Religion - Opium of the People?

[Tiger_Nation]

when i said it aint exactly a monastry i was merely refering to the oppulance not to anything else Tylerdurdon.

 

[Frewfrux]

If we do this, we need to make increasing faith lower research. Religion always stands in the way of science- see Gallileo, Scopes Monkey Trial, ID morons today, etc.

Interesting opinion. I was taught (in a public school, which may betray my age) that the "scientific method" was developed by christians who were trying to prove the existance of God. Didn't work in that capacity, of course, but it served another purpose (science) just dandy. (I'm not sure what is taught today, just what I was taught.)

[RANT]
Why do people think that taking things by faith means that you can only trust science in a limited way? Limiting science due to increased faith makes no sence to me.

1) In earlier times monostaries were usually places of learning. Often the only places of learning. (They got this part right.)
2) Today religion and science have been seperated to such a degree that a chnage in one will have no affect whatsoever in a change in another.
[/RANT]

There is one way, however, that I could see the increase in faith having a negative impact on research...if, using the proposed system, one faith became dominant, then other faith's monostaries might become prematurely obsolete. Something to consider anway.

 

[Proteus]

Well in my mind the most violent area in the world, the one place where people will not even try to get along is the Middle East, and why is that? Well I belive it is becuase it is the central nexues for three very powerfull religions. The reason they don't get along is plain, three religions in a very small region.

But Israel hasn´t activated its "Free Religion"-Civic,
but rather has "organized Religion" with Judaism as state religion
(other belief systems may not be actively pursued, but religious jewish groups have great influence on decision making within the state)
And they have close borders to multiple other states whose state religion is islam.

 

[HalfBadger]

I think before ppl want game changes or make posts generalizing religions, they should take into account at least half or all the religions that are currently in Civ4.

Now I had the time (thanks to Sid), to fully research vairous religions, I know "good amount" about Christianity and a little bit about Judaism, Buddhism and Islam. However haven't learned much about Taoism, Confusician (sp?) or Hinduism. When ppl say something is realistic or should be change, are they taking into account 4-7 of the Civ 4 religions? I can't say for sure that collecting money shouldn't be part of religion, because I believe Christianity, Islam and possibly Judiasm all have routine collection for money or ask for a certain % of ones income. However I don't know if this true for Hinduism, Buddism etc. Similar with impededing science.

Also another problem I have found is that Catholic practises get lumped in as Christian practises, when they aren't Protestant practises, which makes it really hard/confusing to debate things.

As well as ppl confuse Religion with power hungry/intolerant leaders.

 

[BeefontheBone]

I suppose I'd like to know more about how the religions spread. Does it flow with trade routes? Does each religous building increase the spread of religions, or help resist the spread of foreign religions? Do your relations with other civs affect the flow of religion? Do religions influence culture flipping?

The answers are as follows: Yes.
Some buildings affect spread, notably the shrines and cathedrals IIRC. They don't make further spread harder AFAIK.
Not AFAIK except in the sense that they're unlikely to open borders (and therefore trade) with you if relations are bad.
Yes, a city is more likely to flip if it contains your state religion (and more so if it doesn't have the controller's stae religion, I'd hazard a guess).

 

[mitsho]

I think, the opening poster is right as there is a problem with religion, as it is too positive only. Now, I think it is a historical reality that religions too often didn't like each other enough, it was rather rare for many religions to "live" in the same city/country without problems. Of course it happened, but I think this is also a gameplay decision, as it is more "fun" (imho) if the religions disagree with each other than the situation we have at the moment.

I don't think, the faith idea is the best solution, as it adds complexity. Now, instead, what malus or mali could several religions provide?
science? As already posted above, this is not historical reality
happiness? --> resulting from riots, but that would just negate an advantage of religion.
Gold? why not, it is somehow historical: 'religious riots' harm economy, need more 'police' forces and gold is needed to "repair".
Of course, there would have to be a chance somehow calculable if a city gets into religious riots, but that's fine work then...
The civics would obviously have an impact (theocracy - organized - pacifism - free religion ; from worst to best on negating)

Oh, and then an Inquisitor unit (can "purge" a own or allied city of a religion) would be nice too

m

 

[zafyro]

Religion might start for many different reasons, but soon or later it would be used by the kings and emperors as a tool to control the populace. [...]

The reason why you christian minded people thinks that multiple religion will create chaos is because, europe never had free religion, christian was always the dominant one.

Well i must agree that i do not know of chineese religious affairs as to opinate about it. Anyway reiligious tolerance is +- acepted if there´s no official goverment religion so we agree. Anyway, under my experience most of the times, when a mayor percentage of the population is religious, you have problems with "non believers" [those who don´t believe or believe diferent] mostly because each religion has small diferences in specifical values, specially moral ones.

