Rationalism or Peity?
- Thread starter kingsfan
- Start date
dguichar
Warlord
When a thread about two mutually exclusive social polices of civ became a debate of science/religion adherents?
H.M. Henrik
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12
Of course. But if the majority are religious to the degree that it shapes the society's focus - as opposed to being religious to the degree of noting a few holidays on a calendar - that religiosity is going to butt heads with science. I certainly don't mean to imply that a society can't adopt a particular outlook based on the majority. That's typically how it does work. I'm sorry if my statements were confusing.
H.M. Henrik
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12
As an American, I certainly can see the evidence of the first point. Religious fundamentalism and scientific endeavors are mutually antagonistic.
That said, when I consider most democratic societies outside of the United States, even those with monarchies and state religions, it seems like religious attendance (and religious fervor) is restricted to a minority of the population. Thus, those countries appear to have elected for Rationalism. Some of them may have even used those two free policies from completing Piety to jump start the transition process. [lame joke, I know]
I continue to support the decision to make the two policy trees mutually incompatible because they require different types of thought about the entire society *by* the entire society. The Piety path strongly implies that the society is suffused with religion, that religious rites and philosophies permeate the very essence of the civilization, and that ideas that would weaken the religious aspect of society would be discouraged. The Rationalism path strongly implies that the society is focused with driving ambition toward scientific discovery, and that thoughts or ideas that are unverifiable, or otherwise could impede the growth of science and technology would be discouraged. As another poster has said earlier, both paths are trying to make claims about fundamental truths, which is why they run headlong into one another.
Ramesses
Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,176
You fool! If you remove religion/science arguments from the internet, the world wide web will cease to be!
<serious>
I had this idea for a new Social Policy system. In it, Rationalism and Piety are on opposite sides, but it is still possible to activate polices on both, just more expensive to do so.
</serious>
<serious>
I had this idea for a new Social Policy system. In it, Rationalism and Piety are on opposite sides, but it is still possible to activate polices on both, just more expensive to do so.
</serious>
kingsfan, I thought you were going to bring up Thomas Aquinas and the development of the scientific method in Europe (and nowhere else).
Aquinas opened the door to scientific development and questioning when he philosophized that "it pleases God that we know his universe". Questioning deity and deistical works was not a popular notion anywhere else, and indeed, even in Europe was not always survivable.
Aquinas opened the door to scientific development and questioning when he philosophized that "it pleases God that we know his universe". Questioning deity and deistical works was not a popular notion anywhere else, and indeed, even in Europe was not always survivable.
OrsonM
Our man
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 555
This is getting a bit armchairy, but here's a few points about it:
1- A civilization doesn't need piety in order to achieve technological superiority, Piety sometimes and most times goes against advancing. Of interest is the impecable achievements in the Muslim Empire, that for the most part had more to do with secularism and wealth than religion itself (though religion helped getting that wealth).
2- As mentioned before, it is a mix of secularism and wealth that usually provides a solid ground for science. Some of the early European Christian scientist had the hardest of times either coming up with new theories (because it would go against their beliefs) or getting them published to begin with (would go against the beliefs of the ruling classes). The Scientific revolution took generations to get anywhere, from kepler's shy attempts to revive interest on the Copernican system (even though it made far more sense than the Ptolomaic and Tychonic systems) to Galileos rather embarrasing trial (which was far less dramatic, yet still a shameful sign of the times).
3- The Scientific revolution really began when rationalism was fully on it's way, now the game over simplifiest this, but for the most part the most prominent scientists of our time have nothing to thank religion for. Newton, for example, was a pious christian, yet he spent countless of hours trying to decypher secret codes in the bible, occultism and alchemy (another topic of mysticism just not mixing with science). His real advancements are vastly smaller than his non-contributions in the occult.
4-When the first optical instruments were made, early "scientists" spent countless hours making absurd and ultimately useless contributions on worshiping the fine details of the "work of god" through these instruments. Sadly enough if we made a book about discoveries and real scientifical discoveries, let's just say that the first 5 pages would cover the rather anecdotical and cute discoveries made before the 20th century (useless sciences, the basics of chemistry and physics, steam power, electricity and calculus being it's main highlights). Real Science began around the turn of the century, when tools were perfected, when perceptions changed and secularism was in full swing.
