Rationalism or Peity?

[snarzberry]

It's almost like the makers of Civ 5 believe that it is rational to have no belief in a mastermind maker? It has not been proven by science that there is no mastermind maker (God).

You're correct in asserting that it has not (and indeed, cannot) be proven that a 'mastermind maker (God)' does not exist. You claim that in light of this observation it is surely not rational to lack the belief that such a God exists. This is obviously fallacious thinking.

You're argument is simply - A's existence has not been disproven, therefore to lack a belief that A exists is irrational. If you substitute out God as 'A' and replace it with any fantastical proposition you like (invisible fairies, past lives, flying unicorns etc...) it's easy for even a child to see that un-disprovable claims need more about them to make them convincing than their un-disprovability.

So, unless you have additional reasons for why it is irrational to not posses the belief that a 'mastermind maker (God)' exists, I'd say that your criticism fails utterly.

 

[snarzberry]

The forcing of the decision between Piety and Rationalism seems to suggest that the game creators think that it's not possible, or that's it's difficult, or that it's unlikely for a person/state to be rational and pious simultaneously.

This is easily rebutted by those brave souls among you.

Is there a Pious person out there who claims to have a Rational argument in support of their piety?

 

[H.M. Henrik]

The forcing of the decision between Piety and Rationalism seems to suggest that the game creators think that it's not possible, or that's it's difficult, or that it's unlikely for a person/state to be rational and pious simultaneously.

This is easily rebutted by those brave souls among you.

Is there a Pious person out there who claims to have a Rational argument in support of their piety?

I don't think it's a matter of individuals being both strongly religious and having a rational outlook (at least toward secular matters). I do think that a society is going to push one way or the other, unless one were to imagine a religion somehow predicated on scientific investigation, at which point the religious aspect would be mere window dressing.

Religious claims tend to be untestable and unverifiable, and focused on the ethereal - such as the afterlife. Scientific claims are testable and verifiable (eventually, though some may depend on technology not available), and focused on the material. This doesn't mean that a religious society can't advance scientifically, or that a scientific secular society cannot have religious elements; incorporating both into the core of a civilization would be incredibly difficult due to their natures.

 

[Polycrates]

I just read thru this. You know that you actually prove my statment in a number of ways... right? In many ways, science is propelled by religion one way or another. In other words religion has been the driving force for scientists weather they were for the notion or against. The idea that Civ 5 makes you choose one or the other makes no sense to me at all. It's almost like the makers of Civ 5 believe that it is rational to have no belief in a mastermind maker? It has not been proven by science that there is no mastermind maker (God).

A social policy tree is a civilisation's focus - not whether it has it at all. You can still trade without the commerce tree, have traditions without the tradition tree and order without the order tree - it's whether your civ has made a specific commitment to prioritise one of those aspects of their society.
Piety as a social policy is not about whether you have a religion or not, but whether religion is a focal trait of your civilisation, woven deeply into every facet of the country's being. The Greeks and Romans had gods, for example, but they weren't what you would consider pious by any stretch. England is another example of a nation that has gone very much more rationalist than pious, even though the Church of England is technically a state religion. Spain is very much a civ that would have taken the piety road, with the church having a strong influence in the running of the country for a long time.
The choice is not science vs having a god; but more whether religious vs secular institutions dominate your power structures, and whether you choose to preference understanding heavenly matters vs worldly matters.

The Wikipedia article for "Age of Enlightenment" summarises what I think "rationalism" represents pretty well, and why it is opposed to a focus on "piety", I think:

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority. It is also known as the Age of Reason.[1] The enlightenment was a movement of science and reason

....

The "Enlightenment" was not a single movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals, and a strong belief in rationality and science. Thus, there was still a considerable degree of similarity between competing philosophies.[3] Some historians also include the late 17th century as part of the Enlightenment.[4] Modernity, by contrast, is used to refer to the period after The Enlightenment; albeit generally emphasizing social conditions rather than specific philosophies.

 

[Jesus is Lord33]

All hail! The Juggernaut has arrived.


If you build it, they will come.

 

[snarzberry]

QUOTE "I don't think it's a matter of individuals being both strongly religious and having a rational outlook (at least toward secular matters). I do think that a society is going to push one way or the other"

What is a society other than a collection of individuals? If a society pushes towards religion isn't it due to the fact that the majority of the individuals that make up this society are in fact religious?

 

[Darkness]

But yes, significant scientific progress is impossible without civilization, and civilization used to be impossible without religion.

Fixed that for you...





On topic: Who do so many people try to make the game more than it is?
Every Civilization title has been merely a strategy game. It is not, and will never be, a history simulation or a role playing game at its very core.

