the 7 religons:S

[Reboot]

Dolemitetornado,

I find this most odd. I understand that Daoism is just a newer (pinyin) word for Taoism. Being a Chinese who grew up amongst Chinese in a country often mistaken to be part of China, I think I have some cred to say...

In its philosophical form, Daoism is the belief of balance. It alludes somewhat to an ability to depart from secular affairs for the benefit of aesthetic and spiritual growth - its also a bit druidic in its "back-to-nature/simplicity" stance. In its religious form, Daoism is a ploytheistic belief entrenched in ancestor worship and a far bit of shamanism.

In regards to combining Daoism and Confucianism... Daoism and Confucianism have opposite views on secular life. Daoism regards secular life with disdain (emphasis was on "The spiritual self"). Confucianism revels in a proper secular lifestyle (emphsis was on "The social good").

And yes, Confucianism should not be considered a religion. It professes no concept of the afterlife, no attempt to explain the miracle of existence, and no religious order to speak of. It simply laid out some assumptions about society and suggests how best to conduct oneself in it, while at the same time made itself useful for the emperors to use as justification of their authority. It does refer to ancestor worship, but it is not ancestor worship.

Falun Gong is actually more Buddhist than Daoist. But then religious syncretism (sp?) between the two in China blurs the line.

I would go so far to say that the Chinese as a civilization was never too concerned about religion anyway. Confucianism had a greater impact but its not a religion.

 

[dc82]

honestly i still find it interesting that confucianism was chosen as a "religion," since like reboot was saying, it really wasn't much of a religion - it def. had heavy influences in china, but did not function in the same ways a religion such as buddhism or even daoism or even local ancestral worship had in china and the rest of east asia. esp. w/ buddhism, daoism, and confucianism all co-existing in china, u'd fig. that they wud've chosen another religion in another part of the world, perhaps some sort of animism/spiritualism in the americas or africa, some of the more ancient religions in the mid. east, persia, etc. than confucianism.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Well, you can achieve nirvana and escape the life of suffering without believing in God, can't you? Different Buddhist traditions have different beliefs, but Theravada Buddhism, which is arguably the closest to the teaching of the Buddha himself, does not believe in God or indeed in anything supernatural, even the soul (understanding the doctrine of anatman, or no-soul, is the first step on the road to dissociating yourself from "your" passions).

But, without a supernatural, how do you have rebirth following death? If there's no rebirth after death, then what's the cycle of suffering you have to escape? Doesn't this just become plain old atheism at this point? All you have to do to escape a world of pain and suffering and achieve oblivion in a world without a supernatural is die. My understanding was that the eight fold path allowed one to achieve nirvana and escape the cursed cycle of rebirth.

Of course, my understanding of Buddhism is far from complete. I ask these questions to increase my knowledge.

Religions are political tools in civ IV. They are used to strengthen or weaken alliances, and to create goodwill between like religions, and strife between opposing religions.

edit: and black isn't technically a color.... but it's my favorite.

Wow. In one post, you not only manage to make two points Ive been struggling to make on my own, but you do it incredibly succinctly.

1) The reason why including actual religions in the game is so offensive is just what you said: "Religions are political tools in civ IV." For folks who hold to these religions and believe that they're true, this idea is incredibly offensive. In the past, we've simply controlled nation-states and stood in for human leaders and made human decisions. The idea that making war, conducting diplomacy, creating trade, etc. are human actions and political tools is incredibly apt. In fact, these things are the definition of political tools. If these tools are used immorally, well, isn't it in the nature of humans to sometimes be immoral? It's something we should expect of other nations.

But Religion isn't. While religious institutions are controlled by men, religion goes far beyond the actions of world leaders. That's why the idea of being in control of a religion rubs me the wrong way. It's a slap in the face of those who hold to that religion as the truth, removing the supernatural from their belief system and pretending its the same or that's how history unfolded. For that reason, I still back the idea of generic civilizations.

2) Black technically isn't a color. In terms of the light spectrum, it's a lack of color. Yet, if you don't include it, you're missing out on a significant portion of the visual experience. The same is true for atheism and religion. Black isn't a color, but it's a competing choice, so we call it one for simplicity sake. Atheism isn't technically a religion, but it's a competing belief regarding the supernatural, so we call it a religion for simplicity sake.

