Extremely disappointed to see no sep. of church and state option

[frekk]

If you have a closer look at their personal cults (think of Lenin's Maussoleum at the Kremlin) and the way in which they thought and talked about Marx' and Lenin's theories, one could very well assume that this was at least very close to religion.
Ok, it might have been a materialistic religion, but where is the difference?

It's definately true that after a certain point, the USSR developed many institutions and a general theme that corresponded in many ways to a religious movement, particularly in that it had messianic figures and a program to fight or convert "evil" and bring about the "salvation of mankind".

But, this wasn't the case for the entire history of the USSR. It's really more characteristic of Stalinism. And in any of its incarnations, it was a-theistic, since it did not believe in any sort of supernatural being(s). Religion doesn't necessarily imply a belief in a supreme being or deities of any kind, as there are several Eastern religions in which such beliefs are entirely optional. It's not accurate to say that the USSR wasn't atheist, as it was, whether or not it had a semi-religious format. Atheist, but not necessarily areligious.

 

[Vietcong]

i want a 1984/brave new world state and i cant do that with out being able to make religon illegal!


y is "pacifism" under the religons opstions? thay shold replace it with a sep of crch and state

 

[Phoenix_56721]

From what I understand you will be able to Mod Civ.4 anyway you like, but if thats the only thing thats holding you back from buying Civ.4 when it comes
out, it seem like a pretty weak reason not to buy it. It sounds like Civ.4 will offer more for the modding cumminty then any other strategy game ever made, no game is perfect but modding allows people to make a game in their image with their values! lets not worry about the little things, Civ.4 will offer alot more then most games for only $50!!

 

[warpstorm]

As far as I am concern, Freedom of Religion is separation of church and state as it is the one that says the government doesn't care what relgion your people are.

 

[NankingDan]

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I don't think the option of increased science or education under an aetheist/ secular government is necassarily a bigotted or anti-religious viewpoint. The simple fact is that religion and spirituality in many ways can delay scientific progress. Take, for example "pagan", shamanistic, or "primitave" religions when confronted with foreign technology. For example, the beliefs that photographs steal souls or that men should be hunters and warriors.These belief systems often had ideas concerning the working of the cosmos, the use of resources, or the methods of education in society that directly conflicted with the kinds of system needed for an industrial, technological state. The famous cases of scientific heretics in middle ages/rennasaince europe illustrates how organized religion can often work against scientific progress that directly contradicts or challenges religious doctrine. Yet other belief systems believe that technology distracts people from spiritual goals and leads to materialism. One excellent example of the science/religion conflict is the stem cell debate in the United States. The use/research of stem-cell technology is being hampered by a largely religious faction, or a faction at least loyal to religious constituents. This direct religious persecution of a potentially (though probably very over-hyped) phenomenol new technology is a perfect example of when spirituality and religion squares off against scientific reason to determine what is best and most ethical for a society. Because science often has new ideas for how the universe is defined and what it's ethics are, religion will find itsself in direct conflict. Any student of history knows dozens of examples of societies that refused to adapt due to their view of how existence is, or at least should be, organized. Thus, I don't think there's any real debate that religion can, and has, conflicted with the goals of science. Such statements are not anti-religious rhetoric, nor do they imply that religious people are "stupid". They simply stem from an age-old social phenomenon that religious persons should just accept, just as aetheists have accepted the many frauds, mistakes, and atrocities of science's history. Sorry for the long post.

 

[frekk]

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I don't think the option of increased science or education under an aetheist/ secular government is necassarily a bigotted or anti-religious viewpoint.

I don't think so either, but, I think we'll really have to wait for release to render any judgement. It's entirely possible there is some mechanism (an advance, perhaps, or a feature of certain governments) that changes how religion works in the game. In a way that would be more accurate, since secular societies do not really abandon religion entirely, it's role just becomes minimized and a plurality of religions becomes acceptable without friction.

However I would be very disappointed if it were not present in the game in some form ... the rise of secularism is strongly related to the development of a true scientifically advanced society, and cultures which have not adopted it remain primitive by comparison. A classic 20th century example might be Ataturk and what he did for Turkish society.

