the 7 religons:S

[North King]

However, I also have a problem with the inclusion of religions that quickly went defunct as Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was a significant religion in the world for a relatively short period of time and only in a relatively small area, and it was wiped out by Christianity and Islam a long time ago, not through conquest so much as through conversion. Furthermore, Zoroastrianism does not represent an entirely distinct religious concept, as it has many similarities to the Monotheistic religions and Hellenic Polytheism.

IIRC, Zoroastrianism was founded in 500 BCE, became a major religion in Persia sometime thereafter, and it's child Mithraism only died out as a major religion at 400 CE. It was also a big influence on Christianity, with the major concepts of the eternal struggle between good and evil introduced.

It also had interesting little rites all it's own, like the near worship of flame, which would probably be it's symbol.

But I suppose that I can't really justify it being in any more than Judaism, lol.

Instead I would probably go for a Native American religion or something if I were the developers... But as I said above I'm already adding 14 and perhaps a few more if religion is at all moddable, so I can't complain too much.

All of this said, I feel that religion has been clumsily implemented in the game. I can be satisfied with the "Big Six" and their little brother as the seven religions in CivIV, but religion seems not to have been thought out really at all; rather, it is used only as a neat gameplay gimmick.

IMHO they're toeing the line of PCness so much here as to render this potentially interesting thing pretty much useless, so I'd have to agree.


Well, here's hoping it's highly moddable!

 

[Plotinus]

By its own definition, religion is a type of philosophy, but not all philosopies are religions. Religion came from latin religare, which means reunite, rejoin, reconnect. Phylosophy came from greek philos, which means friendship, and sophia, which means wisdom.

Phylosophy is a way of life, where people follow some principles. In other words, people live accondingly to what they believe that is right. A religion is almost exactly the same, but it is linked to a god (each religion use a different name, of course).

In the western world, most people usually don't follow phylosophies, they follow religions. That's why so many people here don't undestand eastern world, they can't simply imagine how to live without a god. Most of so-called eastern religions are phylosophies, there's no god in their believes, just a way of life. In both Confuncianism and Budhism there is no gods, so they aren't religions.

What is atheism? As we can see in dictionary.com, atheism a denial of the existence of god(s). So, when someone doesn't believe in god, the atheist label is applied. But atheism isn't religion. A religion needs a god, not a god-denial. And phylosophies (called wrongly as religions) are atheists.

Paganism was a label created by church to call everyone who have different believes. Roman/greek mythology was labeled pagan. Celtic culture was labeled pagan. Viking culture was labeled pagan. But all of these were religions. These religions believed in several gods, so they are polytheistic religions. On the other side, christianism, judaism and islam are monotheistic religions, because in these religions exist only one god.

Allan Kardec and Aleister Crowley also made their own phylosophies, but the western world doesn't undestand them, putting a satanist/atheist label in people who follow both phylosophies.

Try to undestand other people why they choose a religion or phylosophy without blaming them. Respect is all .

I'm sorry, but this is so incredibly wrong I don't know where to begin!

First, the word "philosophy" has been so abused that it hardly means anything any more. It can mean "a way of life", in the modern vernacular, but really it simply means the search for truth. This is why what we call scientists were called "philosophers" until the nineteenth century.

If we say that philosophy means trying to search out or describe what is true, it's obvious that some of this is sometimes part of religion, and sometimes not. For example, when Thomas Aquinas tried to prove God's existence, this was philosophy being used as part of religion. When William Ockham tried to show what the meaning of universal terms is, that was philosophy being used for nothing to do with religion.

A religion isn't simply a belief system (what you call a "philosophy"). It is far more than that - it may have a moral code, an institutional structure with priests and hierarchies, rituals that individuals perform, pilgrimages, liturgies, holy objects - the list goes on and on. In some religions, such as conservative evangelical Christianity, the doctrine is one of the most important elements and things like rituals are relatively neglected. In others, such as Shinto, it's the rituals that form the heart of the religion and there's not much doctrine to speak of.

The idea that a belief system has to involve God or gods in order to count as a religion is utterly false. If you tried to suggest that in any department of religious studies today you would be laughed out of the room. Any definition of "religion" which excludes Buddhism is obviously a false religion. This obsession with God, the idea that all religion must revolve around "God", is hopelessly Western. Eastern religions do not talk in those terms or use those categories.

