C2C - Religions discussions and ideas
- Thread starter Dancing Hoskuld
- Start date
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Maybe in your religion (if you have one) but not in mine. Dogmata is from those seeking power/self aggrandizement but not truth. Sound doctrine is following the truth.
There is no "dogmata" in Science? Really!
Again, Really?! You didn't mean that as it came out I hope.
Wisdom is applied understanding of the handling of knowledge "check every single part of it".
I guess I'll just have to disagree with you AIAndy. And since the majority (so far) wants to keep Atheism and Pacifism were they are I'll cease pushing for their change.
I just hate to see the Religion system in this mod go down hill since I feel it's one of the better aspects of this mod.
JosEPh
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
I just hate to see the Religion system in this mod go down hill since I feel it's one of the better aspects of this mod.
JosEPh
For the most part you can thank AAranda for that.
I have just dabbled at it trying to make some of them work and adding new ones with as much diversity as I can. Which is one reason I argue against almost all changes by throwing in alternatives.
I do think we may be able to get something out of Sevo's "Faces of God" mod so I will be trying some things out and as StrategyOnly says we need some mod mods for C2C and I have a few ideas for religion ones. Currently my testing of limited missionaries is proving to be a "neitehr-here-nor-there" mod, it neither adds enough fun nor removes enough irritation for me. 
At least this time I think I have it working right.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
You've carried on AAranda's work quite well, I think he would be proud of what you've accomplished.
Looking forward to the modmods too.
Here wishing you well in the next couple of weeks.
JosEPh
Looking forward to the modmods too.
Here wishing you well in the next couple of weeks.
JosEPh
hotrodlincoln
Upasaka
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 248
This thought came up in a recent game, where I was running Intolerant for the first time ever. Why not allow for inquisitions to purge holy cities? This could work very well with the holy city relocation mechanic. A good real life example of this would be Zoroastrianism. Pir-e Sabs, Pir-e Seti, and Pir-e Naraki are the preeminent pilgrimage sites for modern Zoroastrians. Pir-e Sabs is used for the Holy City Shrine, and the other two are Zoroastrian's state religion wonders. All three share a similar tale. They are where prominent Zoroastrians fled from the Muslims, and were subsequently martyred.
In game mechanics, whatever the real city of Zoroastrian's founding is would have been inquisited by the Intolerant running Arabs. The holy city would then transfer to another suitable location, and the Zoroastrian civ in question begins building the Pirs, all of which provide defensive and/or military bonuses in order to begin the long fight to reclaim their homeland.
Most of the religions we have in game are completely dead in the modern day, in many cases because people of a rival faith destroyed all the remaining vestiges of their religious institutions. It is slightly odd we can not do the same.
My suggestion is to allow inquisitions to be performed on holy cities, but it will have a very small chance of success, and will automatically relocate to another suitable city when you do. Currently the only option for eliminating rival holy cities is to destroy the city they're in, which isn't always a realistic option, especially if they're your cities.
Another thing I noticed is that the AI, for whatever reason, simply will not perform inquisitions in their cities. In this particular game I was playing, I converted the entire continent to Islam, then gave everyone on the continent I could the Fundamentalism technology, and paid them well to adopt Intolerant. After a few turns I could tell they would need some further help to purge other religions, so I started gifting inquisitors to my allies. I built three per turn for at least 10 turns, each time giving away my inquisitors in the hopes the AI would purge the other religions. This did not happen. The AI simply moved the inquisitors to their cities and let them sit there.
Lastly, why such a low limit on inquisitors? You can only build three at a time. This makes Intolerant a very lackluster civic to run. This number should be raised to 10, or perhaps 15. You can try running Intolerant temporarily and switch back to some other religious civic, but this doesn't work very well. The minute I switched to State Church in my game, 10 of my cities were immediately converted to Hellenism. This seemed like a strangely rapid rate of conversion, considering the AI had not employed missionaries in this.
