Civ 5 Religion Mod

[Dryhad]

Well. if you don't have proof of X and you treat X like a truth, what should I call it, besides faith in X? Operational certainty? Hopeful self-deceiving? A jump in the unknown?

A simplification for the sake of argument! So that I don't have to spell out "not a mathematical certainty but based on the lack of evidence to the contrary the best conclusion we can draw under the circumstances" every time I discuss the non-belief in dieties. I thought I had explained what weak atheism was, do I have to do it again?

Well, the assumption that our senses are reliable ( even if to a point ) is a little bit shaky... at best we scientists use Occam razor and pretend that our senses are reliable until that proposition seems stupid. Same for the other assumptions ( and not all of them are even constant: I can point you a lot of scientific theories that assumed and assume that the nature is not uniform )

If our senses are not reliable, not merely that they can be fooled but that any sensory data we recieve is completely untrustworthy, then science is meaningless. Whatever exists is not meaningful to us, because we cannot percieve it. The world is an illusion. We assume this to be false, so that we can get on with our lives. We do not arbitrarily suspend this assumption just to preserve the concept of god.

Notice a thing: I am not asking anything more of the proof of existance or not of deities than i ask of anything else. I'm just not trying to make a absolute truth out of a usage of the scientific method and of the ol'Occam razor ( and make no doubt, afirming the non-existance of gods is stating a absolute truth, a dogma in the original sense of the word, because, as you pointed above, you have no proof and you don't need one ). The only output than the scientific method would give in this situation is the Laplace one I quoted: i didn't needed that hypothesis of work until now ... but if I notice any phenomenon that does seem to need that hypothesis, I'll use it. Same as the hypothesis of work than all the cars in a certain track in a highway follow in the same direction: you can treat it as operational certain if you like ( and most of us do , thankfully ) , but that does not mean that you can't find a car driving in your direction.

I think you'll find this is closer to weak atheism than you might think. The only difference is that I skipped over all that unnecessary philosophical crap about what might be true but is unfalsifiable.

Ok, let me explain why i said it: because of the usage of the Occam razor you tossed against my argument. You should know better that occam razor is a heuristic in science and not a philosophical necessary point ... and because using Occam razor like you tried to use agaist my argument is a well known sport of a lot of people vs theist arguments. If that was not your idea I apologize .

I don't believe I ever used Occam's Razor against your argument. I brought it up twice: Once suspecting you of subconciously including it in your definition of agnosticism, and once in support of my own argument. The former is not at all typical of atheism vs theism arguments so I'll assume that's not what you're talking about, and the latter could only be considered to be used "against" you if you were arguing against me, which as you repeatedly state you are not.

Who said that? My point was that , up from the moment you state you have either faith or proof, the question of knowledge or not of the thing is out of the window, because either you already have it solved ( proof ) or because you have no need for it ( faith ). That was what I meant with the two being non-independent in this context, obviously in a not clear enough fashion.

For a example, look above to your own text: you say you have no proof and you don't need one . So the question of gnosis is out of the window: you can't make a case about if you know a thing or not when you state that you don't have proof and you don't need one, so a person that states that can't be a agnostic or even a weak atheist by your own definition ( not because they don't know or not, but because they don't even care to know ). That leaves the question of if you believe in the existance or in the non-existance of X.

I beg your pardon. You believe proof to be a necessary component of knowledge, not belief. As I have previously stated, this is a dreadfully limiting definition of knowledge.