I must say also that having to burn some temples from time to time to avoid a religion spread too much is far from a religious peacefull tolerance for me.

 

[zafyro]

Interesting opinion. I was taught (in a public school, which may betray my age) that the "scientific method" was developed by christians who were trying to prove the existance of God. Didn't work in that capacity, of course, but it served another purpose (science) just dandy. (I'm not sure what is taught today, just what I was taught.)
[RANT]
1) In earlier times monostaries were usually places of learning. Often the only places of learning. (They got this part right.)
2) Today religion and science have been seperated to such a degree that a chnage in one will have no affect whatsoever in a change in another.
[/RANT]

---------> Religion was a scientific booster during the middle ages just beacuse of monasteries wich is quite acurately reflected. Most of the times though religion was more on the conservative end and did not put any interest on researching. I feel this is well though as monasteries research bonus disapear as soon as scientific method enters in the game.

 

[Jack Naples]

I was trying to take into account all religions over history. Call me Christian-minded and you are hoist by your own petard, I reckon. Thanks to Frewfrux for pointing this out in Benjie's case.

I think, the opening poster is right as there is a problem with religion, as it is too positive only.

Danke schön for fully reading and understanding my post Mitsho The existence of multiple religions in one empire has only positive effects in the game. Religious conflict has existed - *not* in every case, which is why I suggested extra religions should give an increasing chance, and chance only, of conflict. Yes, there are examples of mutual respect and tolerance in history, but there are also plenty of examples of conflict - the game should reflect both.

 

[Shaihulud]

I wish I could get a religion that worships "me" as God. Think about it, I am immortal and have lead my people to great power since time out of mind. It should only be fitting that I am worshipped.

 

[random11]

I don't really understand what you expect, after all, this is just a game.
I don't expect players not to use religions for extra cash any more than I can expect them to switch to Theocracy because they think it's the right way to rule...

I think the entire game concept of the religions is well balanced:
1) you can have many religions in a city but only one state religion (or non).
2) money SHOULD be a bonus, otherwise, why not just adopt your neighbour's religion and save reserch time?
3) religion is not something that should be easily controlled, and that is implemented very well by the natural spreading of religion in adition to the missionaries.

 

[Shivam]

hinduism, being completely decentralised, has no money collection inherent in the faith. Various subsects of hinduism do whatever they want with their organizations, but for the most part, the only time money is asked for is when it comes to temple maintenance. Also, Hinduism is a very tolerant religion (at least, until the crazy fundies came into power recently), and as such has historically welcomed all faiths into india.

 

[random11]

hinduism, being completely decentralised, has no money collection inherent in the faith. Various subsects of hinduism do whatever they want with their organizations, but for the most part, the only time money is asked for is when it comes to temple maintenance. Also, Hinduism is a very tolerant religion (at least, until the crazy fundies came into power recently), and as such has historically welcomed all faiths into india.

And Judaism is not a missionary religion, but that's why they call it alternate history game.
I tell you, there is nothing like playing with the warmongering, religious fanatic Ghandi

 

[mitsho]

I don't really understand what you expect, after all, this is just a game.
I don't expect players not to use religions for extra cash any more than I can expect them to switch to Theocracy because they think it's the right way to rule...

It is not an issue of realism! (well, partly, but that's not the reason) It is an issue of gameplay. Whatever situation there is (there are very few exceptions and they are all connected to diplomacy), religion does only good. One religions is always to be preferred over none. 2 are to be preferred over 1, 3 over 2, and so on! This is
a) not realistic, but more important
b) makes religion too strong imho in the game!
All the thread opener and others like me want is a balancing of that aspect by adding a conflict side to religion, be it through 'Faith', religious riots or inquisitors....

m

 

[Jack Naples]

To put it another way...

I think [lots of religions in a city = cheesy happiness bonus] is unbalanced and potentially exploitable and I expect it to be sorted out somehow. I also think it's unrealistic - yes, gameplay trumps realism, but when they're both in agreement... Of course in the meantime some players will aim to get as many religions in all their cities as possible, and good luck to them.

I also reckon that [players finding it easy to found several religions, sit back and let the cash and olive branches flood in] is ropey in playing terms to say the least. Free Religion doesn't help matters either, being nearly as unbalanced as Free Speech.

 

[Jack Naples]

Oops, simulpost...

 

[bio_hazard]

I doubt future expansions will include riots- it seems firaxis jumped through hoops to remove them from the game this time around.