If the last statement sounds bogus, it's likely because our education can be rather simplistic about these things in School. eg: do you know the states of matter?, liquid, solid and gas?, does anyone really thinks scientists still work with that obsolete ass theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_matter
Science is supposed and meant to always be advancing, you can have early knowledge of psychology as a reference, but no Psychiatrist or Psychologist still uses Freud or Jung. Same thing as a biologist having Darwin as an early early reference, but not using The Origin of Species as the basis of his work. Science is meant to be constantly changing, religion however doesnt have that quality (it actually does... when it's secular).
The game, and trying to get back on topic, could be a bit more forgiving perhaps. It would be hard for an early scientist (likely a higher member of society) to have been agnostic at the time and there probably should be an option to be pious and rational at the same time. America for example would be a civilization that is Pious and Rational at the same time, yet Civ 5 doesn't allow that.
1- A civilization doesn't need piety in order to achieve technological superiority, Piety sometimes and most times goes against advancing. Of interest is the impecable achievements in the Muslim Empire, that for the most part had more to do with secularism and wealth than religion itself (though religion helped getting that wealth).
2- As mentioned before, it is a mix of secularism and wealth that usually provides a solid ground for science. Some of the early European Christian scientist had the hardest of times either coming up with new theories (because it would go against their beliefs) or getting them published to begin with (would go against the beliefs of the ruling classes). The Scientific revolution took generations to get anywhere, from kepler's shy attempts to revive interest on the Copernican system (even though it made far more sense than the Ptolomaic and Tychonic systems) to Galileos rather embarrasing trial (which was far less dramatic, yet still a shameful sign of the times).
3- The Scientific revolution really began when rationalism was fully on it's way, now the game over simplifiest this, but for the most part the most prominent scientists of our time have nothing to thank religion for. Newton, for example, was a pious christian, yet he spent countless of hours trying to decypher secret codes in the bible, occultism and alchemy (another topic of mysticism just not mixing with science). His real advancements are vastly smaller than his non-contributions in the occult.
4-When the first optical instruments were made, early "scientists" spent countless hours making absurd and ultimately useless contributions on worshiping the fine details of the "work of god" through these instruments. Sadly enough if we made a book about discoveries and real scientifical discoveries, let's just say that the first 5 pages would cover the rather anecdotical and cute discoveries made before the 20th century (useless sciences, the basics of chemistry and physics, steam power, electricity and calculus being it's main highlights). Real Science began around the turn of the century, when tools were perfected, when perceptions changed and secularism was in full swing.
If the last statement sounds bogus, it's likely because our education can be rather simplistic about these things in School. eg: do you know the states of matter?, liquid, solid and gas?, does anyone really thinks scientists still work with that obsolete ass theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_matter
Science is supposed and meant to always be advancing, you can have early knowledge of psychology as a reference, but no Psychiatrist or Psychologist still uses Freud or Jung. Same thing as a biologist having Darwin as an early early reference, but not using The Origin of Species as the basis of his work. Science is meant to be constantly changing, religion however doesnt have that quality (it actually does... when it's secular).
The game, and trying to get back on topic, could be a bit more forgiving perhaps. It would be hard for an early scientist (likely a higher member of society) to have been agnostic at the time and there probably should be an option to be pious and rational at the same time. America for example would be a civilization that is Pious and Rational at the same time, yet Civ 5 doesn't allow that.
Religion and science provide competing explanations to many of the same questions.
Throughout history, religion has given explanations to most things that we observe, but can not explain at the time.
In the Illiad, Apollon spreads plague among the greeks by shooting his arrows at them. Greek, Roman and Norse/Germanic mythologies provide countless similar explanations. Lightening is caused by Zeus's bolt. Thunder comes from Thunor, the Old English name for Thor, etc, etc.
Gradually, another method for arriving at answers to these same questions has emerged, which we called science. The difference between science and religion, lies in how one arrives at the explanation.
In religion, the explanations is ultimately derivied from an authoritaria source (ancestor, priest or relgious text) or from some kind of mystic experience.