 

[cicero spqr]

Here is my idea. let's make all religions start out with a founding city state that is settled at the beginning of the game. they make missionaries and these missionaries spread across the continent. All the civilizations start out with pantheons like "roman pantheon" and "indian pantheon". When a missionary from one of the big seven comes along, he can convert that city to the particular religion. So if a jewish missionary converts a border city, you can convert to judaism or keep your pantheon. and if you have more than one religion in a city, they have different percentages based on the time a religion is present in the city. you could increase this time by sending more missionaries to that city. All the city states that found religion would be spread across the continent or continents. civic like stances could allow the player to customize the religion more, even though each religion has starting bonuses. so you could make your empire have a state religion but be tolerant towards other religions. or you could have a complete theocracy and outlaw every other religion. other civs that have your religion would also be slanted in your favor. and if someone attacked the founding city of your religion, you and your AI pals could start a crusade. i haven't flushed out all my ideas yet, so it's not all that great, but it's better than no religion at all

 

[the343danny]

Atheism isnt a religion. Some dictionary definition does not matter. Does the dictionary get the say on what Christianity is? No, Christians do. In the same way, atheists define atheism. The definition of atheism by (many) atheists is "one who has no belief in god". It includes agnosticism.

Back on the point of this thread, atheism should be a religious civic simply for gameplay. Are we really going to have a nation with atheism as a social civic while being Christian? I would suggest something like paganism, which doesn't necessarily have to represent all thousands of them, at the start, like in civ, and have atheism come later, so that the bonuses of being atheist dont come right from the start.

 

[civ_king]

Atheism isnt a religion. Some dictionary definition does not matter. Does the dictionary get the say on what Christianity is? No, Christians do. In the same way, atheists define atheism. The definition of atheism by (many) atheists is "one who has no belief in god". It includes agnosticism.

Back on the point of this thread, atheism should be a religious civic simply for gameplay. Are we really going to have a nation with atheism as a social civic while being Christian? I would suggest something like paganism, which doesn't necessarily have to represent all thousands of them, at the start, like in civ, and have atheism come later, so that the bonuses of being atheist dont come right from the start.

IIRC the Bible says Protestants aren't Christians, but the Protestants claim they are... only one can be right, but who is?

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

IIRC the Bible says Protestants aren't Christians, but the Protestants claim they are... only one can be right, but who is?

I'd be really impressed if the Bible said anything at all about a sectarian split that came along more than a millennium after the Council of Nicaea.

 

[frekk]

If religion were to be re-implemented as a mod, I'd like to see it overhauled signifigantly from the civ4 method.

There are quite a few problems with that system, which is rather clunky and inelegant. Buddhist Vikings, etc. Religion is all bonuses. Founded by technology rather than more of a random event. Etc.

First thing: I think religions should be relatively generic, as a baseline. I like the idea of having traits that can change, sort of like civics, but I think there should be no inherent difference in the religions other than, perhaps, art styles for icons, units and buildings associated with it. Differences should be applied on top of the generic base. This pretty much gets rid of the problem of people being offended by stereotypes about different religions, and if the traits can change, you can also represent the fact that religions change over time - from instance, a religion can go from a bizarre fringe cult, to an incredibly violent state religion, to a pacifist organization, then back to a violent state religion, then to a more social authoritarian thing, then back to pacifism, and so on. Religions, like anything else in this world, adapt or die.

Second thing: I don't want to be assigned a religion, nor do I want to choose from a limited list. Rather, I'd like to pick a name from a menu of suggestions, but with the option to type in my own names; then pick from a variety of options which art I want for my icons, units and buildings (perhaps even mix and matching different bits from different religions, if I want). With a default for all these things, so if I don't feel like 'creating' my religion, I can just click through quickly. The AI's choices would be predefined by civilization. But me, I'd like to have the ability to design the superficial aspects on the fly and with no limit other than the available icons and art.

In essence, rather than having a list of X number of religions each with fixed art and icons, I'd like to name my religion (a list of suggestions is fine) and then dip into a pool of collected art and choose the bits I like. So if I want to call my religion the "Seventh Day Revanchists" which has Aztec priests using futuristic temples, that's something I'd be able to do.