 

[code9]

Religion always worked against science. In ancient times, the priests were scholars, but they prevented anyone from outside from gaining "divine" knowledge. They were the first scribes, first literate people, etc, but they were always (or for a very long time) against public education.

Even the Mayan religious leaders knew about the phases of the moon, and could calculate moon eclipse, but kept this knowledge (science) away from the population in order to appear to have amazing powers of prediction.

And in today's world, the christian "museum" where they depict dinosaurs and humans walking side by side makes me giggle.

 

[CurseUppl]

The belief in God incited science throughout history. QUOTE]

With all due respect, but that is a very misinformed statement.

By and large the best wall of TL;DR I've ever seen (though I did read it). Good points. Hammered it right home against those who still "believe".

Thank science for science! :goodjob

 

[Harvestmoon]

I think, in its simplest form, the idea is that people who adhere to Piety adhere to Faith, and that Faith is a state of openness to truth, where Rationality is an adherence to empirical evidence, which is kinda on the opposite side of the coin from Faith.

So, if it helps your wrap your head around it, consider the Piety track to be called "Faith" and the Rational track to be called "Proof".

So, with a Faith/Proof dichotomy, it's kinda easier to understand how the argument could be made.

Personally, I don't think any of the trees should exclude any other. The limit on what policies you can take is already hard-wired into the game (i.e. you only get so many policies). So, if you're going to favor Rationality over Piety, it will be reflected in how many of those policies you take, but it shouldn't be an imposed restriction.

Same logic applies to Autocracy/Liberty/etc. If you're MORE autocratic, it means you have more of those policies, and vice-versa.

 

[Bibor]

The belief in God incited science throughout history. Whomever made the Civ 5 tree didn't do their homework. The idea that you can have a nation of people without piety???? Who thought this was a good idea? At least Civ 4 was more realistic with religion. Civ 5 doesn't even make sense.

The belief in God did not incite science throughout history. Whoever did CIV5 three did their homework. There are nations without piety. It is a good idea. Civ4 didn't have realistic religion, because our world is not buddhist/hindu. Civ5 makes more sense than your post.

For further reference please consult Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

A "pious" society is a direct opposite of a rationalist society. Theocracy or other forms of religious institutions that dominate a country have absolutely nothing in common with personal beliefs of individuals. In a Theocracy, everything (including history, local customs, laws, foreign customs, languages etc.) are sold under the brand of God and God is the universal currency, value and merchandise. Everything being bought or sold is God. God provides the warmth of the sun, food on our table, health of your bodies, our leaders, our money. A rationalist society does not automatically negate the existence of a supreme being, but they do not attribute everything to it.

Theocracic societies can indeed be advanced technologically and scientifically if (and only if) sciences are not clashing with religion (like it was during the time of Muslim Abbasids, Fatimids, for example). Catholicism, on the other hand, has a long history of ignorance is bliss. This has nothing to do with my own opinions, its a well known historical fact.

The numbers 1234567890 are hindu-arabic numerals. Thus proving that a theocratic society, if liberal enough, can provide massive scientific breakthroughs. Theocracies are, however, rarely liberal. And Civ5 social policies reflect this fact.

 

[kingsfan]

The belief in God did not incite science throughout history. Whoever did CIV5 three did their homework. There are nations without piety. It is a good idea. Civ4 didn't have realistic religion, because our world is not buddhist/hindu. Civ5 makes more sense than your post.

For further reference please consult Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

A "pious" society is a direct opposite of a rationalist society. Theocracy or other forms of religious institutions that dominate a country have absolutely nothing in common with personal beliefs of individuals. In a Theocracy, everything (including history, local customs, laws, foreign customs, languages etc.) are sold under the brand of God and God is the universal currency, value and merchandise. Everything being bought or sold is God. God provides the warmth of the sun, food on our table, health of your bodies, our leaders, our money. A rationalist society does not automatically negate the existence of a supreme being, but they do not attribute everything to it. A holy atom can (almost) never be questioned, while a rationalist atom will be broken down into subatomic particles.

LOL. This is the funniest one of the responses I have read so far.
Piety http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piety
Rationalism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalism?show=0&t=1294764062

So how does being rational and not pious make you into a scientific Civ. If your country is not dedicated to religion you will plow forward in science? LOL. Does anyone have any examples of Civ's that rocketed through science without religion?

 

[Bibor]

LOL. This is the funniest one of the responses I have read so far.
Piety http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piety
Rationalism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalism?show=0&t=1294764062

Civ5 developer#1: How will we call a social policy reserved for religious nutcases without offending anyone?
Civ5 developer#2: Piety.
Civ5 developer#1: Are you sure its the best choice?
Civ5 developer#2: If you come up with something better, let me know.