Science, on the other hand, only accepts empirical evidence, or theories that can be rationally derived from empirical evidence.
This limiation, mean that at any point of time, there is a lot of facts that science can not explain (and should not claim to). Relgion (in general) has had no such limitation.
As long as religion sticks to only giving explanations for things science does not (at the time) cover, there is no conflict. But there have often been overlaps. Today, we know that it is not Apollon that creates plague or Thor that makes thunder. Science provides better explanations. These are easy, since we stopped believing in Apollon and Thor even before science could explain it. For many other explanations, the conflict is either quite recent or still very real.
Recent conflicts include such topics as whether the earth moves around the sun, or the sun around the earth, as well as dating how old the earth is (some particularily pious people are still in the trenches over the last one, though).
Other topics, include the source of disease. Conservative religion tends to link it so sin (with or without the direct physical cause), while medicine will give a materialistic explanation.
The conflict between the pious/religious on the one hand, and scientific/rationalistic on the other hand, comes down to who to believe in disputes that have not yet been firmly decided between the canon religious explanation, or the one favoured by science.
Or in practical terms, if you are sick, and your doctor says you need an operation, while your priest says that you need to pray to god or go to a healer, what do you do? (Provided you cannot do both).
Today, most of the western world is rationalistic in this sense for most situations where it really matters. Most of us will go to the doctor if we are sick, even if some will go to the priest after, if the doctor can not heal us. Even mainstream religious organizations, such as the Catholic church, are more or less rationalistic for such cases.
It is easy to forget that this has not always been the case! For much of historical time, you've been likely to face burning at the stake for saying that the chuch is wrong in any regard, regardless of what kind of scientific explanation you may have had.
Today, we still have people that believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, and the refusal of many fundamentalist religious groups to acknowledge Darwin, is kind of sad.
In sum, I think the game is spot on. If faced with a question, and you have to chose between a relgious or scientific explanation (where both exist, and are in conflict), the pious/religious persion will prefer the relgious explanation and the rational/scientific persion will prefer the explanation given by science.
The former may provide better social stability, while the latter will provide a faster emergence of new ideas.
Note that some fundamentalist political views, such as communism or facism may suppress new thought in a similar way, despite thinking of themselves as "rational".
Throughout history, religion has given explanations to most things that we observe, but can not explain at the time.
In the Illiad, Apollon spreads plague among the greeks by shooting his arrows at them. Greek, Roman and Norse/Germanic mythologies provide countless similar explanations. Lightening is caused by Zeus's bolt. Thunder comes from Thunor, the Old English name for Thor, etc, etc.
Gradually, another method for arriving at answers to these same questions has emerged, which we called science. The difference between science and religion, lies in how one arrives at the explanation.
In religion, the explanations is ultimately derivied from an authoritaria source (ancestor, priest or relgious text) or from some kind of mystic experience.
Science, on the other hand, only accepts empirical evidence, or theories that can be rationally derived from empirical evidence.
This limiation, mean that at any point of time, there is a lot of facts that science can not explain (and should not claim to). Relgion (in general) has had no such limitation.
As long as religion sticks to only giving explanations for things science does not (at the time) cover, there is no conflict. But there have often been overlaps. Today, we know that it is not Apollon that creates plague or Thor that makes thunder. Science provides better explanations. These are easy, since we stopped believing in Apollon and Thor even before science could explain it. For many other explanations, the conflict is either quite recent or still very real.
Recent conflicts include such topics as whether the earth moves around the sun, or the sun around the earth, as well as dating how old the earth is (some particularily pious people are still in the trenches over the last one, though).
Other topics, include the source of disease. Conservative religion tends to link it so sin (with or without the direct physical cause), while medicine will give a materialistic explanation.
The conflict between the pious/religious on the one hand, and scientific/rationalistic on the other hand, comes down to who to believe in disputes that have not yet been firmly decided between the canon religious explanation, or the one favoured by science.
Or in practical terms, if you are sick, and your doctor says you need an operation, while your priest says that you need to pray to god or go to a healer, what do you do? (Provided you cannot do both).