In fact, some religions talk about God or gods, and some do not. Similarly, it is perfectly possible to believe in God and not be religious. Kant believed in God but he never went to church or did anything recognisably religious. Belief in God is a metaphysical stance, and so is atheism. Either may form an element in a religion, but they needn't. This is why atheism is not, in itself, a religion, and it is not the absence of religion either, any more than theism is a religion or the absence of religion. They are both beliefs which may or may not form part of a religion. Saying that atheism is/isn't a religion is like saying that wearing a hat is/isn't wearing an outfit. Religion doesn't "need" a God any more than it needs incense, or hymns by Charles Wesley, or prayer mats, or shrines to the dead. All these things are important elements in certain religions but none of them is common to all religions.

Scholars in the past used to play a nice game called "finding the essence of religion", where you had to try to work out what the one thing was that makes something a religion. All such attempts failed, because, as scholars now recognise, there is no such common element. There is no one thing, whether belief or practice, which is common to all religions. God? Not in Buddhism. System of morality? Not in Shinto. Priests with robes? Not in the Baptist churches. Life after death? Not in early Judaism. Religions are like the example that Wittgenstein used, of "games". You can't name any single element that is common to all things that we call "games". Instead, we apply the word "game" to things where it is useful to us to do that, and there is no clear and distinct rule. The same is true with religions.

 

[Plotinus]

Oh, and Zoroastrianism was still going very strong in the seventh century AD, when it was still the official religion of the mighty Persian empire. Zoroastrianism is certainly one of the most important religions of history, probably more influential than Judaism really, which was influenced by it.

It's worth pointing out that Judaism was also the state religion of the medieval Khazar empire, so it's not only been mainstream in the Middle East.

 

[Francophile]

As long as an Atheistic or Secular option is included, I am happy.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I'd define religion as a loose or strict moral code with a certain element of animism

 

[Ramalhão]

Ok, Plotinus, you can see that english isn't my first language, so something may be understood wrongly.

First, the word "philosophy" has been so abused that it hardly means anything any more. It can mean "a way of life", in the modern vernacular, but really it simply means the search for truth. This is why what we call scientists were called "philosophers" until the nineteenth century.

"Philosophy came from greek philos, which means friendship, and sophia, which means wisdom." As you said, the meaning of the word "philosophy" was modified. Reading the greek origin, it's directly related to friendship and wisdom. "Search for truth" is too broad. In dictionary.com, philosophy means:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

A religion isn't simply a belief system (what you call a "philosophy"). It is far more than that - it may have a moral code, an institutional structure with priests and hierarchies, rituals that individuals perform, pilgrimages, liturgies, holy objects - the list goes on and on. In some religions, such as conservative evangelical Christianity, the doctrine is one of the most important elements and things like rituals are relatively neglected. In others, such as Shinto, it's the rituals that form the heart of the religion and there's not much doctrine to speak of.

Sorry, but I didn't write "philosophy is a belief system", you didn't undestand. "Philosophy is a way of life, where people follow some principles. In other words, people live accondingly to what they believe that is right." If I say "I don't smoke because it will make me die faster", it's what I think about smoke, it is what I consider "truth". It is not a belief, it is a principle. When someone lives with lots of principles, this guy has a philosophy.

Confucius made his philosophy, he create several principles, and several people follow it. Does confucianism say anything about god? No, so it isn't a religion. Buddha also created his philosophy. If you call buddhism as "false religion", isn't it due lack of god? These "non-religions" use temples, they have people to teach it.

The idea that a belief system has to involve God or gods in order to count as a religion is utterly false. If you tried to suggest that in any department of religious studies today you would be laughed out of the room. Any definition of "religion" which excludes Buddhism is obviously a false religion. This obsession with God, the idea that all religion must revolve around "God", is hopelessly Western. Eastern religions do not talk in those terms or use those categories.

Tell me a religion which doesn't have a god or gods (you'll say buddhism). Tell why it's considered as religion. Also: tell me why you consider buddhism a religion and confucianism not. Will you say that buddhism has concepts similars to hell and heaven? In buddhism, hell and heaven are spiritual states, not a "physical" place.

In fact, some religions talk about God or gods, and some do not. Similarly, it is perfectly possible to believe in God and not be religious. Kant believed in God but he never went to church or did anything recognisably religious. Belief in God is a metaphysical stance, and so is atheism. Either may form an element in a religion, but they needn't. This is why atheism is not, in itself, a religion, and it is not the absence of religion either, any more than theism is a religion or the absence of religion. They are both beliefs which may or may not form part of a religion. Saying that atheism is/isn't a religion is like saying that wearing a hat is/isn't wearing an outfit. Religion doesn't "need" a God any more than it needs incense, or hymns by Charles Wesley, or prayer mats, or shrines to the dead. All these things are important elements in certain religions but none of them is common to all religions.

