Faith vs. Science

[Boris Gudenuf]

Moderator Action: Please note these posts were extracted into their own thread from the main thread

Oh crap....And there seems to be no way to give cities back!
EDIT, ah just liberate them, set them free!
View attachment 605035

Ah yes: "City Cap" does not refer to headgear, it refers to expanding too fast and getting your head handed to you by a 'Gotcha!' game mechanic . . .

There are several of these pungi-stake pits for the unwary beginning gamer in Humankind.

Let me mention just one more you may or may not have run into: The 'Irreligion' Civic: if you are getting any bonuses from Religious Tenets, think long and hard before you even open this - and then don't do it. It basically makes you a game version of an Aetheistic Faction, and you lose all benefits from having a Religion. Remember, the fact that you have unlocked aC ivic does not mean you have to do anything with it - some Civics should be left alone until you have a need or a purpose for them.

 

[Krajzen]

Ah yes: "City Cap" does not refer to headgear, it refers to expanding too fast and getting your head handed to you by a 'Gotcha!' game mechanic . . .

There are several of these pungi-stake pits for the unwary beginning gamer in Humankind.

Let me mention just one more you may or may not have run into: The 'Irreligion' Civic: if you are getting any bonuses from Religious Tenets, think long and hard before you even open this - and then don't do it. It basically makes you a game version of an Aetheistic Faction, and you lose all benefits from having a Religion. Remember, the fact that you have unlocked aC ivic does not mean you have to do anything with it - some Civics should be left alone until you have a need or a purpose for them.

Honestly it's kind of awesome thst the game offers this option, it's one of those one thousand and fifty minor things that should be in certain other game instead of zombies

But I guess it's suboptimal option basing on your reaction, what benefits does it offer?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Honestly it's kind of awesome thst the game offers this option, it's one of those one thousand and fifty minor things that should be in certain other game instead of zombies

But I guess it's suboptimal option basing on your reaction, what benefits does it offer?

Depending on which "Irreligious" decision you choose, you either become Immune to religious grievances, which makes it harder for other Factions to pick a fight with you, or you get a major reduction of influence from foreign religions, which makes it harder for someone to detach a territory/city from you 'peacefully'. In certain circumstances when you are feeling pressured, then, going Irreligious could be handy, but since in the games I've played I usually manage to have a religion of my own and am Hoovering up major benefits from it, doing away with those is a major no-no. The first (and only!) time I activated Irreligion I lost about half my Science output in a single turn, which was a major Incoherent Scream of Rage at the Computer Moment. Since then they have toned down the individual effects from Religious Tenets*, but in they still provide nice, if not game-breaking, bonuses in Influence, Science, Production and Money - the four basic Currencies in the game.

* In a game several months ago before one of the many balance passes, certain Religious Tenets made Holy Sites the major source of Science in your Faction - far better than the Research Quarters or any other 'Science' infrastructure. I remember getting 250+ Science per turn per Holy Site when even the (also OP) Joseon Korea Seowon Emblematic Quarters, which were supposed to be the great Science infrastructure, only totaled about half that. I had visions of the Church of the Holy Astrolabe or Rite of the Sacred Slide-Rule, but they have made major balance changes that eliminated most of that silliness.

 

[Krajzen]

l think it's telling that based on my experiences with civ6 I have expected the game to provide some dumb, cartoonish instant science bonus from Irreligious civic, and then was surprised that the effect of the policy is to shut down some religious institutions and disable some religious problems threatening the state... Which are sensible, realistic effects based on real history.

 

[pokiehl]

l think it's telling that based on my experiences with civ6 I have expected the game to provide some dumb, cartoonish instant science bonus from Irreligious civic, and then was surprised that the effect of the policy is to shut down some religious institutions and disable some religious problems threatening the state... Which are sensible, realistic effects based on real history.

Interesting perspective.

In my opinion, Humankind completely subscribes to the Faith vs Science dichotomy just like Civ does (which is not “realistic”).

And speaking of cartoony, holy cow do I dislike the quotes and narration in the game. I just want a historical game to have some sense of seriousness to it, but this game is even more cartoonish than Civ 6 in its silly, irreverent narrations. At least they’re not quoting bloggers or outright using fake quotes like Civ 6 has though…

Anyway I’m enjoying my time with it and my experience with this build has been a LOT better than my time with the open devs. Still need to take it all in though.

 

[DaviddesJ]

"Faith vs Science" is fairly historical. Usually these two things have been in conflict throughout human history. Of course, they don't *have* to be. But if it keeps happening over and over, there are probably reasons for that in human psychology.