 

[dc82]

truth is though, religion, no matter where u personally stand on it or not, has been abused by nation-states throughout history. it's been a uniting factor at times, and it's been the "rationale" for war and even genocide. but again, no matter where u stand on it, civ is just taking the political aspect of it (thus it's position on making them all generic in effect, though as it is partly historical, still using historical names). i'm fine w/ the way it's been handled now, although i'm glad there's also the flexibility to change things around later.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I understand that, as I thought I made clear with the sentence "While religious institutions are controlled by men, religion goes far beyond the actions of world leaders."

The point, the idea of world leaders controlling religion and only world leaders controlling religion, is inaccurate and offensive. Early Christians (Pre Constantine)predominately occupied the Roman Empire. Do you think the Roman Emperors controlled Christianity or decided where the missionaries went to? Lots of missionaries head out from the US to countries around the world. Does the US President decide where they go?

There is so much to religion beyond the aspects that will be portrayed in the game. Even moreso, the parts that are being portrayed in the game, the manipulation of religion as political tool, is often the worst side of religion. The game attempts to remove the supernatural and the values that actually make the religions what they are and compress them in a very flat, offensive generic political tool.

Not having religion in the game didn't spoil my enjoyment of the last three Civ games. I'd rather religion was left out again, rather than implementing such a poorly-thoughtout, 2-dimensional system for implementing them. Even better, I wish they had gone for "generic" religions that could increase the gameplay factor of the game.

 

[dc82]

i wudn't say that - i mean if nething, temples and cathedrals in the game had a very direct happiness factor - i dun think neone cud seriously hold an empire in civ w/o having those religious structures in their cities. some of the best rated wonders were religious wonders - michaelangelo's chapel, st. basil's cathedral, etc.

at the end, the establishments of religion (not necessarily the religion itself, but the manmade institutions and estabishments that have been created) have had both a positive and negative influences. it's been used in name to do some of the most atrious things, yet has also been the heart behind some of the greatest achievements in history.

with civ, at the end, u choose what u want to do and choose how you want to interpret the religious applications. i dun think the creators of civ r being biased in the implementation - it's simplified, yes, but then again so is everything else in the game, from governments, to technology, to political action w/ civs.

but i guess if u're really dissatisfied, that's where the modability comes in.

 

[Plotinus]

The point, the idea of world leaders controlling religion and only world leaders controlling religion, is inaccurate and offensive. Early Christians (Pre Constantine)predominately occupied the Roman Empire. Do you think the Roman Emperors controlled Christianity or decided where the missionaries went to? Lots of missionaries head out from the US to countries around the world. Does the US President decide where they go?

This is all true, but then it applies to lots of other things in the game too. Do political leaders direct all cultural and technological research? I think the point is that in Civ you don't simply play the king of a country - you play a number of roles within a civilisation. That's why it's a "God game" rather than something like Risk.

But, without a supernatural, how do you have rebirth following death? If there's no rebirth after death, then what's the cycle of suffering you have to escape? Doesn't this just become plain old atheism at this point? All you have to do to escape a world of pain and suffering and achieve oblivion in a world without a supernatural is die. My understanding was that the eight fold path allowed one to achieve nirvana and escape the cursed cycle of rebirth.

As I understand it, Theravada Buddhists (and apparently the Buddha himself) believe in rebirth after death, but without any substantial continuity of the self. That is, one's mental patterns, as you could put it, persist even though there is no "soul" to underlie them. This is because, in Buddhism, your mental patterns *are* you. You are the sum total of your beliefs, desires, thoughts, and so on, and there is no distinct "self" or "soul" to "have" those beliefs, desires etc. This "bundle theory" of the self is, by strange coincidence, pretty much identical to that of David Hume. The Buddhist view seems to be that these mental objects can be passed on, through karma, in the sense that they are replicated in the next life, rather like a carbon copy being made. This is because the universe operates according to strict cause and effect, in the moral realm as well as the physical. Personally I don't think this view really stands up, because a copy isn't numerically the same thing as the original, even if it may be qualitatively the same. So I agree that the notion of reincarnation doesn't really work without a notion of the soul. But even if the Buddhists were to accept that and talk about a soul as well, it wouldn't follow that they would have to believe in God too. That's a completely different sort of thing!