As I wrote, atheism isn't a religion. Atheists don't believe in existence of any gods. But it doesn't mean that atheists don't follow their principles. There isn't a "bible for atheists". An atheist follow his principles, another atheist may follow very different principles. Even some people call buddhism as religion, for me it's a philosophy.

And I know it's possible to believe in a god even not having any already existing religion. But religious people will say that if someone believe in a god which is not their god is paganism.

There is no one thing, whether belief or practice, which is common to all religions. God? Not in Buddhism. System of morality? Not in Shinto. Priests with robes? Not in the Baptist churches. Life after death? Not in early Judaism.

Duh! What do you call "religion"? Religion is always a philosophy (with some "flavors" and "perfums"), but not all philosophies are religions.

Place a link where I can see what you're trying to say. You didn't really put a definition for religion. Is there any real definition ?

 

[Plotinus]

[Ramalhao] Hey, your English is infinitely better than my Portuguese, which is non-existent!

But like I said, there is no definition of religion, any more than there is a definition of "games". There are just certain things that religions tend to have.

My point was that in one sense of the word "philosophy", it means a set of principles for living your life, but a more accurate use of the word is the search for truth, however you may define that. "Philos" in this context means "love" rather than "friend", that is, a "philosopher" is a "lover of wisdom".

I probably would consider Confucianism a religion in some sense. However, what makes Buddhism a religion is that it has rituals and liturgy. It has monks and monasteries. These are some of the things that typically make us think we are dealing with a religion, although not all religions have them.

What you need to do is explain why something must have "God" or "gods" in order to be considered a religion. You're just plainly asserting that all religions are about gods without any back-up for it. The fact that most people would consider Buddhism a religion indicates that your definition does not capture how the word is actually used. And I would say that you are simply picking up on one element of some religions and arbitrarily making it the defining element of them all.

Consider this, for example. What exactly do you mean by "God"? Hinduism has nothing corresponding to the "God" of the monotheist religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It has vast numbers of supernatural beings (some 13 million at last count, I believe) which are conveniently called "gods", but none of which is "God". And it has Brahman, the fount of all existence, but Brahman is not like the western God - he is not personal and not really definable, and not clearly distinct from the universe. This is why it is usually said that Hinduism is a "monist" religion rather than a "theist" one. And indeed, no eastern religion is really theistic in a western sense. So does it follow that Hinduism is not a religion? If you think it is, and you want to retain your insistence that all religions have God, you must also explain why such different concepts as the Holy Trinity and Brahman are sufficiently similar to fulfil this condition.

 

[KindredSpirits]

I am quite satisfied with the civ 4 religions but I would have liked to see Zoroastrianism and Mithraism.

 

[Gelion]

How about majour religions have "variations??
Christianity - Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic and "other" (Coptic)
Islam - Shiite, Sunni
etc

One big NO NO to this religion thing. Civilization is not about repeating history, its about making it. Adding pre-defined religions severely limits the possibility to invent something of your own...

 

[stormbind]

If Civ was about making history, not repeating it, why have UU?

This has been my ongoing complaint about Civ3 UU for many years now, and I never found anyone who agreed. Just before the release of an almost finished Civ4, a handful of people are making a similar observation. Bit late now, don't you think?

I am not expecting Religions to have a similar influence on the game. England was practically shaped by religions: Richard Lion Heart, Henry VIII, Elizabeth, Cromwell (Puritans), and so forth all have massive historical influence and all because of religion.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Are you talking about "Lila" by Robert Persig? Excellent book - it in part postulates how North American culture and mores in the US has actually evolved from the Iroquios and other Native American values fused with Eurocentric values. You can also read more about it at http://moq.org/ if you have an interest in philosophical debate

Ah, yes. Thats it, thanks alot. , and thanks Stormbind for the link for Jedism. Crazy Brits.

 

[stormbind]

I am inclined to agree with North King that Judaism is rather silly to include alongside Christianity and Islam if the latter two do not spring from the former. After all, Judaism has always been a very small religion, comparatively and has not had nearly the influence on history of Christianity and Islam or the other four represented religions.

However, I also have a problem with the inclusion of religions that quickly went defunct as Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was a significant religion in the world for a relatively short period of time and only in a relatively small area, and it was wiped out by Christianity and Islam a long time ago, not through conquest so much as through conversion. Furthermore, Zoroastrianism does not represent an entirely distinct religious concept, as it has many similarities to the Monotheistic religions and Hellenic Polytheism.