 

[pokiehl]

"Faith vs Science" is fairly historical. Usually these two things have been in conflict throughout human history. Of course, they don't *have* to be. But if it keeps happening over and over, there are probably reasons for that in human psychology.

I completely disagree. Look up monastic schools during the Middle Ages, the Golden Age of Islam, etc.

Both Humankind and Civ certainly allude to the intersection of religion and scientific learning (the Umayyad and Teuton bonuses in Humankind for instance), but as a whole, I think these games' treatment of science/religion is not good.

 

[Elhoim]

In my opinion, Humankind completely subscribes to the Faith vs Science dichotomy just like Civ does (which is not “realistic”).

I wouldn't say completely, it's mostly only in the values axis (which was different at some point, I think tradition was influence?). Religion has a lot of cool science bonuses, and not using a religion increases your influence, not your science.

 

[Zaarin]

"Faith vs Science" is fairly historical. Usually these two things have been in conflict throughout human history. Of course, they don't *have* to be. But if it keeps happening over and over, there are probably reasons for that in human psychology.

Rubbish. "Faith vs. Science" is a Victorian myth that says more about the Victorians' antipathy for the Middle Ages than anything with any bearing on reality. For most of history religion has been the greatest patron of science.

 

[CivLuvah]

"Faith vs Science" is fairly historical. Usually these two things have been in conflict throughout human history. Of course, they don't *have* to be. But if it keeps happening over and over, there are probably reasons for that in human psychology.

There are many historians and scholars these days who seriously question this historiographical dichotomy. Historical cliches die hard among the general public.

And speaking of cartoony, holy cow do I dislike the quotes and narration in the game. I just want a historical game to have some sense of seriousness to it, but this game is even more cartoonish than Civ 6 in its silly, irreverent narrations. At least they’re not quoting bloggers or outright using fake quotes like Civ 6 has though…

As a (disclaimer!) VIP I have played the different builds several times that, yes, the jokes from the narrator can sometimes wear out or get annoying. From what I know you can turn off the narrator in settings. I think there needs to be a balance of humour and seriousness in these kinds of games. I know Civ4 (and Civ5) got this and wasn't "in your face", but Civ6, in my opinion, is way less serious than Humankind, especially when you look at the atrocious civilopedia.

 

[Krajzen]

I'd go third way in this debate and say that the very idea of a conflict between religion and science is a very modern idea which doesn't make sense until, idk, 19th or 18th century? For most of history religion wasn't opposed to science... but that's because the very idea of those two things being separate, of being something outside a religious worldview, was a nonsense for the vast majority of humans and cultures. Science, philosophy and religion were entagled threads of a broad intellectual history. Christianity facilitated learning about the world, in a Christian way, based on Christian motivations and with Christian ideological bias towards everything, which definitely helped some branches of science and harmed development of others (let's say empirical unbiased study of homosexuality for example ) - but there wasn't any irreligious alternative anyway, it was all going together until Enlightenment. It's really hard to say whether religion was "good" or "bad" for science if the very concept of the possibility of those two discipline being no connected to each other wasn't a thing.

Was religion supporting science, if scientific theories were developed with the fundament and motivation being religious dogma instead of "secular progress" or "objective non dogmatic truth"? Was it against science and irrational if it sometimes dismissed singular problematic empirical findings contrary to the Great Ergonomic Theory Nicely Explaining Most of Things if modern science does the same from time to time?

My answer to the question "was religion against science in history" is not "yes or no" but "the question is meaningless for most of history because those two and philosophy were one inseparable package". It was only during Enlightenment when the development of Christan science and philosophy reached the point of "damn if we can explain so much with mechanical laws of nature then maybe God is not necessary" in minds of some radical thinkers. There could be no real conceptual dichotomy between science and religion until there was only one way to explain the world, utilizing both God and mathematics.

Since then, relations between religion and science depend on the particular denomination and scientific branch. Catholic Church had no problems with modern physics but it took almost century for it too ofically accept theory of evolution. Some crazy American protestants don't accept it even now. And then we have Muslim extremists like Boko Haram who told once "we don't believe rain falls because of laws of nature, but because God orders it to happen" , so before Enlightenment the answer to the question is "the question is meaningless" and afterwards it's "it really depends".