In game mechanics, whatever the real city of Zoroastrian's founding is would have been inquisited by the Intolerant running Arabs. The holy city would then transfer to another suitable location, and the Zoroastrian civ in question begins building the Pirs, all of which provide defensive and/or military bonuses in order to begin the long fight to reclaim their homeland.
Most of the religions we have in game are completely dead in the modern day, in many cases because people of a rival faith destroyed all the remaining vestiges of their religious institutions. It is slightly odd we can not do the same.
My suggestion is to allow inquisitions to be performed on holy cities, but it will have a very small chance of success, and will automatically relocate to another suitable city when you do. Currently the only option for eliminating rival holy cities is to destroy the city they're in, which isn't always a realistic option, especially if they're your cities.
Another thing I noticed is that the AI, for whatever reason, simply will not perform inquisitions in their cities. In this particular game I was playing, I converted the entire continent to Islam, then gave everyone on the continent I could the Fundamentalism technology, and paid them well to adopt Intolerant. After a few turns I could tell they would need some further help to purge other religions, so I started gifting inquisitors to my allies. I built three per turn for at least 10 turns, each time giving away my inquisitors in the hopes the AI would purge the other religions. This did not happen. The AI simply moved the inquisitors to their cities and let them sit there.
Lastly, why such a low limit on inquisitors? You can only build three at a time. This makes Intolerant a very lackluster civic to run. This number should be raised to 10, or perhaps 15. You can try running Intolerant temporarily and switch back to some other religious civic, but this doesn't work very well. The minute I switched to State Church in my game, 10 of my cities were immediately converted to Hellenism. This seemed like a strangely rapid rate of conversion, considering the AI had not employed missionaries in this.
Il Principe
Prince
I would guess the AI had multible monastaries in each city and decided that the increased stability and hapiness from purging non state religions was not worth the loss of beakers and health.
There are no dogmata in science, well, except maybe for the scientific method itself, but then that is the defining element of science so I am not sure if you could call that a dogma.
What do you think is a dogma in science?
Great scientist will tend to be very wise but even the greatest fools can be scientist. It is just not very likely that a fool will progress science. But he can still reproduce a part of it.
Il Principe
Prince
Some theories in science have been treated as dogmata. Thinking about Relativity here. Yes it was of course checked by experiments, but whenerver an experiment comes up that might threaten it, the first impulse is to take that experiment apart to see it´s flaw because " there must be one".
But nevertheless , if an experiment proofes to be correct theories will be adapted. Relativity became close to a dogma because many, many experiments agreed with its predictions. Not because "it is written".
But nevertheless , if an experiment proofes to be correct theories will be adapted. Relativity became close to a dogma because many, many experiments agreed with its predictions. Not because "it is written".
The FTL neutrino incident showed pretty well that you will get a significant response and several attempts at reproducing the experiment which is the main difference to a dogma. But with a theory that fit so well with observation up to now people will take a very close look at possible error sources.
Il Principe
Prince
The first reaction to that experiment was: somemthing must be wrong. Even the original paper said something like: we checked evrything we coudl think of but couldn´t find the flaw.
Of course theis is then discussed, other check... try to recreate it... but the first, almost reflexive reaction is one of, well disbelieve.
I completly agree with you that even a well proven theory can be dsiputed and is no dogma. I´m just saying that they sometiems come close, probably because humans want to simply believe sometimes. But with doubt beeing the base of science a "dogmatic " theory would be toppeld nevertheless if needed.
Of course theis is then discussed, other check... try to recreate it... but the first, almost reflexive reaction is one of, well disbelieve.
I completly agree with you that even a well proven theory can be dsiputed and is no dogma. I´m just saying that they sometiems come close, probably because humans want to simply believe sometimes. But with doubt beeing the base of science a "dogmatic " theory would be toppeld nevertheless if needed.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Well I think science like anything in human culture is suitable to politics, greed, public opinion and morality. For instance those with power or money can fund scientific institutions. Universities can teach within their own perspectives and bias to new students of science, technology and medicine. This is nothing new and happens with religious institutions too.