 

[NankingDan]

Yuck...is my spelling really that bad? Anyways, I agree - we should probably reserve judgement until we know more about how it is implemented in the game. I have a strong feeling, based on the developer interviews explaining that they were wary of controversy concerning including religion in the game, that civ4 will make an earnest attempt to appear as unbiased as possible.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

ok, when stalin created the personality cults of himself, marx and lenin, he did make it sem kind of religios, but the point is, although the soviet state pushed forth this idealisation of these people, it still pushed a militantly atheist stance towards religion proper as opposed to state worship, or leader worship, the diference lies in the fact that they did not ascribe powers to the dead leaders and such, only the simpsons did that(my favorite episode...)


and as to the idea of atheist states getting an increase in scienge, i agree, but i dont think it should be science, i think it should be overall trade, because once there is no religios force blocking people from pursuing their aims, merchants can do their work more efficiently, and scientists no longer have religious bigots hounding them and denouncing their ideas as heretical

 

[Gargantutron]

after reading this thread, i am more excited about the new religion system is Civ 4 than ever before!! can't wait to see how it plays out.

i certainly hope that you will be able to create what some have suggested, a state where all religions are banned and opressed hihihi. i'd love to create such a nation. But i will definatley want to build a theocratic fundamentalist state as well. seems only the latter option will be available, wich is a shame, more gameplay options add more variety and more fun to the game.

 

[Truronian]

On the idea of boosted science under atheism.

While this may seem intuitively correct I don't think that is the case. For starters, most of the great scientists of the past have been religious (Einstein, Newton, Galileo). In addition, many of the major countries that have made contributions scientifically were at the time compartively religious (Greece, Italy, England, present day USA), while atheist states eg USSR have been backward (though of course this could be due to many reasons). Finally not all sciences in Civ are scientific. Getting a bonus to researching monotheism if your atheist is nonsensical.

I think a better candidate for scientific boost would be the freedom of religion civic. (I dont think religions should gain bonuses)

 

[SmartJock2112]

I see your arguements for a science bonus for an athesist state, as religion is generally unable to cope with change and occasionally do hinder science, but on the other hand, it was monks in monestaries (sp) that preserved much knowledge during the dark ages. Although there are religious factions that are sceptical of science, I think most are not.

 

[NankingDan]

Monks in the middle ages indeed were some of the only scientists/ keepers of knowledge, but because they were amongst the only educated, literate people who possessed the facitlities and time to do so. Aethiest states such as Maoist China or the Soviet union lagged technologically not because of their secularism but because of their economies and general lack of free expression. And, while many great scientists were themselves religious, very few were what could be considered fundamentalists, and the context we are discussing is not about the individual scientist's but of society's view towards religion. Actually, I see no reason that, like the example of the middle-ages monastary, some religious institutions may actually promote science. Civ 4 need not punish players who play as a religious society, but still should pay some heed to the more-or-less proven correlation between secular and scientific movements.

 

[frekk]

I think secularism is the most accurate term. Separation of church and state doesn't necessarily guarantee that religious dogma will not ****** science. It takes a secular society (not just gov't) which restricts the role of religion, without outright abolishing it. Also, the scientific benefits of secularism were being felt long before secularism itself was formalized in the separation of church and state.

Communism wasn't necessarily scientifically backwards ... it was the Soviets who first conducted military exercises involving entire units equipped with tracked vehicles, as opposed to using such equipment as merely a support element for infantry divisions. It was an experiment in developing new ways of fighting in the unique conditions of winter terrain and ruined, muddy landscapes. This Mechanized Brigade was active as early as 1929, far before Guderian's panzer corps. That such lessons were poorly implemented by the time of Barbarossa is more to do with the man, Stalin, than lack of the potential to have done so.

Also, the Soviets made a number of advances in physics, rocketry and chemistry, as well as putting the first satellite into orbit, the first man into space, and the first space station. The Soviets also developed the first succesful helicopter upon which all modern designs are based, and Sikorsky is regarded as the father of helicopters (there were choppers before this, but none were succesful). They were behind the US but easily made more contributions than any other single nation besides the US. The chief difference was that Soviet science did not find commercial application, but was restricted to the state and the military - so American science spread to the world, Western nations became advanced because they benefitted from it, while Soviet science remained restricted and the Eastern bloc did not advance technologically, outside of the military and space program.

However, Soviet scientific advancements would have been equally possible under some sort of theocratic totalitarianism, or any command economy system in which the government had power to marshall such impressive resources to lavish on specific research mega-projects, and I think had little to do with atheism ... Soviet society was as intellectually rigid as any fundamentalist religion.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The emperor wasn't a god in the same sense as the other gods, he did not have priests and temples and so on. He was a sort of symbolic god ... you made a public show of worshipping the emperor to show your allegiance to Rome... His "godhood" was more like being a superstar than a supernatural, and "worshipping" him just meant showing public respect for Rome not worship in the same sense as you would worship the Christian God - nothing mystical or spiritual about it at all, really.

Sorry, but I must disagree with you. Some emperors did have priests and temples. Augustus was deified and prayed to as "the divine Augustus" and there were priests and temples dedicated to him. However, this didn't happen until after his death. His wife, Livia Augusta, was deified many years later, after her death. Caligula, on the other hand, demanded to be worshipped while he was still alive (he considered himself to be Jove/Zeus). A temple was dedicated to Claudius while he was still alive, although he only permitted it for political reasons (so as not to offend the locals). But he in turn was deified after his death.