Today, most of the western world is rationalistic in this sense for most situations where it really matters. Most of us will go to the doctor if we are sick, even if some will go to the priest after, if the doctor can not heal us. Even mainstream religious organizations, such as the Catholic church, are more or less rationalistic for such cases.
It is easy to forget that this has not always been the case! For much of historical time, you've been likely to face burning at the stake for saying that the chuch is wrong in any regard, regardless of what kind of scientific explanation you may have had.
Today, we still have people that believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, and the refusal of many fundamentalist religious groups to acknowledge Darwin, is kind of sad.
In sum, I think the game is spot on. If faced with a question, and you have to chose between a relgious or scientific explanation (where both exist, and are in conflict), the pious/religious persion will prefer the relgious explanation and the rational/scientific persion will prefer the explanation given by science.
The former may provide better social stability, while the latter will provide a faster emergence of new ideas.
Note that some fundamentalist political views, such as communism or facism may suppress new thought in a similar way, despite thinking of themselves as "rational".
Communism and facism are totally rational. As long as it's not a threat to the state or party there's nothing to worry about.
Communism and facism are totally rational. As long as it's not a threat to the state or party there's nothing to worry about.
Internally rational, yes. (As theology can be.) But still supressing new ideas in a manner very similar to very "pious" theocracies.
I think that the only way the Civ 5 social policy tree makes sense is if you are an atheist. The comments listed here sticking up for the tree are obviously from people who are atheist. While those that oppose are from people with some kind of belief. I think the makers of Civ 5 did this on purpose. Not one of the posts listed here has given concrete evidence of ONE civ that has graced this Earth that has progressed scientifically without piety.
It's the sign of the times.
I'm sorry but Civ 4 covered religion much better. Civ 5's pov still doesn't make any sense to me at all. Where is their model for dividing the two throughout history?
If you are going to argure this; why not give some examples of Civ's that relate to this? Show how they were not pious at all and totally rational and advanced scientifically throughout time...
It's the sign of the times.
I'm sorry but Civ 4 covered religion much better. Civ 5's pov still doesn't make any sense to me at all. Where is their model for dividing the two throughout history?
If you are going to argure this; why not give some examples of Civ's that relate to this? Show how they were not pious at all and totally rational and advanced scientifically throughout time...
killmeplease
Mk Z on Steam
you can still build temples under rationalsim, right?
choosing rationalism does not mean all of your people become atheists.
piety tree represents some kind of dogmatic fundamentalism. and reformation policy should be moved to rationalism.
i don't think anyone would ever claim that fundamentalism does propel science.
choosing rationalism does not mean all of your people become atheists.
piety tree represents some kind of dogmatic fundamentalism. and reformation policy should be moved to rationalism.
i don't think anyone would ever claim that fundamentalism does propel science.
killmeplease
Mk Z on Steam
The_Quasar
King
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 862
Killmeplease: both USSR and Japan have freedom of religion. This is the highest policy on piety.
I am not arguing that science can move forward without religion. Many scientists are atheist. I am arguing the fact that a Civ can endure history without piety and thrive scientifically. At some point you have to give freedom of religion or you adopt a state religion or give your people the freedom of theocracy to move forward...
I am not arguing that science can move forward without religion. Many scientists are atheist. I am arguing the fact that a Civ can endure history without piety and thrive scientifically. At some point you have to give freedom of religion or you adopt a state religion or give your people the freedom of theocracy to move forward...
Mark the Bold
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2010
- Messages
- 156
First off, let me apologize to Hesha for making him sad. I don't loosely throw out the holocaust in an argument. But I thought the particulars of that argument were very relevant to the discussion at hand. I wasn't referring to anybody on the forum as either Fascist or antisemitic and no fair minded reader can say that. Nor was I justifying the creation of Israel. I was pointing out the non-sequitur of saying that one can't claim credit for the incitement of the very thing that you are ACTIVELY and DOGMATICALLY trying to crush/exterminate at the same time.
With regards to kingsfan challenge:
"Not one of the posts listed here has given concrete evidence of ONE civ that has graced this Earth that has progressed scientifically without piety."