This way, I don't have to have Jewish Aztecs or Buddhist Vikings, nor do I have to stick to a limited set of religions. I can create my own religion, entirely. No matter how many religions might be included in a mod, it's never really going to be enough - especially if I want an entirely made-up religion. That's more or less what I really want to see in a religion mod.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

Completely customizing your religion really sounds like something for exercising your own modding skills on, or else for some dedicated "SimSect" game. It's a little over-the-top for a game of Civ, especially since we don't get that kind of aesthetic control over our entire civilization.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I definitely agree with some of your ideas Frekk though-as with The Cosmic Kid-I think fully customizable religions might be going a bit over the top.
Perhaps your original choice of religions is still out of a small group (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Vodun (or Voodoo as its popularly known), Sikhism & Zoroastrianism come to mind-not Confucianism, as I don't view it as a proper religion), but you get the *option* to name your religion if you change one or more of your traits at any given time (perhaps with a limit on the number of times you can alter it between turns). All your religious buildings, though, retain the architecture of the original religion.

What is most important, to me, is defining the traits. As I see it, there are 3 major categories to look at-which I'll call "Strictness", "Secularism" & "Tolerance". Each category can be organized along a Left -----> Right axis.
Strictness goes from Fundamentalist---->Liberal (this primarily effects the chance of new religions being spread into your nation & the penalties any such religion will bring if it appears).
"Secularism" goes from Puritan------>Bacchanalian (this primarily effects the yields, commerces, happiness & health which can be generated from religious buildings-or the mere presence of the State Religion).

"Tolerance" would go from Sacrificial----->Ecumenical (would primarily effect yields, commerces & happiness relating to non-State religion cities, as well as diplomatic relations with civs of differing Sects/religions).

I agree that religion should be about penalties & bonuses. For example, adopting a Fundamentalist approach to Strictness, you might get bonus happiness & a reduced chance of other faiths spreading to your land, but you'd also get a penalty to science & a penalty to diplomatic relations with every other religion (& probably most sects of your own religion!)

Of course, this leads me back to the point I made earlier-that merely having same/different religions should not be the basis of your diplomatic standing. The various trait choices you make, coupled with your treatment of other religions within your borders, should be the primary "Religious" determinant of your relations with other civs.
Anyway, I think this approach opens up some intriguing possibilities. For example, you might be Christian & switch to Ascetic on the Secularism scale. Having an historical bent, you decide to rename your religion Catharism-then need to decide if you're going to be Fundamentalist & Militant or Liberal & Ecumenical-or something in between (just trying to imagine a Militant Sect of Fundamentalist Bacchanalian Buddhists-that could be funny ! Maybe some choices on one area should prevent certain choices in others? Or maybe not?)

 

[civ_king]

I'd be really impressed if the Bible said anything at all about a sectarian split that came along more than a millennium after the Council of Nicaea.

It doesn't exactly say that,

1) Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and
2) he also said all who reject you reject me and all who reject me reject my father,
3) seeing as he commanded Peter to found his church and the result was the Catholic Church,
4) Then Peter's/Jesus's Church being rejected means they reject Jesus ergo they are not Christian

BTW the Puritans were Theocrats, just ask the Puritans

 

[Dryhad]

It doesn't exactly say that,

1) Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and
2) he also said all who reject you reject me and all who reject me reject my father,
3) seeing as he commanded Peter to found his church and the result was the Catholic Church,
4) Then Peter's/Jesus's Church being rejected means they reject Jesus ergo they are not Christian

BTW the Puritans were Theocrats, just ask the Puritans

The Protestants reject the Catholic claim that they (the Catholic Church) are the legitimate heirs of Peter's church. So using the exact same Biblical references Catholicism is not Christianity. And can we not, please? Religion in Civ has nothing to do with who is right.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

Of course, this leads me back to the point I made earlier-that merely having same/different religions should not be the basis of your diplomatic standing. The various trait choices you make, coupled with your treatment of other religions within your borders, should be the primary "Religious" determinant of your relations with other civs.