I don't really know very much about Buddhism - it's not really my field. There's a brief summary of Buddhist beliefs at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8042_1.html which might give you a few pointers.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Daoism is basically a name given to a wide mix of Chinese religious practice and philosophy. Taosim as a philosophical school began during the era of the warring states (500-20BCis? Can't remember exactly), and it developed alongside, amd in some senses was a reaction against confucionism. The Taoist classics include the Tao Te Ching, (which you can find in ANY bookstore, probably in multiple translations) and the Chuang Tzu. Taoism was somewhat like Pantheism, ie its concept of divinity was tied to nature and the underlying order of the universe, the prupose of man was to live in harmony with the universe, or the Tao (the way). As time went on, Taoism became more and more associated with traditional Chinese polytheism/animism, and these days, in addition to the "philosophical" Taoism, the word also applies to Chinas rich polytheisitic tradition. Now, as Taoism has been the major avenue for the Chinese to deal with the supernatural for most of their recorded history, and given that China is unambiguosly one of the major civilizations in world history, it would seem ridiculous to include a religion that for most of its history had as many "adherents" as Christianity or Islam.

However, the problem with representing the Chinese religions in the game is that after Buddhism entered China with the fall of the Han dynasty (200 AD ish) is that, for most Chinese, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism became throughly mixed to and extent that it would probably be more accurate to speek of a general "chinese religion", rather than trying to seperate them, as Civ 4 is clumsily attempting to do.

And the waters become even muddier when you consider the Buddhist Boddhishivittas (sp?) who're in the Chinese Daoist pantheon.

So here's my advice, collapse Taoism and Confucianism into a general purpose Chinese religion, and add Zorastrianism.
Sikhism would be a good addition, but just as a side note I think the whole "5th biggest religion in the world" is a bit of an exaggeration, we can all agree that Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam have more adherents than Sikhism, and while the number of Sikhs is comparable to that of Jews, I think it is still likely dwarfed by Taoism.

In the Far East, religion didn't have as great an impact as it did in the West and the ME; since almost from the beginning, religion was under tight state control. The Chinese emperor, in one of his roles, was the chief priest of the empire, and the interactor betw the heavens and earth.

I live in Taiwan right now, this island has 23 million people, and you can't drive down the street without seeing a massive Taoist temple (a beautiful thin g by the way, reminds of me to some extent of Hindu temples). I think, despite Chinas official atheism, there is still a fair amount of people whose lives are influenced by this faith in the PRC (The Falun Gong, who claimed tens of millions of members were at least partly based on Taoist teachings). You'd also have to add the Chinese communities in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Tahiland, the West etc, etc, where this religion still flourishes. No disrespect to Sikhism, but as the faith of most Chinese, I think Taoism can pretty unambiguously be considered to have a larger following than Sikhism.

I can confirm that the Chinese in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand still conform to Daoism-Buddhism, being Malaysian Chinese myself.

 

[demeryt]

I have been recently lucky and heard a lecture by a very famous buddhist teacher from Japan, which surprised me a lot. As this discussion is going very detailed I'd like to share my views. As far as what this buddhist teacher said is concerned:

1. Different schools of buddhism don't matter basically, there is one buddhist teaching and just many different training methods/rituals used for teaching and practising it (Therawada, Mahajana, Hinajana, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, many names for the same religion). It's like different-shaped containers with the same water in it.
2. Buddism is not a philosophy, it is a religion and there _are_ supernatural powers in buddhism. Buddha himself was not a god, but there are many many gods and "supernatural" powers that buddhists should be aware of and even sometimes worship and thank. One of the highest of them is Brahma, incidentally the one also worshipped in other Asian religions.

After hearing this lecture I understood one thing: there is soooo much more to Asian religions than we are aware of and read from those crappy books that make their way to the West... A whole lot of knowlege to study and understand.
Of course civ is not supposed to be too realistic in respect of religions, and that's good. Just a point to the discussion maybe.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

But, without a supernatural, how do you have rebirth following death? If there's no rebirth after death, then what's the cycle of suffering you have to escape? Doesn't this just become plain old atheism at this point? All you have to do to escape a world of pain and suffering and achieve oblivion in a world without a supernatural is die. My understanding was that the eight fold path allowed one to achieve nirvana and escape the cursed cycle of rebirth.