Let me give you several examples: United States of America, Victorian Era England (to the present day), Napoleonic Era French Rationalism, Most if not all continental European countries post renaissance (especially Renaissance era Italy) Andulusian Era Spain, Hellenic Greece, Pre-Charlemagne Roman Empire, China, etc. etc. While all these countries certainly had Religion and religious authorities, these countries were not governed by explicit divine authority or texts, or if they were it was not actively enforced. I agree that while Victorian England was very liberal you could still go to jail for being a homosexual (ie: Oscar Wilde). But by and large these societies flourished scientifically because the rights of the people were endebted to legal man made documents and not religious texts. Yes America is still a religious country but religion has been largely domesticated by the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. For example, Jerry Falwell may have preached the world is 10000 years old on TV but he CANNOT force schools and universities to teach that nonsense and still expect taxpayer money. Whereas theocratic countries can do such things and that easily explains why EVERY single country that tries to govern itself by the Bible / Koran almost immediately descends into failure, want and beggery. Iran has some of the most educated people on the planet and is one of the oldest civilizations but it is still very poor; its primary exports are still pistaccios, oil and carpets. I don't feel I need to list all the other examples: Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, etc.. India is a large secular multiethnic country that is booming economically and culturally (way more than China) while next door theocratic Pakistan (with equivalent natural resources) is a basketcase and failed state in every conceivable sense of the word. The difference is clear, India is a country created by secular, rational democratic traditions and Pakistan was created as an Islamic state with Koranic authority for all laws. There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan so I am not muslim-bashing. I think the contrast between rationalism and piety could not be more clearly contrasted by comparing these two countries or just visiting them.
Now thats not to say that Piety does not have clear advantages for a civilization. Certainly I think Civ 5 tried to do that. I certainly take Piety every time because of the almost broken happiness bonus it gives (+20% non-occupied
). Theocratic countries certainly have far more social cohesion (so long as everyone is the same faith) and very high cultural chauvinism. In other words theocratic societies usually have no problem telling others that "we're right and you're wrong" and rarely if ever feel guilty about warring / invading neighbors of different faiths. Also, theocratic countries generally have astronomically higher birth rates / fertility rates than secular / rational societies. Would be great if Civ 5 gave pop growth bonus to piety tree because I believe its very accurate. For instance, Yemen will have a greater population than Russia in 20 years and most of continental Europe will be majority Muslim in 30 years due to birth rate demographics. Let that sink in for a minute. I think Civ 5 should give piety a birth rate bonus as theocratic societies always outbreed rational ones (certainly more than Rublican countries) by a much larger margin.
With regards to kingsfan challenge:
"Not one of the posts listed here has given concrete evidence of ONE civ that has graced this Earth that has progressed scientifically without piety."
Let me give you several examples: United States of America, Victorian Era England (to the present day), Napoleonic Era French Rationalism, Most if not all continental European countries post renaissance (especially Renaissance era Italy) Andulusian Era Spain, Hellenic Greece, Pre-Charlemagne Roman Empire, China, etc. etc. While all these countries certainly had Religion and religious authorities, these countries were not governed by explicit divine authority or texts, or if they were it was not actively enforced. I agree that while Victorian England was very liberal you could still go to jail for being a homosexual (ie: Oscar Wilde). But by and large these societies flourished scientifically because the rights of the people were endebted to legal man made documents and not religious texts. Yes America is still a religious country but religion has been largely domesticated by the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. For example, Jerry Falwell may have preached the world is 10000 years old on TV but he CANNOT force schools and universities to teach that nonsense and still expect taxpayer money. Whereas theocratic countries can do such things and that easily explains why EVERY single country that tries to govern itself by the Bible / Koran almost immediately descends into failure, want and beggery. Iran has some of the most educated people on the planet and is one of the oldest civilizations but it is still very poor; its primary exports are still pistaccios, oil and carpets. I don't feel I need to list all the other examples: Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, etc.. India is a large secular multiethnic country that is booming economically and culturally (way more than China) while next door theocratic Pakistan (with equivalent natural resources) is a basketcase and failed state in every conceivable sense of the word. The difference is clear, India is a country created by secular, rational democratic traditions and Pakistan was created as an Islamic state with Koranic authority for all laws. There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan so I am not muslim-bashing. I think the contrast between rationalism and piety could not be more clearly contrasted by comparing these two countries or just visiting them.