And ideally, religious/trait differences should not affect diplomatic stance directly; I'd like AIs to be playing by the same rules as humans. Imagine instead that your citizens got happiness bonuses/penalties for your having a good diplomatic relationship with a neighbor whose traits are similar/different than yours. This would encourage even human players not to get too friendly with those hedonist swine across the border.

No reason to restrict this to religious differences, either; if you're leading a free republic, your citizens may get pissed at you for jumping in bed with a fascist dictatorship, too.

 

[civ_king]

The Protestants reject the Catholic claim that they (the Catholic Church) are the legitimate heirs of Peter's church. So using the exact same Biblical references Catholicism is not Christianity. And can we not, please? Religion in Civ has nothing to do with who is right.

then no one is correct and Christianity died a long time ago, the Catholic Church can trace itself through Apostolic succession and the Sacraments

 

[r_rolo1]

Spoiler :

A simplification for the sake of argument! So that I don't have to spell out "not a mathematical certainty but based on the lack of evidence to the contrary the best conclusion we can draw under the circumstances" every time I discuss the non-belief in dieties. I thought I had explained what weak atheism was, do I have to do it again?

A simplification only is as good as the base thesis when you don't get out of the area where the diferences are meaningless. This is not the case here, if haven't noticed...

Spoiler :

If our senses are not reliable, not merely that they can be fooled but that any sensory data we recieve is completely untrustworthy, then science is meaningless. Whatever exists is not meaningful to us, because we cannot percieve it. The world is an illusion. We assume this to be false, so that we can get on with our lives. We do not arbitrarily suspend this assumption just to preserve the concept of god.

And?... Assumptions are not exactly the same as knowledge, you know. That has been all my point....

And you argument breaks in one point: we know for sure that our senses are atleast sefl-contradicting at times ( otherwise we would not have sensorial ilusions, where things that look in one way are perceived to be in other completely diferent way by simly perceiving them in other fashion ). That means that we can't even thruthfully pretend that our senses are reliable, because for a thing to be reliable it has to atleast be coherent ( ok, a unreliable instrument might also be coherent in the results it gives, but that is besides the point ).

Spoiler :

I think you'll find this is closer to weak atheism than you might think. The only difference is that I skipped over all that unnecessary philosophical crap about what might be true but is unfalsifiable.

Not needing X to get a result is not even close of proving that X does not exist. Not needing a screwdriver to get a screw out because you used a knife for that means that screwdrivers do not exist ?

Spoiler :

I don't believe I ever used Occam's Razor against your argument. I brought it up twice: Once suspecting you of subconciously including it in your definition of agnosticism, and once in support of my own argument. The former is not at all typical of atheism vs theism arguments so I'll assume that's not what you're talking about, and the latter could only be considered to be used "against" you if you were arguing against me, which as you repeatedly state you are not.

"May i present you to the Occam razor?" seems a lot like using the said tool as part of a argument Again, as it seems you meant something else, I apologize.

Spoiler :

I beg your pardon. You believe proof to be a necessary component of knowledge, not belief. As I have previously stated, this is a dreadfully limiting definition of knowledge.

Exactly. If you don't have proof, you don't have knowledge, you have a gut feeling, a plausible scenario, a operational certainty. Call it reductionist, but there is no other logically defendable position . Using a operational certainty as a mock-up sustitute for knowledge is normally ok, but that does not make the two things equal.

@the343danny

That is a curious argument. Atheists define atheism ... I'm ok with that, as long as you say to me how do you know who is atheist before you define atheism

And I never said that atheism was a religion. I said atheism was a faith in the non-existance of deities. Those are very diferent propositions.