I'm not sure how the addition works, but it seems reasonable for there to be diminishing returns for multiple religions (in other words, adding a second religion should have more of a benefit than adding a 6th). Then the costs of making missionaries or giving the AI gold would eventually offset the benefits of actively propagating new religions.

 

[Nilrim]

I doubt future expansions will include riots- it seems firaxis jumped through hoops to remove them from the game this time around.

I'm not sure how the addition works, but it seems reasonable for there to be diminishing returns for multiple religions (in other words, adding a second religion should have more of a benefit than adding a 6th). Then the costs of making missionaries or giving the AI gold would eventually offset the benefits of actively propagating new religions.

I think this is the best idea I have heard yet. Just make it so the benefit you get from each new religion diminishes. With each new religion the money intake decreases. Maybe limit the number of holy shrines created by GP's or make each new holy shrine less effecitive. Also I think the only religion that should get top bonuses should be your state relgion and then if you have 'Freedom of religion' they all average out, this would give more reason to switch to 'Freedom of Religion.' As it stands now I rarly run anything other then Theolagy becuase of the auto new unit promotions.

 

[MRM]

Also, Hinduism is a very tolerant religion (at least, until the crazy fundies came into power recently), and as such has historically welcomed all faiths into india.

... and still have problems with moslem minority in Kashmir - ( even before the "crazy fundies" ) - it don't help if one side is tolerante but the other is not ...

 

[Roxinante]

Well, now, I'm thinking that of the religions in the game, only Daoism doesnt make the money grab. Most of the others claim that money is the root of all e-vil to-day, but if you ask for ask for a raise its no surprise that they're giving none away.
Certainly the pagan religions were a way of gaining wealth, albeit sometimes in the form of goods (like eating the 100 cattle slaughtered in honor of Zeus), an early 'established' religions (i.e. the ones that arent concidered the 'default' religion by the Friraxis theologians) had a fair amount of gold in their idols.
I have yet to find a strong rational behind the belief that Jews are greedy - the reason that banks are tied to Jews was the Christian belief than money lending was sinful, so why not put non-Christians in charge of the banks? From what I have observed, the reason that Jews tend to do well in finance and medicine is that the Jewish community places a high value on education and hard work, of course you're going to be successful with those as cultural ideals. The notion of community, and the sharing of money within the community may be a better explaination of Judaism being a cash-cow in the game.
Christianity tends to war with itself over money. The destruction of the Knights Templar was essentially a money and land grab on the part of the Papacy, and often stating that material goods were bad was enough to get your views branded heresy and say hello to Mr. Red Pointyhat. Modern Christianity is an odd mix of those who revolted from overt display of wealth (and fun in general), and yew, yes yew, can buy your way into Heaven call now with yor dow-natshun, pa-raise Je-sus! I have no problem seeing Christianity in this light - if you have a problem with that, take it up with Jerry Falwell.
Islam tends to aquire wealth, though often through political means instead of overt attempts like Cruisades (Gee, Jerusalam is a long way away, and Constantinople isnt....well, they're Christians....but...the wrong sort! Ha! Plunder! Burn! Looot!). Islam is as paradoxic as Christianity - at its best it has advanced human culture and science, at its worst, well, we've seen it at its worst.
I will admit to less knowledge of Budhism, Hinduism. I know that material wealth is unimportant to Budhists, but of course, its full of people, who are far from perfect. "There are unjust laws, just as there are unjust men" said Ghandi, and so its certainly believable that unjust men could take control of a religion that says its not into material goods, and make it a way to get material goods.

Confucianism and Daoism are more philosophies than religions, and not nearly as hierarchic as western religions. Cash bonuses in their instance could be viewed as a benifit of their philosophy - Confucianism puts high value on community and family, and merely by the virtue of looking out for others does the general good improve.

That is, ultimatly, what I think about religion in the game, from a cynical point of view - that even if the philosophy of the religion is agaisnt material gain, if even the prophet of the relgion states specifically that money is unimportant, religion itself is about the gain of influence and power - and the fastest way to influence and power is money.

Or. The presence of the religion inspires its followers to better themselves, their community, their people - and that has financial rewards to the civilization as a whole. Its open season on Jerry Falwell, after the remarks he made about pagans and 9/11, but then theres Martin Luther King. Imagine if you calculated the monitary gains to the United States for the abolishion of segregation - where, through religious beliefs, the nation was forced to live up to its ideals, to better itself, and to release a large part of its population to live their lives, to profit from the benifits of American citizenship. Thats Christianity as a cash-cow, but from the general improvement of its followers, not the church itself.