Now thats not to say that Piety does not have clear advantages for a civilization. Certainly I think Civ 5 tried to do that. I certainly take Piety every time because of the almost broken happiness bonus it gives (+20% non-occupied
). Theocratic countries certainly have far more social cohesion (so long as everyone is the same faith) and very high cultural chauvinism. In other words theocratic societies usually have no problem telling others that "we're right and you're wrong" and rarely if ever feel guilty about warring / invading neighbors of different faiths. Also, theocratic countries generally have astronomically higher birth rates / fertility rates than secular / rational societies. Would be great if Civ 5 gave pop growth bonus to piety tree because I believe its very accurate. For instance, Yemen will have a greater population than Russia in 20 years and most of continental Europe will be majority Muslim in 30 years due to birth rate demographics. Let that sink in for a minute. I think Civ 5 should give piety a birth rate bonus as theocratic societies always outbreed rational ones (certainly more than Rublican countries) by a much larger margin.
SpearMan153
Prince
ahh... the false dichotomy between science and faith... sigh
[sidestep]
from a social policy point of view a good argument could be made that there should be no mutually exclusive policy trees. why can't a civ be happy/culture focused and not science focused? why not specialist focused and miltary focused?
In an alternative reality/history why can't there be a belief system that the highest way to honour God is through scientific discovery - Thinking God's thoughts after Him (I think that's the quote).
Its all about a society having the right mindset for scientific advance. Belief systems adapt to the culture of the time (rightly or wrongly) different scriptures get given different weights of importance, nuances of interpretation (rightly or wrongly). There are many real world scientists making important contributions to their research fields who are devout believers and who's scientific work they do to honour God, and help people (medical discoveries and such) - some of them are even young earth creationists.
Why couldn't that mindset become the dominant one in any given society? ie. piety and rationalism.
from a gameplay point of view I suspect that having piety tree happy bonuses with rationalism science bonuses (trade posts large puppet empire) would be a little crazy.
[sidestep]
from a social policy point of view a good argument could be made that there should be no mutually exclusive policy trees. why can't a civ be happy/culture focused and not science focused? why not specialist focused and miltary focused?
In an alternative reality/history why can't there be a belief system that the highest way to honour God is through scientific discovery - Thinking God's thoughts after Him (I think that's the quote).
Its all about a society having the right mindset for scientific advance. Belief systems adapt to the culture of the time (rightly or wrongly) different scriptures get given different weights of importance, nuances of interpretation (rightly or wrongly). There are many real world scientists making important contributions to their research fields who are devout believers and who's scientific work they do to honour God, and help people (medical discoveries and such) - some of them are even young earth creationists.
Why couldn't that mindset become the dominant one in any given society? ie. piety and rationalism.
from a gameplay point of view I suspect that having piety tree happy bonuses with rationalism science bonuses (trade posts large puppet empire) would be a little crazy.
Mark the bold: all the examples you listed had to dip into the piety tree at sometime in their existence. You can not have one without the other. You can list specific times that a Civ may have progressed but not throughout the test of time like Civ 5 would have you believe. That is why I say HOGWASH to Civ 5's Piety or Rationalism. Civ 4 did it much better and realistic.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well that is why Piety is available earlier.
The real thing that is interesting is the Tension between Freedom+Rationalism (because both are available at the same time).
A Civ5 Society that becomes more Rational, not only sacrifices its Piety (if it had any) it also sacrifices the ability to become more Free.
One can easily argue that America is in the Piety Tree (it has Free Religion and a significant religious component) as opposed to much of Europe (where inconsequential state churches abound or religion is suppressed/France)
As for which is better in science in the game.
Piety gives bonuses to happiness and culture and production/gold through golden ages. The Happiness (particularly Theocracy) gives more Population which provides more Science. And even allows ICS especially with Freedom+Liberty
Indeed Civ5 is indicating that the most scientifically advanced and productive societies are probably Pious Societies.. that took the Free Religion to get other Freedoms instead of going for Rationalism and abondoning Freedom.