Human Cloning for instance is only limited by public opinion and ethics. The technology is there and if we had the same taboo for rats that we do for humans we would probably be far less advanced as we are now.
That's not to say animal testing is right or wrong. That is exactly the moral question. In short JosEPh_II and AIAndy both have valid points and its not a simple black and white world we live in where science is perfect.
I personally think the scientific method is the best tool we currently have to understand the world around us.
Human Cloning for instance is only limited by public opinion and ethics. The technology is there and if we had the same taboo for rats that we do for humans we would probably be far less advanced as we are now.
That's not to say animal testing is right or wrong. That is exactly the moral question. In short JosEPh_II and AIAndy both have valid points and its not a simple black and white world we live in where science is perfect.
I personally think the scientific method is the best tool we currently have to understand the world around us.
True, although it is far easier to do this in the soft sciences (social, economy, ...) than in hard science (physics, ...).
What would be the point of cloning a whole human being (except for studies on the influence of genes vs. environment)?
Cloning only an organ would be very useful on the other hand.
Agreed.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
SF writers have beat you there Louis McMaster Bjould has a place called "Jackson's Hole" where science is done for money without consideration of ethics. One group were cloning you so that when your body grew old your brain could be put into a younger body. Sort of a whole body transplant for eternal life.
hotrodlincoln
Upasaka
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 248
Eh, possibly, but most of these other cities just had Islam alongside Shamanism or Druidic Traditions. Purging these religions would not have hurt research (or anything else, really, we're in the industrial era. By this time most of the Shaman and Druid buildings have been obsoleted except for a couple of Shaman buildings that obsolete at Motorized Transport.). An AI running Intolerant should be using it for it's intended purpose. As it is, the civic is almost nothing but penalties, so if you're not using it to eliminate rival religions then you are wasting the one real bonus the civic grants (well, that and an xp bonus to military units).
Your brain ages as well and gets damaged and there are a lot of things to overcome before you could fully implant it and properly connect it to the nervous system of a new body.
My guess is that we are closer to being able to reprogram the cells to keep the body as a whole intact. There are no fundamental reasons that aging is a must. Organisms that are thousands of years old exist on earth.
Of course accidents and illness can kill you even then.
I disagree.
Humans run on oxygen, oxygenation damages and burns out.
Human cells are constantly being replaced in the body, requiring cell division which inevitably leads to faults that bring a body slightly closer to death.
Natural selection and a species evolving both demand generations to work, without ageing and death that would not happen.
Those organisms that are thousands of years old also don't propagate at a rate where they would overpopulate the niche they live in.
Cheers
hotrodlincoln
Upasaka
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 248
Fascinating as this discussion on religion vs. science is, perhaps it should be split off and moved to an off topic forum or some such? It has very little to do with the game itself, unless people start proposing mechanics changes.
DRJ
Hedonist
The debate about the facts is in fact the debate about legitamizing new mechanics or keeping old ones. So the more background arguments are out there the better and more accurate the game will be simulated. Of course in most cases there are new mechanism that give in to the facts both sides state as important. Only thing is that Joseph is a bit alone with is religious position so he gets more aroused over the matter.
Imho the discussion should always go deep so yeah the 'offtopic' often is the base layer for better evaluated decisions resulting in better gameplay due to more realism (Joseph would probably disagree here
).That may be part of ageing but there are quite a lot of different theories there. And no reason why we can't improve on that.
In natural evolution, there definitely is a reason for ageing, but I was talking about what we can do now and in the future and there are no fundamental limits for continuously replenishing the different cell types (e.g. by freezing some healthy stem cells and replenishing cell types that need replenishing every x years).
Though does the brain really support this? We don't really know what the effects would be after x amount of years on memory, logic, deduction, mental state, and so on, so although we might be able to keep the body alive there might very well be reasons in our complex brain that don't allow for it to continue ad infinitum.
Cheers