There may be other examples, but with over 1000 years of Roman and Byzantine Emperors, I'm not familiar with all of them!

 

[HourlyDaily]

Christian monks in the middle ages are pretty much directly responsible for the lack of education and scientific development. The only writing, just about the only formal schooling was based on the Bible and religious teachings. Old books written by Archimedes and the Greeks were taken apart and used to write out the psalms.

Not all monks were necessarily devoutly religious, but many would have enjoyed reading and learning languages, this form of education was good but the churches' hold over most Europeans was partly the reason why most of the populace was kept illiterate (the other reason seems to be that many people didn't have the need to learn).

Yet I think that most societies which placed piety and faith above scientific pursuit and learning have stymied their own advancement, case in point: the fine line walked by Leonardo DaVinci. Lets just say I am no fan of this new so-called "Christian Science" either. I will be modding more civics options into my games and I'll probably be putting in a scientific penalty to offset the happiness gained to some but not all of the religious buildings. Just my opinion and I'm open to debate...

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

Monks in the middle ages indeed were some of the only scientists/ keepers of knowledge, but because they were amongst the only educated, literate people who possessed the facitlities and time to do so. Aethiest states such as Maoist China or the Soviet union lagged technologically not because of their secularism but because of their economies and general lack of free expression. And, while many great scientists were themselves religious, very few were what could be considered fundamentalists, and the context we are discussing is not about the individual scientist's but of society's view towards religion. Actually, I see no reason that, like the example of the middle-ages monastary, some religious institutions may actually promote science. Civ 4 need not punish players who play as a religious society, but still should pay some heed to the more-or-less proven correlation between secular and scientific movements.

i think a good idea would be to lessen the cultural and happy effect of religios structures(but not wonders) in secular civs, while giving those secular civs a small but noticable boost in science

Soviet scientific advancements would have been equally possible under some sort of theocratic totalitarianism, or any command economy system in which the government had power to marshall such impressive resources to lavish on specific research mega-projects, and I think had little to do with atheism

actually it had everything to do with the state aligned atheism, see you say that it would be possible to have made these advances in tech in a theocratic state with enugh resources, well think about this, how would one reconcile the vatican belief if the flatness of the earth(not any more, but they used to) with the ability to create large rockets to launch at the moon, using physics to figure out the fact that the rocket needs to fly around the earth (but wouldnt be able to do if it believed the world was flat) to be able to reach the moon?


it is not about the intolerance of individuals, but about the mass, the ability of an institution or state to abopt new ideas, that is why theocratic states are more stable but less able to advance.

 

[wooga]

I plan on treating the religions as religions _and_ fanatical political ideologies. Essentially, belief systems that go above and beyond merely the system of government as represented by the civics table. Thus I will add some-term-for-stalin-type-state-worship and nazism after certain late game techs.

I think it's important to also add atheism, at least as a rough "none of the above" option. I also want to tie some benefits/handicaps to the various religions.

Note: I think the current neutral religion scheme is the best choice for the stock game.
As long as the editor makes it simple for me to do this, I'll be happy.

 

[NankingDan]

I believe one of the developer interviews metioned that each religion has its benefits, like the governments of civ3. Since the first civ to discover a religion in civ4 will "invent" it, perhaps the civ that discovers the religion should be able to determine what the religion does. For example, they could choose for Islam to be reduced corruption and cheaper temples (or whatever they will use as benefits for the religious system). Perhaps the controversy the developers wish to avoid by ascribing certain traits to a religion (and thus, possibly watering-down the benefits) can be avoided if the player is allowed to choose what their religion's traits will be.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think this brings us back around to the idea of acquired or assigned traits for religions. Namely, if you found a religion, then you can obtain 2 traits which define it-either by choice or via your gameplay. Every X turns, the founder can change his/her traits, but at the cost of 1-turn of anarchy. Also, if another civ joins your religion, then they get the benefits/penalties of the traits the founder has assigned. The degree of bonus/penalty would depend on how Secular/Theocratic your civ is.
As an example, Germany discovers the Polytheism tech first-thus allowing them to Found Hinduism. The player looks through the available traits and decides on 'Fundamentalist' and 'Scholarly'. What this means is that Germany gets a bonus to resisting the attempts at conversion by other religions, but the downside is that any German city of a different religion gets a larger unhappiness penalty than normal (Fundamentalism). The other Trait-Scholarly-means that Germany gets a bonus to science, but at the penalty the downside is that religious improvements produce fewer happy faces than normal. Later, England is convinced to adopt Hinduism-this Civ gains the Fundamentalist and Scholarly benefit as well.
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Brain]

Would, could, should, blahblahblah...

I think this thread should be in the suggestions forum.