There were some very small snippets of "irreligion" existing before Enlightenment, but they were extremely rare and marginal. Even among pagan Greek and Roman philosophers, the group you'd realy expect to find it, it is extremely rare to find something actually approaching modern irreligious worldview instead of "maybe gods don't exist but they probably do and let's act so". I have heard there were some very minor atheist branches of Hindu philosophy (as paradoxical as it sounds) but I don't know anything about that yet. I suspect they just had really exotic understanding of what Brahman is rather than "lol religion sucks there are only atoms and science without any stupid rituals"

 

[DaviddesJ]

I think there are plenty of ancient examples of tensions between religion and science. But clearly we aren't going to agree.

 

[Siptah]

There were some very small snippets of "irreligion" existing before Enlightenment, but they were extremely rare and marginal. Even among pagan Greek and Roman philosophers, the group you'd realy expect to find it, it is extremely rare to find something actually approaching modern irreligious worldview instead of "maybe gods don't exist but they probably do and let's act so".

I can always recommend reading Aristophanes' "Clouds" if you haven't. Not that it is to be taken too seriously as an example of irreligion, but it shows a very interesting view of religion and how natural philosophy can "contradict." As most of Aristophanes works, it's still pretty hilarious almost 2500 years later and I'm quite sure you'll like it. Older translations are available for free on the internet.

Your best "serious" arguments are probably found in Lucretius's work. I guess thoughts like his and Epíkouros' (gods exist but are material, mortal, not creators and can't interact with humans, their use is in being god idols for humans) are the reason why the irreligion civic in HK is available rather early, usually in the classical era.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I can always recommend reading Aristophanes' "Clouds" if you haven't. Not that it is to be taken too seriously as an example of irreligion, but it shows a very interesting view of religion and how natural philosophy can "contradict." As most of Aristophanes works, it's still pretty hilarious almost 2500 years later and I'm quite sure you'll like it. Older translations are available for free on the internet.

Most of Aristophane's works show a distinctly jaundiced view of religion and the Gods (at least, those of Greece!). The Birds is religion as a confidence game, Lysistrata shows the Gods and religion as minor features compared to the predicaments humans can get themselves into all alone - which, considering that Greek Theatre started out as completely Religious presentations, is a positively Ground Breaking view of religion. Since Aristophane's comedies were wildly popular in his own time, this also reflects a very different view of religion among the audience than is reflected in 'official' pronouncements or histories.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To return, briefly, to Religion in Humankind the game: At first glance you have much less control over Religion than in Civ VI: no building Holy Sites full of enhancing structures, no launching carpets of Missionaries to convert the Heathen, or Apostles and Gurus to carry Religious Metaphorical (or maybe Real) Fire and Sword against the Unbelievers. On the other hand, even without OP Science bonuses, there are some very subtle but Real advantages to religion.

First, Religious Tenets. They 'unlock' some time after you have started a religion, and come in 'Tiers' from 1 to 4. Like Civ VI, they are First Come, First Pick and each Tenet can only be picked by one Religion in the game - come late, and your choices may be limited. Basically, they allow you (again, like the Civ VI religious picks) to specify what benefits you are going to get from your Religion. For example, right at the start, in Tier 1 Tenets, you can choose to get extra Money, Industry, Food, or Science from each Holy Site you build.

Now, Holy Sites are expensive: they cost much more than any single Quarter (District) and so several cities can contribute to building one (which, however, ties up all the production from several cities for X turns, which is not always your best move).

But, for all that production sink, each Holy Site gives a base yield of +20 Faith and +20 Stability. The Faith, of course, provides Religious Pressure to convert neighboring and then further distant Regions to your religion, including regions nominally held by another Faction. This can in turn benefit you directly, because some later Tenets give you bonuses for each Territory under your religion's Influence, so you are basically getting resources from your opponent's people and territory. I don't know about you, but that always gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. . .

The Stability is almost as important, because Stability is a major Limitation on what you can do throughout the game. A city with low Stability can get to the point where you cannot build anything in it except something that increases Stability, and low enough Stability also spawns Rebel Armies, which if you did not bother to build a wall around that city, can ruin your whole day by taking that city away from you in a single Game-Changing Turn. So +20 Stability is not incidental: it's the equivalent of 2 more Quarters you can build without penalty (with a few exceptions, each Quarter you build costs -10 Stability) and early in the game, each Quarter is a substantial gain in your overall Resource accumulation per turn.

I have never played a 'religious game' in Civ VI, and I brought that attitude into Humankind. I've learned my lesson. 2 - 3 Holy Sites is the equivalent of 6 - 9 more Quarters, which, early in the game, is a Fame Star and if you happen to be playing a Builder Faction, could be several hundred Fame Points. Never forget: Fame Points are the ONLY Victory Condition in this game. You can have Trade Routes far and wide or conquer three-quarters of the cities and regions on the map, but if some Faction off in the corner has been quietly gathering Influence (Fame Stars and more Fame Points for Aesthete Factions), building Quarters and gaining Science they can still beat you without ever fighting a battle.