@ civ_king

Please, please read the original text before doing a assumption like that. The oldest known version of that particular sentence is in greek and resumes to a questionable taste pun revolving around the name Jesus had given to Simon ( Pethros ) and the greek name for rock ( petra ) ... and even if it meant what you suggest it means, the notion of being the base of the church is far from being the commander of it . To end, it would also mean that you can prove the paper of Peter could be transmitted to someone else and that you can prove that the there is a line of sucession from Peter to any person living today. Feel free to try

 

[civ_king]

*snip*

Please, please read the original text before doing a assumption like that. The oldest known version of that particular sentence is in greek and resumes to a questionable taste pun revolving around the name Jesus had given to Simon ( Pethros ) and the greek name for rock ( petra ) ... and even if it meant what you suggest it means, the notion of being the base of the church is far from being the commander of it . To end, it would also mean that you can prove the paper of Peter could be transmitted to someone else and that you can prove that the there is a line of sucession from Peter to any person living today. Feel free to try

Jesus also gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Peter was the man who led the Church, he was the bedrock, all turned to the Bishop of Rome to settle theological disputes,

 

[r_rolo1]

Can you please not bring the King James translation to the scene ? It is a well known translation, that is for sure, but has a lot of translation errors and there is a critical one in this part, that is the "thee" . There is no binding to the person of Peter in the more original greek texts ....

And Peter did not led the church in any sense that is discernable . James was the coordinator of the first "council" in Jerusalem, Paul and Peter has some bitter discussions without Peter ever pushing the authority you claim he has ( read the texts of Paul himself ) and in atleast one ocasion Peter was a heretic, by baptizing Cornelius against the doctrine of the church in those days. And, about him being the bishop of Rome... well, that would be more believable if the more ancient lists of bishops of Rome included him and not started with Linus

 

[civ_king]

Can you please not bring the King James translation to the scene ? It is a well known translation, that is for sure, but has a lot of translation errors and there is a critical one in this part, that is the "thee" . There is no binding to the person of Peter in the more original greek texts ....

And Peter did not led the church in any sense that is discernable . James was the coordinator of the first "council" in Jerusalem, Paul and Peter has some bitter discussions without Peter ever pushing the authority you claim he has ( read the texts of Paul himself ) and in atleast one ocasion Peter was a heretic, by baptizing Cornelius against the doctrine of the church in those days. And, about him being the bishop of Rome... well, that would be more believable if the more ancient lists of bishops of Rome included him and not started with Linus

Correct, but we are down to semantics as the bishops themselves are the successor of the Apostles. Peter is the first among the Apostles and the first Bishop is Linus who succeeded Peter.

IIRC Paul appointed Linus after the Office became vacant (Peter's crucifixion)


PS in the rock dialogue Jesus referred to Peter as cephas

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

I'm liking a lot of what I'm hearing in this thread, I'm glad to see if rapidly moved away from just a strait remake of Civ4 religion or such nonsense as "No from Pigs for Judaism or Islam", how is that even remotely fun to play? I've always maintained that different game play effects (even if "positive") could NEVER EVER be attached to a real religion UNLESS the choices is done in game under the full control of the player. I'd go so far as to say even using real religion names/symbols should be optional, allow the player to name the religion after themselves and upload a picture of their face as the symbol, after all according to Sid everyone who plays Civ is an egomaniac by definition so they should get a real kick out of it.

Aussie_Lurkers basic premise of moving Civic type effects into the religion itself is the best solution and the notion of having a couple of different categories is nice as well, it would allow a lot more combos. Basing diplomacy on the degree of similarity in these characteristics and on specific 'intolerance' type factors would also be a great. It would give players the real choice between war and peace depending on if players choose similar & 'Kumbaya' type characteristic or divergent & antagonistic one. No longer would every game play out with the same level of religion-based warring, though it would remain possible.

Eklabiaan's basic premise also sounds good, the tracking of two factors he calls Vitality/Zeal which act as a kind of defense/offense values for respectively for each religion as they 'clash' is very compelling and to have these values decay and then get boosted by big splashy events like religious revivals. Most of the more minor details though I am more sceptically on, particularly the founding method. Great Prophet based founding is really the simplest and clearest way to do it.