Belief in the supernatural and belief in any deity are not the same thing. You can believe in the supernatural as an all-encompassing force (like the "Dao" in Daoism or even like the Force in "Star Wars" ). Buddhists and Daoists traditionally have pantheons. HOWEVER, belief in these gods and worship of them is not considered integral. You either believe in them or you don't. Much of the Buddhism and Daoism we see today is the result of years and years of syncretism in which local beliefs are integrated into Buddhist or Daoist philosophy.

And the waters become even muddier when you consider the Buddhist Boddhishivittas (sp?) who're in the Chinese Daoist pantheon.

In the Far East, religion didn't have as great an impact as it did in the West and the ME; since almost from the beginning, religion was under tight state control. The Chinese emperor, in one of his roles, was the chief priest of the empire, and the interactor betw the heavens and earth.

Indeed it did not have such an impact. However, religion did play a role in shaping Far East Asian culture and history. One example is that the ruling Yamato clan of Japan utilized religion to solidify their authority by claiming lineage to the gods. Empress Wu Zetian of China also used Buddhism as a means of legitimizing her rule (she portrayed herself as an incarnation of the Maitreya, the future Buddha).

 

[M4 Carbine]

What I find odd about the design team's philosophy is that they ommitted things like Terrorism and Fundamentalism and Hilter because of the controversy they would cause...and then turn around and try to implement a 'generic' religious model using 'non-generic' names. Are they unaware of the heated controversy this could cause as well????? Why avoid the former decisions so assiduously, but open up Pandora's box anyway with the latter one?

I'm with you on that one oldStatesman! I'm as confused as you are! I can see the many threads & posts already ... good luck to the websites admin. trying to sort and manage that mess!

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I would put confusianism in, because even if it is not formally a "religion" it guilded life in several chineese dynasties. And china, being one of the most powerful empires in....well any period of time, confusianism deserves to be in

 

[Reboot]

I would put confusianism in, because even if it is not formally a "religion" it guilded life in several chineese dynasties. And china, being one of the most powerful empires in....well any period of time, confusianism deserves to be in

Confucianism should not be in because it is not a religion. Lots of things guided life over centuries in other cultures. Science for example. We don't call it a religion, do we? Nor the civic code. Nor the automobile. Besides, someone can effectively be a Confucian and be Christian at the same time, provided he/she translates "mandate" to "grace", and "honour thy ancestors" as how the Bible would have treated it, etc.

One cannot be a Christian and a Buddhist, on the other hand.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Confucianism should not be in because it is not a religion. Lots of things guided life over centuries in other cultures. Science for example. We don't call it a religion, do we? Nor the civic code. Nor the automobile. Besides, someone can effectively be a Confucian and be Christian at the same time, provided he/she translates "mandate" to "grace", and "honour thy ancestors" as how the Bible would have treated it, etc.

One cannot be a Christian and a Buddhist, on the other hand.

That is untrue. Religion in East Asia does not often act as an ultimate concern where you have to be precisely one religion or another. A Buddhist can follow Daoist or Confucian practices or a Daoist can adopt Buddhism and remain a Daoist at the same time. There is more reflexivity with regards to religion in East Asia. To some Western Christians, adopting Buddhist practices also is a means of strengthening their faith. I spoke to a Christian once who practiced Tibetan Buddhist meditation and he found no problem with practicing both (and he also brought up the belief that Jesus may have travelled to Tibet at one time).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'm with you on that one oldStatesman! I'm as confused as you are! I can see the many threads & posts already ... good luck to the websites admin. trying to sort and manage that mess!

I think they avoided the other controversies so strongly Because they knew the controversy religion would cause...they figure whoever does Civ 5 can worry about Opium Wars and things of that sort. Imagine if in civ 4 you had Death Camps and Religions and Drugs and Terrorism ALL intorduced at once, their would be an overwhelming amount of controversy. THis way they focus on One highly controversial thing and leave the rest for future civs to take care of, and keep the rest abstracted.

And the fact that they are focusing on the societal effects and manipulation of religion is a VERY good thing, because otherwise they would be modelling God in your computer. As it is, you as the civ, don't get to 'design' a religion, it is something inflicted on you in the course of history that you then have to deal with...which seems the most respectful method of dealing with something that was a major force in history.

