no benefits to society -- it certainly does benefit society in many ways (although I would argue that religions' contribution to scientific inquiry isn't the best example, since it's negligible relative to, say, science itself!). That's not the issue, it's whether or not the game balance could be improved by the inclusion of set of "religious civics" that are in fact, non-religious.

From the other comments above, it does sound like the developers are working on this, which is encouraging.

[nbarclay]

The idea that secularism and religious freedom are the same thing is way off target. In a society with religious freedom, government has to focus its attention on secular matters and refrain from interfering in religious ones. As a result, a society with complete religious freedom will be as religious or as secular as the free choices of its individual citizens combine to make it, with government interfering neither to make the society more religious nor to make it more secular.

If government instead actively promotes secularism at the expense of theistic religion, it violates religious freedom in the opposite direction from what men like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had to worry about in their era. Instead of the religious character (or lack thereof) of the society being based entirely on the free choices of individual citizens, it is partly the result of manipulations by government. That is a direct violation of the arguments men like Madison and Jefferson used in arguing for religious freedom.

The biggest religious conflict in the United States today is the conflict between traditional religion and secularism. The side of secularism in that conflict includes not just atheists but also religious people and groups that, although they profess a religious belief, put so much of their faith in secular human reasoning that they ignore or twist any scriptures that disagree with their secular reasoning. Based on that conflict, and on similar conflicts elsewhere in the world, I think a "religion" of "secularism" would probably be the most plausible way to incorporate atheism into the game. It would be a late-game religion that competes with traditional religions, and the Soviet Union would be an example of a "theocratic" society with secularism as its state religion.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical as to how well secularism would fit with Civ 4's religious model. From what I understand of the game's design, it operates on a presumption that religions are a lot more centralized and organized than secularism generally is. Is there really any historical basis for the nation that first founds "secularism" to have significant long-term advantages over other nations that adopt it later? I don't know of any.

The only way religious secularism (to use something of an oxymoron) has ever been centralized enough and organized enough to fit Civ 4's religious model (as I understand it) has been when it was combined with particular political and social ideologies. But since Civ 4 (as I understand it) is designed to make the choice of religion essentially independent from the choice of what kind of government to have, trying to turn Soviet-style Communist ideology into a religion wouldn't fit the game's model either. I don't see any realistic way to have a form of atheism with both the necessary centralization and organization and the necessary freedom from ties to a particular form of government to fit Civ 4's religious model as I understand it.

[Artaraxl]

How would you suggest, then, that concepts of religious freedom be incorporated into the game?

Incidentally, my initial reading of the developers notes lead me to the conclusion (perhaps simplistic) that the chosing of a state religion was essentially going to be "forced" on the player, by virtue of the fact that refraining from adopting religion would be disadvantageous. However, subsequently, others have suggested the religion model will actually be more complex, allowing for variations that sound less like state sponsored religion being required.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you about what "freedom of religion" means, or should mean in the U.S. though. For instance, if an organized group in the traditional religion camp decides to pass laws based on a specific religious ideology, the state can and should step in to say, "wait a sec! That will violate others' religious rights (including atheists'!)" Yet that ought not be regarded as an attempt by government to secularize society.

It's perfectly right for governent & society to insist that non-religious arguments be made for laws and public policy matters. To be fairly applicable to all, policies and laws should have logical arguments that stand quite apart from any particular religion.

The reason there aren't vast secularist movements, is just as you said: secularism is by its very nature decentralized & individualistic.

To me the conflict arises when there is dispute over what constitutes public and private affairs.

Of course this discussion goes well beyond what we can expect Civ4 will get into...

[Tingkai]

Re: What I don't get about the new Religion concept...

Originally posted by Artaraxl
But will there be an option to choose none??? Might not there be advantages associated with a lack of religion?

Historically, the only societies that have not had religion are the communist societies of the 20th century. Whether that was an advantage or disadvantage is subject to debate.

However, state religion is a different matter. There were many cultures that were multireligion, and these cultures often were more advanced: for example, China during the Tang dynasty (I think), and Moorish Spain.

Still, I think the game concept is that it will be easier to make alliances with countries that have the same religion, which makes sense.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Artaraxl
How would you suggest, then, that concepts of religious freedom be incorporated into the game?

Real life has a spectrum of options ranging from theocracy at one end of the spectrum to complete religious freedom on the other. (Government support for atheism or secularism is essentially the same thing as government support for a particular religion, only with the favoritism aimed in a different direction.) I'm hoping and expecting that Civ 4 will reflect the real world in terms of offering a spectrum of choices at and in between the two extremes.

Warning: the rest of this message deals with real life issues.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you about what "freedom of religion" means, or should mean in the U.S. though. For instance, if an organized group in the traditional religion camp decides to pass laws based on a specific religious ideology, the state can and should step in to say, "wait a sec! That will violate others' religious rights (including atheists'!)" Yet that ought not be regarded as an attempt by government to secularize society,

It's perfectly right for governent & society to insist that non-religious arguments be made for laws and public policy matters. To be fairly applicable to all, policies and laws should have logical arguments that stand quite apart from any particular religion.

The key is to strike a balance. On one hand, the concept of, "I believe it's a sin, so let's make it illegal," must not be considered a legitimate justification for laws in a society with religious freedom. But on the other hand, when religious people have legitimate secular reasons to believe that a type of action significantly harms or endangers others, the fact that they also regard the action as a sin cannot legitimately be used as an excuse to prevent them from passing a law against the action.

In a lot of modern debates, such as debates over gambling and abortion, there are very definitely secular reasons to consider passing laws restricting people's actions. (Gambling can cause enormous harm to people who lack the self-control to avoid betting more than they can afford to lose and, even more importantly, to the gamblers' families. Abortion kills genetically distinct living organisms of the human species, so the desire not to risk killing millions of innocent human beings every year if fetuses are in fact human beings in a moral sense does not require religious faith.) In such debates, religious people need to be careful that their secular reasons for supporting a law are sufficient to justify the law independent of their desire to prevent people from sinning, But we also need to make sure people who oppose the law don't get away with attempts to silence legitimate debate with claims of, "You're just trying to force your religion onto others."

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I'm sorry nbarcley, but have you actually read the prerelease info regarding religion and civics? If you have, then you would realise that the spectrum of Complete religious freedom to complete theocracy is represented within the game, with Primitive, Organised Religion and Pacifist making up the remaining 3 choices. Now, I admit that this is imperfect, but you have to agree that it is a fairly reasonable range.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
I'm sorry nbarcley, but have you actually read the prerelease info regarding religion and civics? If you have, then you would realise that the spectrum of Complete religious freedom to complete theocracy is represented within the game, with Primitive, Organised Religion and Pacifist making up the remaining 3 choices. Now, I admit that this is imperfect, but you have to agree that it is a fairly reasonable range.

I thought I remembered seeing something along those lines, which is why I wrote "and expecting." Thanks for filling in the blanks.