Not easily, I grant you: Conquest potentially gets you Fame from winning battles, killing Units, amassing more Regions and Quarters in captured cities, and if an enemy has to pay up in a Victory Settlement, major lumps of Money. On the other hand, attempted Conquest that doesn't succeed can tie you up in a drawn-out war that ends when neither of you have enough War Support to win and you are, basically, forced (by your own little digital peoples) to make a 'peace of exhaustion'. Until you are familiar with it, War in Humankind is a lot trickier than in Civ: you can find yourself playing your own nasty little game of "US in Vietnam" or "Soviet Union in Afghanistan" in the Classical Age - on the other hand, waging a Successful War is a lot more satisfying an accomplishment once you know how.

 

[8housesofelixir]

In my opinion, Humankind completely subscribes to the Faith vs Science dichotomy just like Civ does (which is not “realistic”).

In the early versions of Humankind, at least for Stadia and Lucy builds, that ideological dichotomy used to be Influence vs. Science instead of Faith vs. Science. I suppose the devs want to have a non-Holy Site way to gain Faith and landed it in there, which is unfortunate.

 

[Victoria]

I'm with @Boris Gudenuf.
Religion is a mechanic that aids you in so many ways. You can ignore it but it is chugging there in the background and I cannot count within a week how many times I have said 'I need more stability'. The fact you can share the creating of the HS helps also. It helps science so it is not vs science, we need to evolve our views as we encounter more of life and this faith vs science is just not right in this game. It is a part of society and in the late game a lot of the stromger empires ditch it. Yes ditching it loses great value but also allows a more stable conversation with other empires and less grievancve against you.
I think I have not played enough to know the nuances inside out of it but I think an important part of this game like Civ is you can choose to use it or not but it is more impactful in this game. Faith is in fact science, as also is most other things you succeed at like population, expansion, alliances. It is an integral part of our history so is an integral part of the game.
If you ignore it and an adjacent civ's religion maerges with yours (rather than converts , 2 religions evolve into 1) then it is the civ with the most holy sites that makes the decisions wether the religion follows science, war, culture etc. Ignore it and you may be missing a trick.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think where Humankind comes in the (historically false) "Science versus Faith" debate is shown by the Infrastructure in the game. The very first Science-enhancing Infrastructure you can build, available in the Ancient Age with Writing, is the House of Scribes, which gives you 2 additional Researchers slots and +1 Science per Researcher slot filled. You can't even build Research Quarters and Schools until the Classical Age (Philosophy Tech) so, short of some resources and terrain features (for instance, exploited Horse resource gives Science) that's the first and in the Ancient Age the only way to 'boost' your Science output.

Now the kicker: many the 'Scribe Schools/Houses' that have been found are attached to Temples or in Districts of temples and temple-workers, in both Egypt and Mesopotamia. Established Religions needed literate record-keepers as much as commerce or the government did, so separating literacy and its attendant preservation and spread of knowledge from religion is, from the beginning of writing, Impossible.

And, following up on that, the Religious Tenets "Be in Harmony With Nature" and "Seek Wisdom" both give relatively early Science boosts from your religion and Holy Sites, so the game 'doubles down' on Faith = Science instead of the problematic Faith versus Science throughout the game.

I wish the game let me give a specific name to my Religion, because I would frequently call mine the Sacrament of the Sacred Slide Rule or Polytheism of the Polymath just to keep in the spirit of the thing.

 

[Siptah]

I wish the game let me give a specific name to my Religion, because I would frequently call mine the Sacrament of the Sacred Slide Rule or Polytheism of the Polymath just to keep in the spirit of the thing.

You can name your religion freely. Your custom ones don't have a unique holy site, however, so you have to go with one of the pre-defined ones from the historical religions (Shinto, Hinduism, and the like) first and then rename it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You can name your religion freely. Your custom ones don't have a unique holy site, however, so you have to go with one of the pre-defined ones from the historical religions (Shinto, Hinduism, and the like) first and then rename it.

Hah! Missed that. Probably because I've been too busy renaming cities and naming armies as I play: somehow, I just can't my head around having Babylon as the capital of the Franks in Medieval or San Lorenzo as the capital of the British in the Industrial Age: the Franks get Paris, and of course the British capital is Ankh-Morpok . . .