All of this said, I feel that religion has been clumsily implemented in the game. I can be satisfied with the "Big Six" and their little brother as the seven religions in CivIV, but religion seems not to have been thought out really at all; rather, it is used only as a neat gameplay gimmick.

Mmmm, it sounds as though someone knows more than they are disclosing. If you don't start spilling details, I shall resort to tickle-torture!

Do not assume that outbursts of helpless laughter can protect you. What if my pleasurable assault does not end there? What if I tie you down and persist to exploit your increasingly exposed flesh? With no control over events, will you laugh yourself into an exhausted surrender or burst into pleading tears?

Either way, I'll be tickled pink. If religions influence worker productivity, maybe tickling should be a religion too?

 

[stormbind]

I probably would consider Confucianism a religion in some sense. However, what makes Buddhism a religion is that it has rituals and liturgy. It has monks and monasteries. These are some of the things that typically make us think we are dealing with a religion, although not all religions have them.

What about Chivalry and Codes of Honour. Where is the line drawn between belief structures?

 

[Plotinus]

What about Chivalry and Codes of Honour. Where is the line drawn between belief structures?

Who's to say? There's no definitive place to draw the line. Personally I'd be inclinded to say that, say, a chivalric code is part of a religion rather than a religion in its own right, because it provides a moral code within a wider framework of belief and devotion. But then you could think of, say, someone like Don Quixote for whom the chivalric code in itself is the sole thing that gives him purpose and meaning. It's not easy to say whether you would count that as a religion.

 

[Damburger]

Here is my take on the thing:

Firstly, differentiating between religions and belief systems is pointless. From a game perspective, non-religious belief systems define a society as much as religious ones.

I don't see why belief system shouldn't be done by sliders the way government will be. For example: you could have

supernaturalism (the degree to which the system claims the existence of the divine)
personification (the degree to which the system personifies the forces that govern the world)
distribution (the degree to which the system believes natural or supernatural powers are shared out)

As an example, Christianity might be 9 9 1, whilst Taoism would be 7 1 9

So you would be able to get your own state religion from scratch (or use an existing earthly one) and try and convert others to it. Proximity on the scale would make civs friendly.

 

[stormbind]

I don't think proximity in beliefs should make anyone friendly. Saladin and Richard would be pretty much the same on such a scale

 

[Plotinus]

It's a clever idea, though - I like it!

 

[Damburger]

OK, maybe I should rephrase. Having close beliefs would help form a friendship: but once you are at war with someone, the content of religions is irrelevant.

 

[stormbind]

Oh yeah, it's a good shot at customising cultures. Maybe the three scales could come under an "advanced" tab, because I'm not sure I would want to mess with it much

You could also have an "auto-adjust" checkbox that allows the citizens to update the culture/religion which would have different effects to that of you imposing a belief on your subjects.

Overall, the idea is definately more playable & empowering than any solutions previously put forward, and it doesn't rub people up the wrong way.

I just don't think that being similar on such a scale is a sign of compatibility. Being different at least allows people to be inquisitive, whereas history shows that being similar causes bloodbaths.

 

[Ramalhão]

Plotinus, first I have to admit that I don't know too much about theology and religions. What I wrote is what I think, it's my point of view. Obviously, I can be right, but I can be wrong. As you said, there isn't a real definition for religion, so everyone is free to make their own definition .

In my point of view, if we have to consider buddhism as a religion, I think confucianism deserves to be called religion too, no matter if it has temples, rituals or something else. And I also read somewhere that shintoism (spelling?) and bushido were been originated from confucianism. As far as I know, shintoism added a "god" (not the same sense in western world) and bushido is considered as a "code". Several people here don't consider confucianism as a religion, but the ones who follow it always call it as "their religion".

Under the western point of view (better: under a monotheistic point of view), god is the almighty, the creator of everything that exists in this world and universe. But in the eastern world, god could be something different, as you explained in hinduism.

Today several polytheistic old religions are called "mithologies": egyptian, greek/roman, viking, all mesoamerican and several others I forgot or I don't know. I think because today no one follow it people don't consider it a religion. Maybe in some millenia some of the current religions may be called "miths".

It's all a matter of "point of view". At least today several people exist to think and to contest, not accepting everything told before. In middle ages, people thought that Earth was the middle of universe, today we know Earth is just a spot in a very immense universe.