 

[Hesha]

I believe that this binary opposition is rooted in modern American society. In the U.S. there is indeed a relatively high degree of separation between religious fundamentalism and education/science. But that doesn't go for the rest of the world and certainly not for all of history. Religion is not anti-science per se. Institutionalized religion is self-preserving (as are all institutions) and therefor opposed science if it challenges the foundations or elements of given religion. Especially in the early medieval times, when the Franks were still busy forcing the pagan half of central Europe into christianity, the muslim rulers of the eastern and southern mediterranean carried on what they could from the ancient heritage they got a hold of, developed advanced naval technology based on what the Romans had before, etc.
The Pope may be anti-science. Religion isn't.

 

[Mark the Bold]

I just read thru this. You know that you actually prove my statment in a number of ways... right? In many ways, science is propelled by religion one way or another. In other words religion has been the driving force for scientists weather they were for the notion or against. The idea that Civ 5 makes you choose one or the other makes no sense to me at all. It's almost like the makers of Civ 5 believe that it is rational to have no belief in a mastermind maker? It has not been proven by science that there is no mastermind maker (God).

No I do not prove your point. Read it again.

You claim that Religion's persecution of science / rational skepicism actually incites science "one way or another" ? In other words by actually attempting to eradicate something you indirectly incite it in return. Strange logic. I certainly don't agree with it. Even if it were true, it also certainly doesn't speak to its credit.

Its like saying that Jewish residents of Israel owe it to the Third Reich / Facsism for creating the horror of the holocaust / Judenhass that in turn created the international support for the creation of Israel. Certainly one could argue that the Holocaust was a prime cause of the creation of Israel. But a serious mind couldn't argue that Fascism incites the creation of a Jewish state or pro-semitism, and thus deserves credit for it. I'm sure Himler and Adolf themselves would disagree with that logic themselves.

Organized religion to this very day still attempts to thwart the advancement of civilization through science and reason. Don't believe me? It certainly isn't scientists or humanists that are currently preaching that the scientific miracle of vaccine's in poor countries cause "sterility" or that condoms are worse than AIDS (really), or that the Tsunami in SE Asia was caused by tolerance of homosexuality.

 

[kingsfan]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (this is not my quote)

 

[Hesha]

It is just SO sad, that it really ALWAYS has to come to this...

Its like saying that Jewish residents of Israel owe it to the Third Reich / Facsism for creating the horror of the holocaust / Judenhass that in turn created the international support for the creation of Israel. Certainly one could argue that the Holocaust was a prime cause of the creation of Israel. But a serious mind couldn't argue that Fascism incites the creation of a Jewish state or pro-semitism, and thus deserves credit for it. I'm sure Himler and Adolf themselves would disagree with that logic themselves.

 

[SuperJay]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (this is not my quote)

This is just getting silly. You've made a handful of vague assertions throughout this thread, without any facts to back any of them up. These assertions don't even support one another, they're just distantly related to "science and religion." First you're saying that religion "incites" science, whatever that means. Then you claim that scientific progress is dependent on religious societies. Then you're saying that "in many ways" science is somehow "propelled" by religion... "in one way or another." (Again, what does that even mean?) Then you cut and paste some dictionary definitions of basic terminology while calling someone else's post laughable.

And now you're reduced to just throwing out more vague one-liners rather than picking a claim and adding some substance to it. Ooookay.

Now, in Civ 5 terms, your problem seems to be the exclusivity of the Rationalism and Piety trees, and you seem to claim that means a Civ nation is either exclusively religious or exclusively scientific. Which is obviously false, given that every Civ can still build libraries, temples, research labs, cathedrals, universities, etc. In a nutshell, you're taking the titles of the trees too seriously, and extrapolating them to imply an exclusivity that clearly is not there.

 

[jacyp]

And now you're reduced to just throwing out more vague one-liners rather than picking a claim and adding some substance to it. Ooookay.

That was not a "vague one-liner", it's a famous quote of Albert Einstein (one of the greatest scientific and rational minds of human history) who, analizing the universe, understood that it was so perfect and balanced that it coudn't exist the way it does without having a "master-mind" behind it.

And if what he did was to "throw out more vague one-liners rather than picking a claim and adding some substance to it", then how do you call this:

Err... no. Not true, sorry.

'nough said?

Is there a Pious person out there who claims to have a Rational argument in support of their piety?

I'm here.

But to rationaly explain my piety to you would be the same as to explain music to a deaf person, or color to a blind one.

So why waste my time?

No, thanks. One day you will die and see the truth. I'm patient.

 

[Harvestmoon]

I'm here.

But to rationaly explain my piety to you would be the same as to explain music to a deaf person, or color to a blind one.

So why waste my time?

No, thanks. One day you will die and see the truth. I'm patient.

So, you can't explain it, then?

Thought not.