The religions will develop and spread on its own, the player determines how society will handle it, supporting it, or destroying it, or using it. If nothing else the game can be made a lesson in the temptation to use what we claim to trully believe for our own ends.

It will provide an interesting effect as players may tend to try and force their societies into personally desirable religions to make their civ=their utopian society...but that already happens with governments and overall game styles, I'm sure that some players tend to pursue particular game styles in some of their games because that's how they would Like society to turn out. However, because they didn't give any religion a particular bonus, then if you want to build your Hindu empire, there may be some initial difficulties in dealing with other religions in your borders, and non-Hindu states outside your borders but you will be at no less of a disadvantage than someone trying to build a Jewish state, and it might actually be an advantage to be your ideal religion, depending on the RNG.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That is untrue. Religion in East Asia does not often act as an ultimate concern where you have to be precisely one religion or another. A Buddhist can follow Daoist or Confucian practices or a Daoist can adopt Buddhism and remain a Daoist at the same time. There is more reflexivity with regards to religion in East Asia. To some Western Christians, adopting Buddhist practices also is a means of strengthening their faith. I spoke to a Christian once who practiced Tibetan Buddhist meditation and he found no problem with practicing both (and he also brought up the belief that Jesus may have travelled to Tibet at one time).

Well I think that while practices of different religions can be adopted, the basic justification of those processes is what determines the religion. Religion acting more as a worldview and less as a set of practices would still apply in the East for seperating Buddhism from Confucianism, etc. A Buddhist might value and follow practices of Confucianism but it would be more what those Confucian practices allowed them to approach Buddhist goals.

Admittedly someone can be said to have multiple goals but the ones that are their BIG goals would be the ones most useful in determining their religion (so things like Communism, Nationalism, etc. could also be considered religions)...Of course this can change over time without someone giving up formerly professed beliefs (so one could be a Confucian Buddhist Nationalist Communist, but at any given time for any given person One of those would be the true motivator and ultimate goal, the rest would be means to the end or nice things along the way)

Finally, one is also looking at societies in Civ rather than individuals, so it is more of what the 'chattering classes' call thier society's religion (as the dominant religion of most of the people most of the time is probably some type of Survival Meism..but that doesn't conform well to their religion model)

 

[Simguyuk]

Yeah...ya know it's kinda hard to gain numbers, when you've been persecuted since the beginning.

Inquisition, Holocuast, Crusade's, Conversions, Massacres......etc, etc...etc.

I was under the impression that the crusades was Christians(+Jews?) vs. Muslims. I suppose if they were fighting for jerusalem, they would have been fighting the jews but they had no state of their own for the Christians to fight.

Thats (mostly) the reason for Jewish persecution, the fact they never had a state whose official religion was Judaisim.

My first post!

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

I was under the impression that the crusades was Christians(+Jews?) vs. Muslims.

The Jews fought alongside with the Muslims during the Crusades. But then again, the Christians also fought each other in the Crusades as well.

 

[Plotinus]

"Crusades" doesn't just refer to the wars in the Levant, although that is the most famous example of Crusades. A Crusade was any war sanctioned by the Pope for religious reasons. There were Crusades within Europe, such as those against the Hussites or the Waldenses, and similar actions against Jews as well (although I think that Jews were not persecuted nearly so much in the Middle Ages as Christian heretics were).

By the way, anyone who genuinely thinks that Jesus visited Tibet has got more than a few screws loose. In fact they probably don't have a single tight screw!

 

[ranLR]

first, i think its brilliant that firaxis included religion in the game. along with resources and women its the #1 cause of wars throughout history, it shaped the world into what it is today ( )

as for Judaism, of course it has to be in. Besides being the first monotheistic religion and spawning Christianity and Islam, it also was the first to bring in a whole plethora of theology, morals, lore and laws. Yes i know the Hammurabi codes, but these were civil laws. Judaism introduced moral laws, but also went in to explaining them from a humane POV (just try reading the old testament while ignoring any mention of G-d, youll find an unbelievable human drama adressing every aspect of human life and emotional subtelty unparalaled even in most modern literature). Jewish history is quite remarkable and i couldnt imagine a realistic civ game w/o it.
btw, the reason Judaism was and remains a small## religion is because Judaism is the only religion where missionarism is strictly prohibited (although often practiced by "new-age" Jews)


-----
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
Douglas Adams