I could envision some nice hybridization between these two approaches, different quasi-Civic style effects choose for a religion give different initial Vitality/Zeal values or different rates of change. This would move the bonuses away from just being another generic goody-bag of bonuses to something that will really be important to the spread/dominance of religious, a real strategic choice.

Revivals and Schisms could also work into this. In a Reformation/Revival the player is able to change one aspect of the religion to gain advantage. In a Schism perhaps they receive a 'bonus' aspect making the Schismatic religion better then its original but at the cost of a larger diplomatic negative with the original religion.

 

[civ_king]

I'm liking a lot of what I'm hearing in this thread, I'm glad to see if rapidly moved away from just a strait remake of Civ4 religion or such nonsense as "No from Pigs for Judaism or Islam", how is that even remotely fun to play? I've always maintained that different game play effects (even if "positive") could NEVER EVER be attached to a real religion UNLESS the choices is done in game under the full control of the player. I'd go so far as to say even using real religion names/symbols should be optional, allow the player to name the religion after themselves and upload a picture of their face as the symbol, after all according to Sid everyone who plays Civ is an egomaniac by definition so they should get a real kick out of it.

Aussie_Lurkers basic premise of moving Civic type effects into the religion itself is the best solution and the notion of having a couple of different categories is nice as well, it would allow a lot more combos. Basing diplomacy on the degree of similarity in these characteristics and on specific 'intolerance' type factors would also be a great. It would give players the real choice between war and peace depending on if players choose similar & 'Kumbaya' type characteristic or divergent & antagonistic one. No longer would every game play out with the same level of religion-based warring, though it would remain possible.

Eklabiaan's basic premise also sounds good, the tracking of two factors he calls Vitality/Zeal which act as a kind of defense/offense values for respectively for each religion as they 'clash' is very compelling and to have these values decay and then get boosted by big splashy events like religious revivals. Most of the more minor details though I am more sceptically on, particularly the founding method. Great Prophet based founding is really the simplest and clearest way to do it.

I could envision some nice hybridization between these two approaches, different quasi-Civic style effects choose for a religion give different initial Vitality/Zeal values or different rates of change. This would move the bonuses away from just being another generic goody-bag of bonuses to something that will really be important to the spread/dominance of religious, a real strategic choice.

Revivals and Schisms could also work into this. In a Reformation/Revival the player is able to change one aspect of the religion to gain advantage. In a Schism perhaps they receive a 'bonus' aspect making the Schismatic religion better then its original but at the cost of a larger diplomatic negative with the original religion.

that would only be fair if they get an equivalent penalty, EG when the Protestants split off they started slaughtering Jews and Catholics who refused to convert, but they gained a benefit in um, uh killing people like intellectuals, wait, that's not a bonus... so yeah the Schismatic benefit is non-existant

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The Schismatic Benefit should simply be the ability to choose the principle Dogma(s) of your new faith-but at the cost of losing the benefits of the old Sect. So to use the historical example of Catholicism & Protestantism: one of the chief issues of Martin Luther was the massive money that the Catholic Church was making-through its Monasteries, the selling of Indulgences & other worldly activities like this. In my system, this would probably make the Secularism Trait of Catholicism "Materialistic" (perhaps granting bonus gold from Christian Buildings). Now the thing most associated with Protestantism is the whole "Protestant Work Ethic", so a Protestant Schism might cause religious buildings to lose their gold bonus, but gain a production bonus instead. Of course, in the game you wouldn't have this forced on you-you would get to choose which of the 3 traits (Strictness, Secularism & Tolerance) apply to your new sect.
Hope that makes sense.

Aussie

 

[lemmy101]

I'd love to see a religion system where it got built block by block by the player as new techs came along. Civic style selections of what the religion represents that effect its bonuses and weaknesses. Want a militaristic and dogmatic Mormon religion on a crusade? Go for it. Choose an existing world religion or make up your own and tailor that religion to work as you do your government. Most of our multiplayer games have the 'Awesmonian Empire' and the 'Empire of Spoons' anyway, so why not have our religions custom made too?